Month: January 2010

Gun Shows have always been a subject of controversy.  People opposed to firearms or those who wish to further regulate them call for tougher regulations.   Those in favor of a more liberal firearms possession policy, want to see the regulations relaxed and more in keeping with what they perceive as their civil rights.     This is always a tricky subject, and the subject .

Seventeen states presently mandate various degrees of regulation for those who sell and buy firearms at gun shows.    Among restrictions in most states is the requirement that gun purchases undergo background checks before obtaining a weapon.     Sellers are generally mandated to have an FFL or Federal Firearms License, before they can transfer weapons.

There are arguments of course that oppose what some term as unfair government practices.    in an article on Prison Planet, a website  we discovered through Google that ostensibly favors gun owners rights, it was noted that —

“According to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale.”

The article centers around one Darwin Boedeker who was conducting a gun show in Austin, Texas.   According to the article, the Austin Police threatened to shut him down unless Boedeker complied with ATF,  Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms stipulations.

The stipulations were as follows–

““At the direction of the Austin Police Department and the The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms anyone selling a firearm at this show location will be asked to comply with the following: 1. Any person selling a personal firearm must go through a licensed FFL Dealer in the show to transfer the firearm to the new owner. 2. Selling of Firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted. Thank you for your cooperation!”

As these articles are always controversial, I am interesting in getting the perspectives from both sides on this issue.   While we are a background checking company, I can attest that we have never conducted background checks for those purchasing weapons at gun shows.   Why?  Well, we have never been asked to do so.

So give me your thoughts.  Remember, we do not advocate one way or another.  We want your feedback.  So, polite works best, please.

The warden at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility termed the background checks he was receiving “a joke.”  You can’t blame him as the background checks were turning around an average of 56 days later.  That is almost two months after the fact.   The new correctional officer were probably hired already and the background checks, as it often happens with slow turnarounds, were probably overlooked.

According to the Hazelton Standard Speaker, the company that was outsourced to conduct the background checks were tied into an ongoing corruption scandal.    For $200 per employment candidate, the company furnished only Pennsylvania Criminal records and a handwritten form that reportedly shed little light on the psychology of the beheavior of the job candidate.  In short, shoddy work.

Background checks and preemployment screening methods should be exacting and thorough.  An employer expects a comprehensive report and the report to turnaround in a timely fashion.   There is an issue about getting your money’s worth.

It seems too often unscrupulous people enter the background checking field and mess it up for everyone.  The employer isn’t satisfied and the workforce and public remains at risk, as the background screening was neither thorough nor in keeping with expected standards.    What makes it even sadder, is there is no need for this kind of shoddy work.  With the background screening industry reaching maturity, there is enough software and there are enough strategic partners so that these kind of embarrassing headline making situations can be avoided.

But not here.

A private background checking company overlooked a domestic violence protective order on a job  applicant for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department.    The  employment applicant was  hired as a cop and then dismissed, after he had been accused of assaulting female motorists.  At least six people have accused him of sexual battery and misconduct during traffic stops.  It appears, according to the charges on charlotteobserver.com the young officer has difficulty controlling himself.

A firm,comprised of former police officers, had been contracted out by the police department to run these background checks.   In the ongoing saga of various state and public service agencies, and the companies to whom they outsource, someone had apparently missed something.   Like the record that this guy had domestic violence issues.

As we don’t really know the facts about the case, we don’t know if this record was found in criminal court, or as sometimes in the case, in civil court.   Often employers do not mandate or wish to conduct county civil searches where some domestic issues are recorded.  While this case should have also been recorded in criminal court,  the case may not have been recorded.    It’s tough to say.

Whatever the reason, he is a cop who should have never been on the police first.  There are the obvious issues of public trust and public endangerment, and for the city and county issues of liability and the possibility of costly law suits.

I have been blogging about this issue, the fax pas created by public service agencies and their background checks.   I posted one article last month,  Arizona County Orders Tougher Background Checks, after that county experienced certain mishaps with their new law enforcement hires and with some of their criminal records falling in between the cracks.   Given the frequency of failure in turning up or accurately reviewing criminal records, I have to wonder how long have states and public service agencies been screwing up on background checks?   Is this a relatively new phenomenon, or has this been going on a long time?  In fact, when did responsible agencies even start to run background checks?  All good questions.  Unfortunately, answers and solutions are more difficult to come by.

Well, at least the public exposure is causing more public service agencies to scrutinize their candidates.   Maybe, overtime, most agencies will get this down right.  But then if it is the police who are screwing up, then what can you expect from the dog catcher?

Workplace violence is one of those nightmares that you hope is contained where there is only an attempt or minor injuries.   Far too often our worse fears area realized and an employee is seirously hurt or killed.   We see the headlines and shake our heads, and then we go on to the next time.   We try to understand the cause for workplace violence, but some many factors come into play anymore,there is no real way to isolate one reason from another.

In one recent instance of workplace violence, reported on KTVU.com, a workplace feud got overheated and ended up with a shooting.  In another case, as reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a former employee went nuts at a Penske Trucking facility and shot one person to death and injured three others.  Reports were the shooter and ex-employee was “disgruntled.”

According to the Workplace Violence Research Institute, Workplace Violence costs employers cose to $40 billion, annually.  Factor in the concern for human safety, injuries and loss of life, and it is a monumental concern.   Liability issues and litigation can devastate a company as can all of the publicity.   All around, it is a terrible thing.

Background checks may not be the sole answer, but they can go along way in weeding out the undesirables.  One caution.  Often in a criminal database report, the employer will see that there has been sexual or physical violence committed.  Anything from assault on.  Often these cases are shown as misdemeanors or even citations, which are tickets.   This can be misleading.   Very often these cases start out as felonies and for the convenience of the court system, they are plea bargained down to lesser charges.   The defendant cops the lesser plea, gets his hand slapped, and the process moves on.

This is especially true with domestic issues.  After the outburst, the defendant apologies, promises it will never happen again, and the assaulted party, the spouse, the girlfriend, whomever, relents.  We have seen this in celebrity cases as well as the everyday Joe’s.  We saw this recently in the case of Chris Brown and his assault on Rhiannon.    She relented and charges were reduced.  Brown ended up with a slap on the wrist.

As an employer, you are not as concerned with the final disposition as you are with potential endangerment in the workplace.   Here wee order the county criminal records to see what the initial charges were and if they were reduced.  Because often the case was much more severe than the final results may show.   So when running background checks and when violent cases arise, ask for the the definitive county criminal records.   Then you will have a better idea what type of employment candidate you are dealing with.

Check them out before you hire.