PDA

View Full Version : Gun Ownership and Job Search....


EBWhite
04-24-2008, 7:42 AM
Hello Guys-

Sorry I am one of the original members around here but have not been around in a bit. Slowed down on the gun purchases, and concentrated on my job search, school etc. Anyways, I am back to share a story with all of you. It's a warning more of the sort but also I am asking for advice.

I am interested in a career in law enforcement. I have applied for several agencies. I am a clean background with no issues. However, i own 10+ guns which I never felt would be an issue since I have never used them in an inappropriate way. I have passed several background checks, rec'd. conditional job offers only to be failed in the psych testing (my written tests came back perfect) b/c of my gun ownership.

I am waiting on one appeal but am testing with a few more places. My current background check is going good except they have expressed concern about me owning too many guns. I have a feeling that the job offer will come but could be with a price- Either, have the job or sell some guns. At this point it is the principal of the matter and I would be willing to sell them to a family member but i don't know if that will be enough to satisfy them. Most of my guns are hard to find, non-CA list stuff. This is only possible. This has been so unfair to someone who has been legal and just wants to hold on to their rights. I really do not know what to do if it comes down to that.

I'll I can say is political correctness run amuck. One doctor even mentioned that I was a liability because of owning guns. However, I have been legal and responsible....So there you go, ask questions, give me advice but I'm almost thinking in my head that Mr. Heston was right in his famous speech and if I met him today, he would utter the same words to me.

petey
04-24-2008, 7:58 AM
You don't need to sell your guns. I have a number of friends in LE, and I applied for several agencies years ago. I finally got accepted, but turned down the offer because I was tired of dealing with ***holes (not the cops, but the bad guys)

You really can't fail the psych test unless you try. It is subjective, and used to filter through preferred candidates, or filter out those that may not be a perfect match for whatever the department's brass to be an ideal candidate.

As an example, if you score too high on the written exam (which often includes an IQ test), the department may not want you. Some agencies believe that people with high IQ's quickly become bored and will leave. They can't fail you for scoring too high on the written test, but they may use the psych test to exclude you.

Owning a large number of guns will sometimes raise a red flag during the background check. They are looking for mall-ninja types, and /or people that have illegal firearms or devices.

Keep your guns, and keep trying different agencies.

Bill_in_SD
04-24-2008, 7:59 AM
So.... A LEA turned you down because you have too many guns? (by virtue of not passing a psych eval?)

I can't believe I am reading this right.

EBWhite
04-24-2008, 8:02 AM
The funny part is the number is not much higher than 10. Yes, i have been turned down because i followed the law and own registered guns. Wonderful, eh? Two times im been failed in psychs for the guns. This this time, looks like it will be a background issue. I never thought guns would affect a job search so much.

xrMike
04-24-2008, 8:34 AM
Have you considered trimming your collection in half, just for the purposes of getting on board somewhere?

Once on board, I imagine it would no longer be an issue, and you could buy as many as you want and nobody would care.

Maybe find a good buddy who will buy them from you for a nominal amount, and then sell them back to you later when it's all good... ???

eta34
04-24-2008, 8:36 AM
How do you know it was the gun ownership that failed you? Is this what they told you? Or, are you just speculating?

soopafly
04-24-2008, 8:40 AM
Umm...I have doubts that it's the gun ownership causing the problem. Based on past statements you have made on this forum, I would not hire you as a law enforcement officer.
You probably are going to ask me to cite examples, but a few of the best ones I know of have been deleted by the mods.
Good luck on your search.

Yankee Clipper
04-24-2008, 10:02 AM
I'd go along with petey’s reply: it's not the 10 plus guns you own but the to-high IQ that's the problem. Obviously they don't want too low an IQ and there may be other personality factors evidenced in your test that don't fit their narrow profile. With unemployment figures going up and budgets getting tighter, most departments’ can be very picky about the officers they hire. Keep applying, there's a department out there that wants you.

eta34
04-24-2008, 10:14 AM
As a LEO who has done recruiting, I have NEVER heard of the "too-high" IQ disqualifier. Never.

USN CHIEF
04-24-2008, 10:30 AM
As a LEO who has done recruiting, I have NEVER heard of the "too-high" IQ disqualifier. Never.

Shhhhh.... Don't say that, tell him that the guns is the issue and he should sell them here on Cal Guns:)

It does sound like an absurd reason and I don't think that you would be disqualified for owning alot of guns...

StukaJr
04-24-2008, 10:38 AM
I've heard of that before - of course the person in question had 60+ firearms and these were the registered kind :) It was an issue with LAPD but not with other Departments - just like some will issue Assault Weapon letters to their officers and some won't...

So if you got denied in one City - apply with another... There is nothing you can really do, but keep trying - I do understand that some Cities do not care and neither do the Sheriffs...

elSquid
04-24-2008, 10:39 AM
As a LEO who has done recruiting, I have NEVER heard of the "too-high" IQ disqualifier. Never.

There was actually a lawsuit that made national airwaves a number of years ago. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DB143DF93AA3575AC0A96F9582 60)

-- Michael

thefifthspeed
04-24-2008, 10:41 AM
So did the dept you apply to pull the number (handguns/AWs) or did you volunteer the quantity. I'l looking to apply to law enforcement in a couple years and I have 20+ long guns but only 1 pistol (most are WW2 collectors stuff).

mecam
04-24-2008, 10:54 AM
Did you try Oakland? :D

Yankee Clipper
04-24-2008, 11:05 AM
As a LEO who has done recruiting, I have NEVER heard of the "too-high" IQ disqualifier. Never.

I've seen these stories over years and have to wonder how true they are. If true, the subject is counter-intuitive: tax-payers want the smartest LE's that can be hired not the dumbest.

http://www.adversity.net/0_PoliceFireMuni/PFM_intro.htm#dumbed_down
U.S. Justice Department Wants "Dumbed Down" Cops (06/13/97)

"The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has been pressuring police forces across the country to abandon "cognitive" entrance exams [exams based upon mental ability, reasoning skills, and intelligence], which test for basic reading, writing, memory and reasoning skills.

"The Department argues that such tests are illegal because they exclude too many minorities from police ranks. Cognitive test supporters say the tests are needed to assure that officers have the mental skills to make quick decisions about everything from the constitutional rights of suspects to the use of deadly force.

"As of 1993, some 83 percent of large city and county police forces used cognitive tests in hiring -- but that may be about to change. After years of pressure from the Justice Department, Nassau County, N.Y., agreed to replace its cognitive-based entrance exam with one that was based on personality -- in which applicants had to score only as well as the bottom 1 (one) percent of current police officers on a reading exam.

"Critics charge that the whole effort to achieve "diversity" in police ranks is leading to such absurdities as recruiting on street corners in the poorest neighborhoods, rather than going to the top black colleges for new people.

"Justice Department bureaucrats also hopped on officials in Suffolk County, N.Y., claiming that its test allowed too few minorities to get police jobs. It charged that if the test were race neutral, top scorers would have included 249 more new blacks, 170 more Hispanics and 447 fewer whites.

"Police officials in other areas of the country are also feeling heat from Justice's civil rights crusaders, critics report.

"The Louisiana State Police was forced to water-down its cognitive tests to the point where that portion was "minuscule," leaving the test "no better than chance," according to experts. However the city of Torrance, Cal., fought back after being sued by Justice for not abandoning its cognitive tests
and refusing demands that it set up a multi-million dollar fund to compensate alleged victims of its test -- with the result that it won its case, but Justice is now appealing the decision.

"One test development company points out that trials are often decided on the basis of the arresting officer's written report or oral testimony, which is "pure, unadulterated mental ability."

(Via the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), from Investor's Business Daily, 06/13/97, by David A. Price, "Dumbing Down the Police Force")

[Last known link http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm66.html ]


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

'Dumb cop' rule really smarts (09/11/00)

A federal court has determined that in New London, Connecticut, the police were justified in denying employment to an applicant who was too smart to be a policeman.

Yep, he was too smart for the New London police force.

The Atlanta Mobile Register writes "Police throughout the country should be enraged, because the policy at issue in this case feeds the unfortunate stereotype of the "dumb cop." For that matter, the citizens of New London, Conn., should be enraged, too, because it is their police department that is ensuring that the officers who serve the public are of only average intelligence. The policy is inane.

"The case began when Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, applied for the New London police force. When he took the entrance exam, he scored 33 points - which indicates an IQ of about 125. But the department only considers candidates who score between 20 and 27, with 20 representing an IQ of about 100, which is supposed to be average.

"The department's theory is that those who score too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after receiving costly training.

"Mr. Jordan sued, saying that he was the victim of illegal discrimination. Two federal courts have now refused to uphold his claim, though, saying that because the same standards were applied to all applicants, no illegal discrimination occurred. The courts also ruled that even though the policy might be unwise - we would say flat-out stupid - it was at least arguably a rational way to reduce expensive job turnover."

(Based on the story in the Atlanta Mobile Register 09/11/00)

[Last known link http://www.al.com/news/mobile/Sep2000/11-a374838a.html ]


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

Too Smart to Be a Cop (09/08/00)

The Associated Press reported the following case from New London, Connecticut: "A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower courtís decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test."

In 1996, Jordan scored 33 points on the police exam which is the equivalent of an IQ of 125 (well above average, but 15 points short of the traditional "genius" cutoff of 140).

"But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training."

Associated Press reports that the national average for police officers is an IQ of 104, or slightly above average.

The U.S. District Court ruled the New London police had a reasonable explanation for their policy of rejecting applicants who were too intelligent -- they might get easily bored and leave the job after receiving costly training. On August 23, 2000 the Second Circuit Court agreed.

Robert Jordan has been working as a prison guard since his rejection by New London police. Apparently prison authorities don't care of Jordan is too intelligent for the guard job; or maybe prison guards have to be smarter than police recruits.

(Based on the Associated Press story published by ABC News 09/08/00)

[Last known link http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/toosmart000908.html ]

Californio
04-24-2008, 11:58 AM
Well I can only drool-over and fondle the massive collection my BIL has in multiple safes, he spent 33 years in LE, granted in a free State.

I would think that would be grounds for Federal Job Discrimination Suit if you could prove your allegation.

What does lawful ownership of firearms have to do with a job that requires you to carry a firearm?

berto
04-24-2008, 12:13 PM
I've seen these stories over years and have to wonder how true they are. If true, the subject is counter-intuitive: tax-payers want the smartest LE's that can be hired not the dumbest.

An excess of intelligence might lead to boredom or so the story goes. It might lead to thinking too much instead of just doing the job. And most scary of all for the higher ups it might lead to questions they either don't have an answer for or don't want asked in the first place. The goal is smart enough to do the job but not too smart as to cause trouble.

Dirtbiker
04-24-2008, 12:26 PM
Sorry, It's not your guns. I owned way more than that when I was hired and no one said a word about them.

There are multiple factors taken into account during the background investigation. It is the totality of the circumstances that is haunting you. In short the guns plus other stuff looked at as a whole are keeping you out.

Ironchef
04-24-2008, 12:47 PM
Too high IQ? Maybe at Target. yes, my wife applied and because she has a bachelors degree, it seemed to threaten the interviewing manager too much so she was not hired! Or so we suspect.

thefifthspeed
04-24-2008, 5:31 PM
Can you resolve the contradiction between the highlighted information at the top, and your claim of being an "original" member? Maybe the computer made a mistake, and you really joined Calguns much earlier?

In January of 2006, Calguns was at least several years old, the OLL floodgates had been opened since Thanksgiving 2005, and everyone was chanting "two weeks". In those days, Technical Ted had thousands of posts.

Does this really go with the thread? Who cares, PM the guy if you really want to know.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-24-2008, 5:43 PM
Can you resolve the contradiction between the highlighted information at the top, and your claim of being an "original" member? Maybe the computer made a mistake, and you really joined Calguns much earlier?

In January of 2006, Calguns was at least several years old, the OLL floodgates had been opened since Thanksgiving 2005, and everyone was chanting "two weeks". In those days, Technical Ted had thousands of posts.

You've never had to create a new screen name when returning to a site after a long time?

Hopi
04-24-2008, 5:49 PM
Can you resolve the contradiction between the highlighted information at the top, and your claim of being an "original" member? Maybe the computer made a mistake, and you really joined Calguns much earlier?

In January of 2006, Calguns was at least several years old, the OLL floodgates had been opened since Thanksgiving 2005, and everyone was chanting "two weeks". In those days, Technical Ted had thousands of posts.

There were a number of server/software switches that forced everyone to rejoin, the last time that happened was in OCT 2005. Look at many of the long-timers join dates, they all conspicuously show OCT 2005 (there were a few members that had their join dates corrected to display 2003, 2004, etc, but not many). He might not have been active at that time, and returned a few months later in Jan to find that he needed to re-up his membership.

Edited to add: I had wondered where you went EB!

hoffmang
04-24-2008, 5:54 PM
I know I'm not a mod, but having been personally attacked today in another thread I'd like to say this. Our OP is getting turned down for jobs and people are choosing to:

1. Say he's mentally unfit due to past unspecified comments (If you have something to say, click the link that says "find all posts by" and post a link. Otherwise it's kind of drive by whining.

2. Complain that he's only been here 2 years and 4 months thus not making him an early/original member. I think he's been here longer than me actually...

Can we go back on topic?

-Gene

M. Sage
04-24-2008, 6:01 PM
Hello Guys-

Sorry I am one of the original members around here but have not been around in a bit. Slowed down on the gun purchases, and concentrated on my job search, school etc. Anyways, I am back to share a story with all of you. It's a warning more of the sort but also I am asking for advice.

I am interested in a career in law enforcement. I have applied for several agencies. I am a clean background with no issues. However, i own 10+ guns which I never felt would be an issue since I have never used them in an inappropriate way. I have passed several background checks, rec'd. conditional job offers only to be failed in the psych testing (my written tests came back perfect) b/c of my gun ownership.

I am waiting on one appeal but am testing with a few more places. My current background check is going good except they have expressed concern about me owning too many guns. I have a feeling that the job offer will come but could be with a price- Either, have the job or sell some guns. At this point it is the principal of the matter and I would be willing to sell them to a family member but i don't know if that will be enough to satisfy them. Most of my guns are hard to find, non-CA list stuff. This is only possible. This has been so unfair to someone who has been legal and just wants to hold on to their rights. I really do not know what to do if it comes down to that.

I'll I can say is political correctness run amuck. One doctor even mentioned that I was a liability because of owning guns. However, I have been legal and responsible....So there you go, ask questions, give me advice but I'm almost thinking in my head that Mr. Heston was right in his famous speech and if I met him today, he would utter the same words to me.

Sue them. Sue them silly.

I know I'm not a mod, but having been personally attacked today in another thread I'd like to say this. Our OP is getting turned down for jobs and people are choosing to:

1. Say he's mentally unfit due to past unspecified comments (If you have something to say, click the link that says "find all posts by" and post a link. Otherwise it's kind of drive by whining.

2. Complain that he's only been here 2 years and 4 months thus not making him an early/original member. I think he's been here longer than me actually...

Can we go back on topic?

-Gene

Couldn't say it better, so I co-opted it.

Keep it on topic.

tophatjones
04-24-2008, 7:35 PM
Is it possible to get a written statement with the details of your psych test? I mean if they fail you, they're obligated to explain their reasoning right?

Spyder
04-24-2008, 9:17 PM
As far as I know, no, they are not. They don't have to tell you why they failed, though I think they usually do.

Steyr_223
04-24-2008, 9:18 PM
What would a police shrink think of these posts of yours? Then again your not as bad or anti PC as some here..Like me! :)

Getting around music CD anti-copy protection?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=41455

Q: need a tattoo idea
A: confederate flag

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=403222#post403222

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=484264#post484264

Visit to a crime scene.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=48006

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=501103#post501103

This one would upset dog lovers.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=485940#post485940

Violation of Smog checks..

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=526276#post526276

This one is just ironic..

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=696724#post696724

M. Sage
04-24-2008, 9:36 PM
... I've heard actual cops say much worse than those. Hell, I've seen cops do much worse.

And with that.... :offtopic: We're not here to tear him down, so don't do it. Thanks.

AngelDecoys
04-25-2008, 8:18 AM
EBWhite. Hope you're able to find a department for employment. Owning firearms, no matter field of endeavor you go into, should not be a basis for denial.

As a side note. It is becoming quite common for companies to do online searches on your name/email name/user name before offering a contract, etc. (Just to see what pops up). I've heard myspace/facebook/youtube pages being used as a basis for non-employment. (This is common at CA Universities with enrollment applications). I've also heard searches used by current employers for non-renewal of contracts, or cause for dismissal.

For instance. While I find the following picture funny, finding it online under your name may not result in you getting hired by anyone.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/atfform4473.jpg

Whether stealthily done, openly done, legal or not, it is increasingly being done so be careful. Companies don't always tell you the real reason you weren't hired. Often you might be told what is defensible.

Just make sure your real name isn't posted on anything someone else might find questionable. Good Luck.

fuegoslow
04-25-2008, 9:26 AM
I feel for you, EB. I'm curently in the process with LAPD. I had to disclose my Utah CCW permit. I submitted a copy, front and back of my permit. I also listed the 6 handguns I own and a .223 rifle. The background investigator didn't ask me about the guns, but sat back in his chair as I explained how a non resident of Utah could obtain a CCW... being a California resident no less. He just kept glaring at my permit as I described the process and FBI background check. After the interview he told me there were a couple of concerns, but would continue with the process. He said he couldn't elaborate and I should wait for a package to arrive in the mail. At that time, I kept thinking, "Man, I hope I don't get excused from being LAPD for excercising my 2nd amendment rights". :confused:

Anyway, good luck with your job search!

EBWhite
04-25-2008, 10:10 AM
If you do get through backgrounds, you prob will not get through the psych testing. The Utah CCW without good cause (to LAPD's left wing standards) is a huge killer compared to the 7 guns you have. I would apply with a small agency just in case so you don't waste time with LAPD. The psychcologist is going to tear into you about the CCW- why you need it, why you have it, what you should not have it, why guns make society more dangerous, etc. It is really sad, trust me. They assume you are a liability as they think you are a heavy handed cowboy.

PeacePiece
04-25-2008, 11:00 PM
Just make sure your real name isn't posted on anything someone else might find questionable. Good Luck.

Or, be willing to - gasp - stand up for what you say and believe. And to tell those who won't hire you because of it to go screw themselves.

:cool2: