PDA

View Full Version : Fire Department Background Checks ask about gun ownership


sfpcservice
01-29-2010, 10:43 AM
I was just talking with my friend who was in the hiring process for two Bay Area fire departments. He made it to background investigations and both investigators asked him if he owned weapons, how many and what type. One of the investigators even said "do you own any assault type weapons?"

I guess if your hobby is firearms, you can forget about a Fire Department job in the Bay Area?

nrakid88
01-29-2010, 10:52 AM
I don't think I would answer those questions, thats rediculous.

BigKvn1
01-29-2010, 10:52 AM
Why would you say forget about it? I was hired by 3 different professional FD's by the time I was 22. All three agencies asked about firearms, make/model. One city used a private investigation company, and the other two used their own Arson units to do the backgrounds. I had numerous rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Never was an issue. That was 10 yrs ago...

davescz
01-29-2010, 10:58 AM
none of their bussines, I would consider a lawsuit aginst the fire department. this is a civil lrights issue. what if they asked what magazines you subscribe to? how you voted? the color of skin of your spouse or parents? this is bad news, and has nothing to do with the requiements needed for fire fighting. they have no right to his info, so long as you are a legal gun owner.

gun ownership is a civil right

anyone care to sue these folks? they need it .

xrMike
01-29-2010, 11:04 AM
Does the fire dept. follow up the orals with a polygraph (like law enforcement does)?

If No, you can answer and/or omit details per your conscience.

If Yes, tell them everything, and add that your entire collection is 100% legal under CA law.

Some here will say that you should be 100% forthcoming nomatter what. But that is what I would do.

haveyourmile
01-29-2010, 11:05 AM
Does the fire dept. follow up the the orals with a polygraph (like law enforcement does)?


Yes they do

xrMike
01-29-2010, 11:12 AM
Yes they doAhhh, there's your answer then. You have no choice but to tell them everything.

It may not hurt you at all, but NOT being totally honest about it will certainly eliminate you, so you have nothing to lose.

Window_Seat
01-29-2010, 11:15 AM
There was a big brouhaha over B. Obama when his admin was picking out staff after he was elected, and one of the questions was "are you a gun owner" or something like that. I don't know what ever came of that issue, but I agree that it's a civil rights issue that needs to be addressed.

Erik.

BigKvn1
01-29-2010, 11:16 AM
Does the fire dept. follow up the orals with a polygraph (like law enforcement does)?




All mine did. I guess you could be 100% honest and get get hired. Or sue, lol like suggested and get DQed. I'm sure the other 1000 or so applicants behind you wouldn't mind....
And yes they will ask about your spouse, your parents, and your friends. And they will talk to all of them including your neighbors. And they will ask about you credit score, and your disipline records from college and all the way back to highschool, and every job you've ever held. And... even the color of your skin. OMG! Just be honest, and enjoy one of the greatest jobs in the world...

Doheny
01-29-2010, 11:19 AM
anyone care to sue these folks? they need it .

$ure, go ahead.

pneutin
01-29-2010, 11:24 AM
While I don't like the questions that are being asked, no one is being forced to work for the fire department either.

vantec08
01-29-2010, 11:26 AM
what kinda of shorts do you use . . .. boxers or briefs? what is your favorite color? geeeezus

Brokn Nx
01-29-2010, 11:31 AM
Those are all standard questions in the hiring process. Most investigators are retired cops, so remember who you're talking to when they ask you these questions. They can smell BS a mile away and have heard it all before.

I was asked the same stuff, its another hoop to jump through, thats all.

Suing the investigator will only get you disqualified. They have plenty of reasons to disqualify any of us to rely on your gun collection alone. I don't believe they need to state a reason for your disqualification, it can be they don't think youre being truthful. Unfair? Yes. Before you begin the background investigation they'll give you some "rights waiving" document you're supposed to sign, so technically, you've been warned.

davescz
01-29-2010, 11:50 AM
While I don't like the questions that are being asked, no one is being forced to work for the fire department either.

problem is we have laws, that many bussiness must follow regarding equal employement opertunities and civil rights. seems the government agency that runs this fire department has decided that this civil right of bearing arms must be reported to them, and some how effects the performance of the fire fighter, this is an infrignement by a government organization on civil rights.. Will they next ask you to list all the books at home, dont miss any, else you will be fired if we find out later????

I have been told it is illegal and my company could be fined and sued if I asked an applicant his/her martial status, number of kids, are you /or you planning to be, pregnant? and such during an interview. this is in california. the state wont deal with bussiness that discriminate in hiring based on race, Race my not be used as a factor, nor should fire arms ownership in hiring.

this should be treated as an illegal question.

Talk about a gun registry in stealth, that's what this is, the GOVERMENT is building a registry of guns with this data, there is NO NEED to know this info on a fire fighter.

We have to ask why this is being asked, why did some politician or staffer or such decide this must be asked on public employees such as fire fighters?

the only reason I can think of is that this was decided on by someone that thinks guns = bad and that for some safety reason they can sell this idea. a list of guns and owners is great if you want to ban them.

the next logical step will be to require each fire fighter to list any new guns obtained while employeed, after all a gun = bad and a gun bought after employement starts is just as bad as a gun bought before.
after that the next step will be why limit this to fire fighters? all public employees, teachers first, after all it is for the children, then it will be any employeer that gets a public contract, and you can see where it goes.

this must be stomped out. this is as offensive to me as if a company asked who I voted for, or what books I have at home, list them all.

we need to sue to stop this practice, I never thought it was this bad. This is so wrong, If we dont do something, we then are allowing or government to hire based on a discriminatory practice.

we need to sponsor legislation to ban this practice, this is morallly offensive to me. we should not allow tax funds to be spent on organizations that ask these intrusive, questions. it is a death by a thousand cuts, the anti-gunners are setting up a data base of guns, all ready for confiscation, or they will start to figure a person with a gun collection is not worth hiring.

this is sick, really sick specialy since we the tax payers are the employeers in this case.

BigKvn1
01-29-2010, 11:52 AM
what kinda of shorts do you use . . .. boxers or briefs? what is your favorite color? geeeezus

U should see some of the things asked on the 1200+ question Psyhc tests! Then, there's the good old polygraph examination...

jz8114
01-29-2010, 11:57 AM
Fire Departments are very picky who they hire, when there are only a few positions and thousands of applicants, the smallest thing can get you disqualifed, like owning an assault rifle or anything else they might not like. I know in some interviews for Fire Departments with a background investigator they have asked if you own an assault rifle, not if you own guns or rifle they specifically said assault rifle. Good luck

Ross
01-29-2010, 12:36 PM
Does the fire dept. follow up the orals with a polygraph (like law enforcement does)?

If No, you can answer and/or omit details per your conscience.

If Yes, tell them everything, and add that your entire collection is 100% legal under CA law.

Some here will say that you should be 100% forthcoming nomatter what. But that is what I would do.

If you do that you need proof it your answers to the questions are why you didn't get hired, and I don't think the interviewer will write in his note "owns guns, don't hire." If you do get hired and try the lawsuit path. you will probably stagnate in your career.

general jacks
01-29-2010, 1:42 PM
Why would you say forget about it? I was hired by 3 different professional FD's by the time I was 22....

3 FDs by 22? Perhaps the background is not the problem.

Just kidding!

It's a simple question that does not disqualify you by any means.

sfpcservice
01-29-2010, 2:23 PM
It's a simple question that does not disqualify you by any means.



Are you sure? ;-)

RRangel
01-29-2010, 5:10 PM
Keep records of everything, and get ready to expose them if there is any hint of anti-gun discrimination if you have the chance. I would not want to be connected in any way to public service or any entity that discriminates simply because I'm a citizen gun owner. That's what this line of questioning boils down to.

sniper5
01-29-2010, 5:36 PM
The ONLY kind of vote management of any kind understands is voting with the feet or the pocketbook. When they have a product that no one buys or have an opening that no one applies for, then they get the message. Until then, they get away with what they can because they can get applicants and money. It takes a lot of courage to get up in the middle of an interview and say "I think there's been a mistake, I've lost interest in working here." and walking out, but when enough applicants do it they get the message and things change. Unfortunately, lots of people want the job badly enough to put up with whatever is dished out to get it. Applicants, as they say, are a "dime a dozen". So things won't change. A sad reality.

SteveH
01-29-2010, 8:06 PM
Its become a common question to weed out the Tackleberry types in the application process.

strangerdude
01-29-2010, 8:09 PM
And I thought San Francisco practiced tolerance......

BobB35
01-29-2010, 8:52 PM
The entire hiring process for LEO and now I guess FD is a subjective process. Yes they claim to have standards and such....but they give Psych evals and polys so they can subjectively DQ people they don't want. Prime example is how can a person be rejected by one PD and then be hired by another by giving the same info. It is all a big game and either you play or you don't. Unfortunately you end up with mono-cultures that become very isolated and then build upon themselves. This is why you are seeing LEO agencies becoming more and more paramilitary. Nepotism is also rampant in these types of agency.... Once again until they change the way they hire things will only get worse.

MSO4MATT
01-29-2010, 11:50 PM
This needs to have some serious legal scrutiny placed on it!

There are some human resources folks in the fire departments that use gun ownership as a red flag for identifying a stereotypical applicant population that may lean more right than they want.

Some gun hating human resource person will use it to disqualify an applicant until someone stands up and sues them over it.

Most backgrounds can be done on applicants by just checking their facebook page. Most are DQ'd by the stuff posted on that site and lying about it!

No one needs to know any thing about legally owned firearms, absolutely no one, especially in this day and age of rampant discrimination against gun ownership in the public sector. All to often public sector folks discriminated against once they identify themselves as a gun owner or a NRA member. No one can do a thing about it because you're not a "protected class". If you pull into the parking lot of some city offices with a NRA sticker instead of a "HOPE" sticker you will immediately feel the chill and bite of political discrimination, which is illegal. They'll just dress their hate/discrimination up in the gun issue and fake a fearfulness or concern "for the children" and begin to chip away at your career.

A legal background question would be..."do you own any illegal firearms", or "have you broken any gun laws". Anyways, most government departments (except the federal) are very financially vulnerable to law suits right now because of budgets. I think a strongly worded complaint would end this practice. CGF please help!

Lomic
01-30-2010, 2:02 AM
Actually for the Obama administration thing it makes sense and I don't see a problem with it.

For example, if you are applying for a job as in sales/marketing at a firm that makes a product to help people quit smoking - should they be allowed to ask if you smoke? I'd say so. Should a company in that situation have to hire someone for a job that, if they smoked, would have an unambiguous effect on their ability to sell their product to customers.

Same thing with the Obama administration. If they decide to engage in anti-gun politics, how would it look if the people pushing for such legislation were gun owners; or, they might face high employee turn over if their gun owning staffers were unwilling to accept such work. In either case, it would dissuade from the administration's ability to "sell" their politics.

Obviously this should only be true for things which are decisions people make in their lives. I'm not advocating being able to ask people's race, sex, orientation, etc. on a job application and REQUIRING an answer.

As for the OP, there is no reason a fire fighter would be any less able to extinguish a fire for save a life because they have a pistol in their nightstand - so I see no reason the question should be permissible.

RRangel
01-30-2010, 7:05 AM
Actually for the Obama administration thing it makes sense and I don't see a problem with it.

For example, if you are applying for a job as in sales/marketing at a firm that makes a product to help people quit smoking - should they be allowed to ask if you smoke? I'd say so. Should a company in that situation have to hire someone for a job that, if they smoked, would have an unambiguous effect on their ability to sell their product to customers.

Same thing with the Obama administration. If they decide to engage in anti-gun politics, how would it look if the people pushing for such legislation were gun owners; or, they might face high employee turn over if their gun owning staffers were unwilling to accept such work. In either case, it would dissuade from the administration's ability to "sell" their politics.

Obviously this should only be true for things which are decisions people make in their lives. I'm not advocating being able to ask people's race, sex, orientation, etc. on a job application and REQUIRING an answer.

As for the OP, there is no reason a fire fighter would be any less able to extinguish a fire for save a life because they have a pistol in their nightstand - so I see no reason the question should be permissible.

I do not agree. It would be the same discrimination from the Obama administration. There is no reason to ask the question. The only reason it's being asked is because it has not been properly challenged.

grimmreaper
01-30-2010, 7:25 AM
tell them the truth and if you don't get hired at least you were honest and then you can tell those arrogant ba@$%rds to shove the FD job where the sun doesn't shine.

davescz
01-30-2010, 9:55 AM
will cal guns take this on legally? this practice needs to be stopped, it is discrimination aginst firearms owners. this is a public servent job, we are teh employeers, we should not allow the government to institute discrimination based on gun onwership.

will cal guns speak up for freedom here and fight this stuff?

EBWhite
01-30-2010, 12:31 PM
only list pistols and reg. AW's...dont list long guns...

SJgunguy24
01-30-2010, 2:25 PM
I was just talking with my friend who was in the hiring process for two Bay Area fire departments. He made it to background investigations and both investigators asked him if he owned weapons, how many and what type. One of the investigators even said "do you own any assault type weapons?"

I guess if your hobby is firearms, you can forget about a Fire Department job in the Bay Area?

I was talking to a SJFD inspector on Monday. He told me the city (San Jose)needs more arson investigators but doesn't have the funds to hire the personel.
The city is going to send the inspectors through CA pc832 classes and have them sworn personel. If your buddy has applied to San Jose Fire as an inspector then that could explain those questions. Those are standard on most LEA apps.
If your buddy isn't applying to SJ that could be a direction more citys go with the lack of funds. Some citys have dual purpose agencys, Sunnyvale has DPS, they are fire and police.

dustoff31
01-30-2010, 3:35 PM
It's a simple question that does not disqualify you by any means.


Exactly. They also ask if you have a home, a mother, a father, siblings, all kinds of things that are legal to have. Most every applicant has several of these things, yet they still get hired.

One of the purposes of a background investigation is to not only check out one's past, but to see what in their life they hide and lie about.

xLusi0n
01-30-2010, 5:13 PM
LAPD's application asks you to list all your firearms, make, model, serial, caliber.

MSO4MATT
01-30-2010, 10:59 PM
Exactly. They also ask if you have a home, a mother, a father, siblings, all kinds of things that are legal to have. Most every applicant has several of these things, yet they still get hired.

One of the purposes of a background investigation is to not only check out one's past, but to see what in their life they hide and lie about.

Yep they sure do, but some public employees have a compulsion to discriminate based on firearm ownership, not on familial background...especially HR people and especially in these political times.

SVT-40
01-30-2010, 11:36 PM
Yep they sure do, but some public employees have a compulsion to discriminate based on firearm ownership, not on familial background...especially HR people and especially in these political times.

Aside from all the huffing and puffing and hysterics. Can anyone raise a hand and say "I" was not hired or faced discrimination by a Fire Dept. or Police Agency because "I" owned to many or the "wrong" kind of firearms???

A real first person account only related to firearms ownership. Not some other reason for disqualification......

AndrewMendez
01-31-2010, 2:35 AM
none of their bussines, I would consider a lawsuit aginst the fire department. this is a civil lrights issue. what if they asked what magazines you subscribe to? how you voted? the color of skin of your spouse or parents? this is bad news, and has nothing to do with the requiements needed for fire fighting. they have no right to his info, so long as you are a legal gun owner.

gun ownership is a civil right

anyone care to sue these folks? they need it .

With 2 Fire academy's under my belt, I am going to go ahead and say, you sue the Fire Department, and your 86'ed for life. Check this guy out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJUGIfKsG8), I went to 1 of the Academy's with him, he was a Douche bag, thought he was the best, and decided it was a good idea, after being hired to sue the Fire Department for Sexual Harassment. He went on to work for another department, and was fired from there as well. To the OP, I know plenty of firefighters who own firearms, its not going to make a difference. If they dont want him, they wont hire him. By the way, they also have to give you a reason as to why you did not get hired....if it says Candidate Owns Firearms, then you can call a lawyer.

AndrewMendez
01-31-2010, 2:38 AM
The entire hiring process for LEO and now I guess FD is a subjective process. Yes they claim to have standards and such....but they give Psych evals and polys so they can subjectively DQ people they don't want. Prime example is how can a person be rejected by one PD and then be hired by another by giving the same info. It is all a big game and either you play or you don't. Unfortunately you end up with mono-cultures that become very isolated and then build upon themselves. This is why you are seeing LEO agencies becoming more and more paramilitary. Nepotism is also rampant in these types of agency.... Once again until they change the way they hire things will only get worse.

Psych Evals.....Yes.... Polygraphs..... few and far in between, after about a dozen lawsuits, most departments go away from them. However, the background check is soooo much "jumping thru hoops" that they will find the crazy ones.

RRangel
01-31-2010, 4:39 AM
LAPD's application asks you to list all your firearms, make, model, serial, caliber.

If true this is an expected correlation since the city has shown itself to be vehement in its opposition to firearms whether self defense or not. The brass at LAPD continually misrepresent firearms and their use. One need not look past the current chief's relationship with the Brady Campaign to get an idea. A chance to disqualify a person based on their gun ownership is overt bias. There is no pretense.

1st5
01-31-2010, 9:00 AM
That's new to me. I've worked for four fire departments as a firefighter and fire inspector and never have I been asked during background if I owned firearms.

A couple of agencies around here did have some issues with their employees and full auto firearms. Those employees were terminated.

I make no secret of my hunting, firearms, and archery lifestyle. Nor will I ever lie or dissemble regarding it. If you are going through a FD background I suggest you be upfront with answering all the questions. By all means, if you think you have a legal challenge that you can win, go for it. Don't expect to get the job though.

Skidmark
01-31-2010, 10:09 AM
Aside from all the huffing and puffing and hysterics. Can anyone raise a hand and say "I" was not hired or faced discrimination by a Fire Dept. or Police Agency because "I" owned to many or the "wrong" kind of firearms???

A real first person account only related to firearms ownership. Not some other reason for disqualification......

Seriously, that's the right question to be asking. Lacking any evidence that some agencies are using firearms ownership to disqualify applicants, it's just another set of questions on a very long application.

I know several active firemen serving in SF Bay Area departments. They all own guns, and enjoy friendly target practice with others in their departments.

Standard
01-31-2010, 10:29 AM
On my CHP background info packet, I was asked how many guns I own, and how many "assault/military style weapons" I own.
I answered truthfully. Didn't get the job, but I doubt it was because of that.

Swatguy10_15
01-31-2010, 10:45 AM
That's new to me. I've worked for four fire departments as a firefighter and fire inspector and never have I been asked during background if I owned firearms.

A couple of agencies around here did have some issues with their employees and full auto firearms. Those employees were terminated.

I make no secret of my hunting, firearms, and archery lifestyle. Nor will I ever lie or dissemble regarding it. If you are going through a FD background I suggest you be upfront with answering all the questions. By all means, if you think you have a legal challenge that you can win, go for it. Don't expect to get the job though.

BINGO! This is what theyre looking for. Simply because they asked about gun ownerhsip does not in fact mean theyre barring applicants that own weapons. Theyre going to check out every aspect of your life. EVERY. Firearms are a really quick way to get into a lot of trouble. They want to make sure that the candidates not "continually pushing the greay area" when it comes to firearms laws and thats theyre right. Ever since 9/11 FD's have become more and more picky as suddenly everybody wants to be a firefighter. They can choose what they wish as far as applicants go. It sucks but its the way it is and no background investigator or panel would ever put "DQ'd" for weapon ownership,theyre not that behind the times.
Also noting why are we keeping this department in the dark? If this in fact occured why dont we get the department you speak of out in the open and go from there.
You can try and sue but you will likely give birth to kittens before you can get hired again with an Public Service agency whether you win the suit or not. The thing that sucks about backgrounds is the decision falls solely on the investigator. Alot of the time that ends up being "does he like you or not"..They can DQ you because you put a period on your application in the wrong place..Apply elsewhere. If he in fact didnt get hired then he needs to ascertain why and go from there.

EBWhite
01-31-2010, 1:14 PM
I was DQ'd by the city of los angeles for having a Utah CCW and owning too many guns per the city psychologist.. passed everything in the process, until the city psych drilled me on why i should have a ccw- dont need one...did it say on paper that they failed me for that- no...but when guns are 45 minutes of the 1 hour oral psych exam then i know the real reason....

shame on liberal city of LA....

since then another LEO agency hired me and my guns :-)

MSO4MATT
02-01-2010, 12:06 AM
Aside from all the huffing and puffing and hysterics. Can anyone raise a hand and say "I" was not hired or faced discrimination by a Fire Dept. or Police Agency because "I" owned to many or the "wrong" kind of firearms???

A real first person account only related to firearms ownership. Not some other reason for disqualification......

I can say from experience it is a very subjective area and depending on the personnel department representatives and the investigators personal beliefs, they will paint a picture for the decision makers as to what type of candidate you are. If you are not conducting an investigation of past or current crimes then you are being intrusive and developing an environment for hidden discrimination.

It is practically the same premise that was used in developing the EEOC "protected classes". Only problem now is that it is affecting gun owners.

dantodd
02-01-2010, 12:24 AM
I was DQ'd by the city of los angeles for having a Utah CCW and owning too many guns per the city psychologist.. passed everything in the process, until the city psych drilled me on why i should have a ccw- dont need one...did it say on paper that they failed me for that- no...but when guns are 45 minutes of the 1 hour oral psych exam then i know the real reason....

shame on liberal city of LA....

since then another LEO agency hired me and my guns :-)

That kind of reminds me of the song Alice's Restaurant.

Anothercoilgun
02-01-2010, 9:48 PM
Could be a delightful trick. Applicants not owning a legal firearm are not American enough, denied. The would be the day. But in reality is just the opposite these days. Gun owners are anti-societal and cannot be trusted.