State Police In-Person/Phone Interview Encounters

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!
  • DOsniper

    Active Member
    Mar 4, 2011
    326
    Monkton, MD
    Ok, I know a thread has been started along these lines, but it has become filled with a lot of off-topic posts.

    This thread is designed for responses from anyone WHO HAS EITHER HAD A PHONE OR IN-PERSON INTERVIEW WITH THE MD STATE POLICE AND THE QUESTIONS ASKED...so that others reading it can get a quick and accurate idea of what they can expect. Please keep personal views/opinions/speculation to a minimum. A lot of us, myself included, want to give the state an earful about all the 2A BS right now, but let's stick to the facts in this thread. PLEASE reply to a specific post with questions regarding his/her interview and/or to clarify part of their comments (click the "quote" button so the person knows you are talking to them). With that said, and sorry for the soapbox, here was my morning.

    Interviewed at the Westminster barracks (barrack G) with a Investigator (trooper) "V". The following questions were asked.

    1.) All my demographic data
    2.) Why I want a permit
    3.) Employment info
    4.) If granted a permit, do I have a gun I would carry or do I plan to purchase one for carry/conceal use
    5.) The basics, "have you ever been/done/do..." drugs, alcohol, arrested, assault, etc, etc
    6.) Have you had a handgun training class (forgot to mention that one)

    and the real winner....
    7.) What prescription medications are you on and what for? Followed by, "These meds don't bar you from a permit, HOWEVER, you need a doctor's note to say you are good guy and these meds won't affect you from carrying a gun."

    I asked Officer V about the logic behind the last question and what the "red flag" medications were, as he called them. He told me, "the state is just concerned that certain meds would ah....(me: not mesh well with carrying a gun)....ah yeah, exactly, we aren't doctors so we just want a note from your doc thats all." I proceeded to ask him if they are not doctors, then what genius in the MDSP had the initial medical insight to question/raise the concern about certain medications to begin with? His response, I really wish I had an answer for you, I do not know...would you write a note for someone? That opened another 20 min conversation.

    What am I getting at? The state is OBVIOUSLY profiling people based on certain medications they take, regardless of circumstances behind their use. I cannot say for sure anti-depressants are red flags, however, he took the conversation in that direction as we spoke more (which makes you think). I asked if he had a copy of the list and he said he does not and that he has no say in the approval process. I DO NOT encourage/promote ANYONE to lie about the medications they are taking. Be honest, and we will all see what happens and what the end result will be. I would like to know if anyone else was asked a similar question and if you answered the question, "yes", what was the conversation that followed, if any.

    Side Notes: Officer V was a real nice guy, very easy to converse with. I confirmed he verified all my references the day prior. He was very perplexed to hear that some of my friends had phone interviews and even asked me if I knew the troopers names by any chance. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, he seemed to play down and/or "not know" much about the recent Woollard ruling.

    On that note, let's see what else everyone was asked and please specify if you were interviewed over the phone, in-person, barrack #, and the officer's name if you wish. He said the process is standard across the board but judging from what I have read thus far, that does not seem to be the case.
     
    Last edited:

    dlmcbm

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 5, 2011
    1,207
    Sabillasville, Md.
    OK so I had my in person interview today at Westminster barracks. Everything went about like the phone interviews. He went over my app to verify questions ask there. New questions were alcohol consumption and if so how much, ANY drug use EVER, any training with a hand gun (I just completed NRA basic pistol class so I took a copy of that with me) ask me what gun I was going to carry or was I going to purchase one (told him I would be buying one just for this use). He checked my criminal background to see if it matched my app.

    I had one of my references call back while I was there. He ask them time know me, how they knew me, was I a drug or alcohol abuser, was i a good person, was i violent? That was about it. Thanked them for calling back. Then he told me that it was not surprising for a "friend" to rat someone out. It had happened a lot of times.

    After he was done he gave me a chance to ask questions but said there were something he could not answer about the investigation process. I will start this to say that he is retired MSP hired back full time to be an investigator. I asked under normal situation were would this proses go now. he said that this is normal as he was not told to do anything different. He also explained that he did not make the decision if I were to get a permit or not. All he does is the investigation, writes a report of his findings then sends it to the licensing devision. He stated that he never hears whether a person gets there permit or not. he said that his part could take "some time to do". He talked about the budget and how under maned that MSP is (thats a whole new story). Then I asked why he was doing a face to face interview when everyone else was getting a phone interview. his reply was that he had no idea why they would be doing that. In short terms if he is putting his name on the report he wants to make sure who he is talking to (I can understand that). As far as the drive MSP says its "reasonable" to drive to the next county. He said he has interviewed people from Easton. For that he would meet with them near the bay bridge. So its hard to tell were you may have to go for an interview. I am not sure if its a good thing or bad that I got a full time investigator. i guess only time and court rulings will tell.

    All in all a pleasant interview I thanked him for his time and off to work I went.
     

    DOsniper

    Active Member
    Mar 4, 2011
    326
    Monkton, MD
    What was your answer for the question "Why I want a permit"?
    Personal protection. I also referenced the woollard case and that G S R was ruled unconstitutional. He tried to play it off as if nothing had happened but we all know this is a big deal legally and the state will drag their feet as long as they can.
     

    HardHatMan

    FBHO
    Jul 14, 2009
    5,473
    Virginia
    Personal protection. I also referenced the woollard case and that G S R was ruled unconstitutional. He tried to play it off as if nothing had happened but we all know this is a big deal legally and the state will drag their feet as long as they can.

    Did you provide them with all of the documentation that they normally would require for the "personal protection" reason, or did you just state "personal protection"?
     

    DOsniper

    Active Member
    Mar 4, 2011
    326
    Monkton, MD
    OK so I had my in person interview today at Westminster barracks. Everything went about like the phone interviews. He went over my app to verify questions ask there. New questions were alcohol consumption and if so how much, ANY drug use EVER, any training with a hand gun (I just completed NRA basic pistol class so I took a copy of that with me) ask me what gun I was going to carry or was I going to purchase one (told him I would be buying one just for this use). He checked my criminal background to see if it matched my app.

    I had one of my references call back while I was there. He ask them time know me, how they knew me, was I a drug or alcohol abuser, was i a good person, was i violent? That was about it. Thanked them for calling back. Then he told me that it was not surprising for a "friend" to rat someone out. It had happened a lot of times.

    After he was done he gave me a chance to ask questions but said there were something he could not answer about the investigation process. I will start this to say that he is retired MSP hired back full time to be an investigator. I asked under normal situation were would this proses go now. he said that this is normal as he was not told to do anything different. He also explained that he did not make the decision if I were to get a permit or not. All he does is the investigation, writes a report of his findings then sends it to the licensing devision. He stated that he never hears whether a person gets there permit or not. he said that his part could take "some time to do". He talked about the budget and how under maned that MSP is (thats a whole new story). Then I asked why he was doing a face to face interview when everyone else was getting a phone interview. his reply was that he had no idea why they would be doing that. In short terms if he is putting his name on the report he wants to make sure who he is talking to (I can understand that). As far as the drive MSP says its "reasonable" to drive to the next county. He said he has interviewed people from Easton. For that he would meet with them near the bay bridge. So its hard to tell were you may have to go for an interview. I am not sure if its a good thing or bad that I got a full time investigator. i guess only time and court rulings will tell.

    All in all a pleasant interview I thanked him for his time and off to work I went.

    What time was your interview? Was it with Officer "V"
     

    mr phil

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 9, 2007
    1,514
    beach
    Personal interview with worcester county beuaru of investigation.
    What firearms experence did I have ?Hunting . IDPA.
    What type of firearm was I going to use.
    They had an interview with my wife and asked if she felt there was a reason I should not have a permit.
    This was a couple years age . I had it for my business and carried cash. Had to submit receipt and a letter from my bank.
     

    DOsniper

    Active Member
    Mar 4, 2011
    326
    Monkton, MD
    Did you provide them with all of the documentation that they normally would require for the "personal protection" reason, or did you just state "personal protection"?

    Nope. He didn't even go into the GSR topic. Actually, right after he asked it, he said, for personal protection right? I just confirmed his statement.
     

    jfox

    Member
    Mar 27, 2012
    97
    Question Advice/ Recourse

    I've been following (both) these threads, need to ask a couple questions. Would be really interested in what our Delegates (Smigiel) and resident lawyers thoughts are (as well as anyone else of course):

    1) Interview question about how many guns one owns: Yes I saw esqapellate's suggested response (just tell them); but isn't this really none of the states' business so long as the firearms are legally owned and used within the law? Obviously, you can't (and shouldn't) lie, but why does one need to disclose an answer to this question at all? What would happen if you indicated so much (politely) in your response?

    2) Same about what medications are you taking and a follow-up that you would need a Doctor's note that you can safely care a firemarm? To ask if a you are taking any medications which might limit your ability to own or operate a firearm safely is one thing. To request personal details of your medical history would seem to be in violation of rights of privacy, especially if the response is more than to the above question. A doctor's note? Really? Is this legal? I take nothing at all, but if the state needs to go so far as ask the name of the drug, but is incapable of discerning whether it impacts one's ability without a doctor's note...what's the basis for that? Do they require the same specific listing of all medications of all other persons that have applied and are being considered or now carry (including their own personnel)?

    3) These latest questions, seem quite arbitrary; and appear to not be being asked consistently of all applicants. They also seem like violations of rights without legal basis if mandatory response to such questions is required. And I suspect may not historically have been asked of previous permit holders.

    How do we stop this nonsense? What legal recourse is available? MD does have an important job to do, but should be doing so in an impartial, unbiased manner without intruding on individual rights of privacy. Many other states (with lower crime rates) have been able to navigate this successfully...

    Is MSI aware of these questions? What about our friends in legislature?
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    If you admit to having a drink now and then, how is that relevent either? Bet the LEO's have a cold one on occasion and they ALL carry.
     

    DOsniper

    Active Member
    Mar 4, 2011
    326
    Monkton, MD
    I've been following (both) these threads, need to ask a couple questions. Would be really interested in what our Delegates (Smigiel) and resident lawyers thoughts are (as well as anyone else of course):

    1) Interview question about how many guns one owns: Yes I saw esqapellate's suggested response (just tell them); but isn't this really none of the states' business so long as the firearms are legally owned and used within the law? Obviously, you can't (and shouldn't) lie, but why does one need to disclose an answer to this question at all? What would happen if you indicated so much (politely) in your response?

    2) Same about what medications are you taking and a follow-up that you would need a Doctor's note that you can safely care a firemarm? To ask if a you are taking any medications which might limit your ability to own or operate a firearm safely is one thing. To request personal details of your medical history would seem to be in violation of rights of privacy, especially if the response is more than to the above question. A doctor's note? Really? Is this legal? I take nothing at all, but if the state needs to go so far as ask the name of the drug, but is incapable of discerning whether it impacts one's ability without a doctor's note...what's the basis for that? Do they require the same specific listing of all medications of all other persons that have applied and are being considered or now carry (including their own personnel)?

    3) These latest questions, seem quite arbitrary; and appear to not be being asked consistently of all applicants. They also seem like violations of rights without legal basis if mandatory response to such questions is required. And I suspect may not historically have been asked of previous permit holders.

    How do we stop this nonsense? What legal recourse is available? MD does have an important job to do, but should be doing so in an impartial, unbiased manner without intruding on individual rights of privacy. Many other states (with lower crime rates) have been able to navigate this successfully...

    Is MSI aware of these questions? What about our friends in legislature?
    These are VERY good questions and is why I wanted folks to post their interview experience to see how consistent (or not) they truly are. Already spoke w/ Delegate Smigiel's office. They are very interested and want a written statement ASAP and will personally hand it to him today.
     

    OnTarget

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 29, 2009
    3,154
    WV
    DOsniper:

    "7.) What prescription medications are you on and what for? Followed by, "These meds don't bar you from a permit, HOWEVER, you need a doctor's note to say you are good guy and these meds won't affect you from carrying a gun."

    I wonder what doctors would be bold enough to, and take the risk of putting themselves on record, by answering the above question. Not many, if any at all! They'd have to be insane!
     

    PJDiesel

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 18, 2011
    17,603
    DOsniper:


    I wonder what doctors would be bold enough to, and take the risk of putting themselves on record, by answering the above question. Not many, if any at all!

    I was denied (~10 years ago?) by a similar tactic. I was an independent contractor (didn't have a "boss", regular hours or a regular paycheck). They told me the only way I could get a permit was if the person I worked for would "require" I carry. Well, I didn't work for an armored car company or anything of the like, so I was (as the MSP planned) reluctant to take it any further.

    I wasn't asking the person I worked for (even though it was FAMILY) if they would sign a permission slip. The MSP made it clear to me it would put THEM on the hook in the event I were to have a need to defend myself any time in the future.

    I submit to you, do you think Doctors will want to affirm (under, I'm sure at minimum some risk) that you are okay to carry? It's tough enough to get them to fax a prescription over to Walgreens, or a referral to another office. I highly doubt they will be spending any time or thought on this, not to mention what if they have an existing BIAS to gun rights?
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,372
    White Marsh
    I was denied (~10 years ago?) by a similar tactic. I was an independent contractor (didn't have a "boss", regular hours or a regular paycheck). They told me the only way I could get a permit was if the person I worked for would "require" I carry. Well, I didn't work for an armored car company or anything of the like, so I was (as the MSP planned) reluctant to take it any further.

    I wasn't asking the person I worked for (even though it was FAMILY) if they would sign a permission slip. The MSP made it clear to me it would put THEM on the hook in the event I were to have a need to defend myself any time in the future.

    I submit to you, do you think Doctors will want to affirm (under, I'm sure at minimum some risk) that you are okay to carry?

    A member of this board had a doctor tell him that he wouldn't sign off on such a thing. Not because he was unfit to carry, but because he didn't personally believe someone should carry a gun. Clearly not all doctors think like that, but it's another little piece to add to the question.
     

    PJDiesel

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 18, 2011
    17,603
    A member of this board had a doctor tell him that he wouldn't sign off on such a thing. Not because he was unfit to carry, but because he didn't personally believe someone should carry a gun. Clearly not all doctors think like that, but it's another little piece to add to the question.

    Case and point.

    If it's not this, it will be something else, if its not THAT, something we haven't even thought of....
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom