Need Proof of A Clearance for CCW? Check This Out.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Collector98

    Active Member
    Jan 18, 2015
    271
    Hey Mike. Serious question and I am not being a Richard. Gain aside, why did you care if someone uses their clearance as a g&s. It is legal and in the MSP policy. You are covered under LEOSA.
    I have wondered that for a while when I see you post in these threads. Again I am generally curious. I am not trying to start a shit storm.

    Not trying to start anything either, but I have noticed this as well. He almost seems irritated that people are using this method for getting a permit. Personally, if someone has the ability to get a permit, using whatever legal method they can, that should be viewed as positive. Even if I wasn't eligible for a permit, I'd fully support anyone getting one using a method I don't have access to. The more permits in hand by the general population, the better. Just my take on it, feel free to agree or disagree, but I think we're all a little curious as to what blasters position is
     

    Blaster229

    God loves you, I don't.
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2010
    46,410
    Glen Burnie
    Hey Mike. Serious question and I am not being a Richard. Gain aside, why did you care if someone uses their clearance as a g&s. It is legal and in the MSP policy. You are covered under LEOSA.

    I have wondered that for a while when I see you post in these threads. Again I am generally curious. I am not trying to start a shit storm.
    I don't care. Doesn't mean I can't ask someone if they think they gained something from work of which they normally wouldn't get. Because of a perceived threat.

    But nice to know that you think, even an admin assistant with a clearance, is in as much "danger" from their job just like someone who was a cop for at least 10 years or more dealing with actual public dangers.
    LEOSA came about in order to have those who actually dealt with criminals and carried guns for a living to have more "good guns" on the street nationwide. LEOSA is "part of the job".

    I see 2 types with clearances applying. Ones who simply say "Hell yeah. If I can, I will. Why the hell not".

    Then the other who actually think they are in daily danger.

    Funny how people can say "why are cops the special class and able to carry guns but we can't? ".

    But a cop can't question why someone needs to carry a gun.

    Like I said, I don't care how someone exploits the system in order to carry. But I can't question, chat, or talk about, or have an opinion?
     

    Sundazes

    My brain hurts
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 13, 2006
    21,304
    Arkham
    No one is saying you can't question it. I never said anything about cops being a special class. I mentioned you carry under LEOSA. You earned and deserve that. Just so you know, I am an ardent LEO supporter. I work and have worked with a ton of both local, Fed, IG, OPR, etc.

    I see your point about the real and perceived threat. I am of the opinion if someone has a legal G&S, why not, especially in the PRK of MD.
    What if you went another path and was not LEO but had a TS, would you apply if that was your only way? Would you want to carry for personal protection?
     

    johnkn

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 27, 2012
    2,113
    Like I said, I don't care how someone exploits the system in order to carry. But I can't question, chat, or talk about, or have an opinion?

    The fact that you would say “exploit” speaks volumes. Exploit. Really?
    I hardly recall a single instance since the FAMS was formed in the early 60’s where they stopped a single skyjacking or terrorist attack, certainly not in recent history or as part of 9-11. Then why would a retired FMS or current FAMS desk worker need to carry or to exploit LEOSA? Not being confrontational, just trying to understand your view. I know of many, many cases where TS/SCI on the ops side and otherwise have been in grave risk off the clock. There is a wall with many of their names in a building other side of the Potomac River from you.
     

    Steel Hunter

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2019
    548
    Funny how people can say "why are cops the special class and able to carry guns but we can't? ".

    But a cop can't question why someone needs to carry a gun.

    Like I said, I don't care how someone exploits the system in order to carry. But I can't question, chat, or talk about, or have an opinion?

    Why someone chooses to carry is nobody's business but their own. 2A, this is America, end of story.

    You can choose to question whatever you want, but it won't buy you any favors from many libertarian types.
     

    Collector98

    Active Member
    Jan 18, 2015
    271
    I too am trying to understand what he's saying. In your opinion, should the non law enforcement population, every day people who just happen to have a clearance not apply simply because they might not be as high risk as other cleared people?
     

    calicojack

    American Sporting Rifle
    MDS Supporter
    May 29, 2018
    5,348
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    I don't care. Doesn't mean I can't ask someone if they think they gained something from work of which they normally wouldn't get. Because of a perceived threat.

    But nice to know that you think, even an admin assistant with a clearance, is in as much "danger" from their job just like someone who was a cop for at least 10 years or more dealing with actual public dangers.
    LEOSA came about in order to have those who actually dealt with criminals and carried guns for a living to have more "good guns" on the street nationwide. LEOSA is "part of the job".

    I see 2 types with clearances applying. Ones who simply say "Hell yeah. If I can, I will. Why the hell not".

    Then the other who actually think they are in daily danger.


    Funny how people can say "why are cops the special class and able to carry guns but we can't? ".

    But a cop can't question why someone needs to carry a gun.

    Like I said, I don't care how someone exploits the system in order to carry. But I can't question, chat, or talk about, or have an opinion?

    There is really is not a way to distinguish these two different categories you speak of in an unclassified manner, so hence the very broad net being cast to allow for CCW for those with clearances.
     

    calicojack

    American Sporting Rifle
    MDS Supporter
    May 29, 2018
    5,348
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    And I also think one could take the position that EVRYONE who is willing and able should be granted a CCW ("shall issue"), so if this get's us that much close then all the better. The LEFT does this to us all the time.
     

    Tungsten

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 1, 2012
    7,231
    Elkridge, Leftistan
    If the government trusts someone to exhibit lawful behavior by giving them a clearance, why would the state not want that person to be able to CC? Unless of course, the state doesn't care about safety and is really just trying to eliminate the 2A.
     

    Thunder239

    Active Member
    Feb 10, 2014
    115
    Well that is a change. When I did mine a year ago MSP required a statement that you had access to classified info on a regular basis. A change for the good for once.
     
    I just got my permit after going around the block and getting the run around from everyone. I literally had to fight with my FSO to provide me the 1 sentence letterhead needed. I actually got disapproved at first due to not being able to get the letter in time. Then requested review was able to finally get the letter needed. I emailed it directly to the corporal up at MSP licensing (extremely friendly and professional person) he overturned my case within 30 minutes of receiving the letter and a week later my permit came in the mail. It was an crazy intense process but I'm happy I can lawfully carry in MD. Yes, you are higher risk having the DOD affiliation and can prove G&S needed for a MD permit, but the hitch pin is getting your FSO to provide the letter. It was my understanding that as a contractor they were told not to issue letters. After further investigation I proved that to be false. It’s all about how hard your willing to push.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    [EDIT] This pertains to contractors.
    The fact that you have a TS/SI clearance is not in of itself classified, however, many security managers are hesitant to provide this information in writing as a basis for a CCW. Although the reason given is often for OPSEC, I say BS. IMHO they just don't want to go through the trouble. Recently some government bureaucrats have placed a obstacle in place forbidding companies from writing such a letter stating that the FAR forbids anyone from profiting from their security clearance (like CNN contributors for example :rolleyes:). Also BS and clearly someone using their position to block people from owning firearms.

    There is another solution. You can make a privacy act request to get your JPAS records from Defense Manpower Data Center. This should take about 10 business days to complete. It is your right to do so. You can visit https://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/Resources/Privacy-Act-Request/ for more details. Here is a draft letter you can use. Scan you request letter and response (you need only include records for your current assignment), and this should provide proof to MSP that you hold the required security clearance. You MUST mention SORN: DMDC 12 DoD in the request.

    -------------------------------

    Defense Manpower Data Center
    Attn: Privacy Act Office
    Dept. 548
    1600 Spearhead Ave.
    Fort Knox, KY 40122-5504

    December XX, 2020

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am making a privacy act request for my current Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) records. This type of request falls under System of Record Notice SORN: DMDC 12 DoD.

    As proof of identification, I have included a scanned copy of my driver’s license. I am also providing the following information:

    SSN: xxx

    City and State of Birth: xxx

    Contact phone and Email; xxxxxx / xxxxxx@xxx.com

    I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing information is true and correct. Executed on December XX, 2020

    CJ Doe

    Wow, now that is very interesting. Have you tried this? Does it work, viz., does the MSP accept this as proof?
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Wow, now that is very interesting. Have you tried this? Does it work, viz., does the MSP accept this as proof?

    I thought MSP was requiring proof of both a clearance, and regular access to classified information. The JPAS record would only be the proof of clearance. Or have MSP's (entirely arbitrary) requirements changed?
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    I thought MSP was requiring proof of both a clearance, and regular access to classified information. The JPAS record would only be the proof of clearance. Or have MSP's (entirely arbitrary) requirements changed?

    See August 2019 SOP. Attached.
     

    Attachments

    • SOP.MSPLD-SOP2919004-Processing of Handgun Permits.pdf
      4.6 MB · Views: 153

    calicojack

    American Sporting Rifle
    MDS Supporter
    May 29, 2018
    5,348
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    I thought MSP was requiring proof of both a clearance, and regular access to classified information. The JPAS record would only be the proof of clearance. Or have MSP's (entirely arbitrary) requirements changed?

    This the ref posted above states: "Written verification from the employee's security manager confirming employment and active clearance level. " It says nothing about access on a regular basis. Besides, you would never have a clearance and not be using it as a contractor. The government just will not grant a contractor a clearance and then forget about it.
     

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    One wouldn't have a security clearance if one didn't have regular access to it. Annually I have to get the commander to review all clearances. That is according to AF regulations.

    Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,465
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom