273.5 Arrest

[CURIOUS G]

They never interviewed my wife, I went in for background screening to turn in my personal history packet, and he went over everything. No big deal, I'll keep trying with other departments.

[Stump]

It IS a big deal. If you don't get this squared away, you are just going to have this done to you a second time.

Call your BI and ask them what specifically got you DQ'd.

[CURIOUS G]

He said that although it wasn't a conviction it doesn't look good. It varies with different departments, like I said Department of Corrections cleared my background. The investigator said that if it was up to him everything seemed good and I did a good job at providing the documentation, but the Sgt. wouldn't approve it.

I called a department yesterday explaining the same situation, and they told me to come in and apply if everything pans out the way I explained it I won't have a problem. There's officers in the state of California working with 273.5 convictions. Many of them had to get court ordes through the City Attorney's office to carry a weapon while on duty.

Hopefully someone will give me a chance, and if not God has other plans for me.

[rdp]

If these officers you say actually have DV convictions as listed per the federal law which prohibits firearm possession, they can not carry a gun no matter what order is given. The law is very specific about what qualifies as a DV conviction for the firearm prohibition.

(but we are talking abour Kalifornia and they seem to ignore federal law anyways)

As for you, good luck and press on. DV arrests aren't always the best solution to the call, but we have madnatory arrest requirements which eliminates discretion. This is why quite a few cases are dismissed especially where both parties are arrested. One of our DA's will dismiss all cases where both parties are arrested unless the officer can describe two "separate" incidents.

You may just have a person reviewing your background that thinks it is a questionable area.......try other places.