Obama Application Questions Gun Ownership

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
54,899
Reaction score
1,518
If you want a job in the Obama administration and you own a gun, you may be out of luck. Here is Question #59 on the application:

"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."
Click to expand...
Obama's Job Application Includes Questions on Gun Ownership - Yahoo! News

Question #59
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf

WASHINGTON — Want a top job in the Obama administration? Only pack rats need apply, preferably those not packing controversy.

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps.

Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.

The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”

The vetting process for executive branch jobs has been onerous for decades, with each incoming administration erecting new barriers in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past, or the controversies of the present. It is typically updated to reflect technological change (there was no Facebook the last time a new president came to town).

But Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members, in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back-scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.

“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.

Jobs with the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have served as lucrative incubators for Democratic and Republican administration officials. But those affiliations have become potentially toxic since the government seized both companies after years of financial irregularities that have stoked the economic crisis.

Not surprisingly, then, Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout.

Under “Domestic Help,” the questionnaire asks the immigration status of applicants’ housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers, and whether applicants have paid the required taxes for household employees. (Those questions reflect controversies that tripped up President Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for attorney general in 1993.)

“Every transition is cumulative,” said Michael Berman, a lawyer and lobbyist who worked in the transitions of both Mr. Clinton and President Jimmy Carter. After reviewing the Obama application, Mr. Berman added, “I am very happy I am not seeking a job in the federal government.”

A former Clinton White House official who insisted on anonymity said in an e-mail message, “I believe it is considerably more detailed than we had to fill out in ’93. Interesting that they want spouse information on everything — means lots of folks are going to have to list the very prominent — and controversial — companies that their spouses work/lobby for.”

The first question asks applicants not just for a résumé, but for every résumé and biographical statement issued by them or others for the past 10 years — a likely safeguard against résumé falsehoods, one Clinton administration veteran said.

Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests. Applicants must report all businesses with which they and their spouses have been affiliated or in which they have had a financial stake of more than 5 percent. All gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives must be identified.

Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”

The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”

For those who clear all the hurdles, the reward could be the job they wanted. But first there will be more forms, for security and ethics clearances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Government Ethics.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 
Oh yup, I disagree with Obama's gun plan but sadly, I picked Obama for other reason.

Not many democrat president candidates who are pro-gun rights.

I feel that need have moderate president, isn't good idea?
 
If this is happened in USA ,Obama want to disarm people. Unfortunately there will be more popular selling hot-shot guns to people thru smugglers. Because I've seeing the rising of the hot shot guns selling blacks by smugglers on street anywhere.
 
Didn't that ever happen in the United Kingdom? Police there don't carry guns/weapons with them. If such were needed, they have to call the special unit in.
 
XBGMER said:
If this is happened in USA ,Obama want to disarm people. Unfortunately there will be more popular selling hot-shot guns to people thru smugglers. Because I've seeing the rising of the hot shot guns selling blacks by smugglers on street anywhere.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't happen, no one could beat 2nd Amendment and you really don't understand about how constitutional works.

Obama's gun plan is just restrict on guns, however I bet this law will goes to supreme court to struck down or increase more pro-guns on seat in congress to override the restriction like happened in 1994 during Clinton presidency after Clinton made restricted on gun rights at once. It's really dumb move for Obama to do because history could be repeat to change in congress.

For black market, yup, I know that, it's really not new and it has been for over decades.
 
WoW! I think this application is a little discriminating towards gun owners... Nope I am sure it is discrimination against gun owners. It is just isnt the gun owners, it is other issues as well. A bit too invasive and controling if you ask me.
 
Babyblue said:
WoW! I think this application is a little discriminating towards gun owners... Nope I am sure it is discrimination against gun owners. It is just isnt the gun owners, it is other issues as well. A bit too invasive and controling if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Of course, I have agree with that.
 
All this question asks is if the applicant owns a gun, and if so, to provide proof of registration. Registration is required by law. Therefore, this question is only attempting to discern if the applicant is law abiding. It is no different in context than any of the previous 58 questions that come before it, nor does it in any way imply that a person who legally owns a gun would be exempt from employment.

This thread is nothing more than another attempt to twist the intent and purpose of a question on an employment application. The purpose is to make people believe that there is something to worry about when there isn't. Don't let such posts influence you, people. You are smarter than that.
 
Yeah, and when it asks you about Facebook, mySpace, etc, your First Amendment is taken away!

Get real! They want to make sure you are morally, ethically and legally fit for the government job. They are NOT going to discriminate you just because you have guns!
 
Brian said:
Didn't that ever happen in the United Kingdom? Police there don't carry guns/weapons with them. If such were needed, they have to call the special unit in.
Click to expand...

Police can carry guns. Just not the civilians. I know as after the Terrorist attack a few years ago a guy was shot by the police as he was running to catch a train. They thought he was a terrorist but it was all a big mistake.
 
dreama said:
Police can carry guns. Just not the civilians. I know as after the Terrorist attack a few years ago a guy was shot by the police as he was running to catch a train. They thought he was a terrorist but it was all a big mistake.
Click to expand...

dreama,

Did that person die from his gunshot wound? If so, that's a shame. :(
 
dreama said:
Yes, the person was killed.

Do things like this happen in USA?
Click to expand...

of course and so do anywhere in the world. We just had subway shooting 2 weeks ago. stupid idiot didn't want to get deported. That's not worth getting killed for. but thing is - a lot of UK cops aren't armed and it should be kept at that :laugh2:
 
dreama said:
Yes, the person was killed.

Do things like this happen in USA?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes it does

In fact, it isn't uncommon for severely mentally ill or Deaf people to be shot by police because they don't respond to their requests. I think it's sad. :(

I worry about the same kind of thing happening to me. When I'm off of my meds (and I'm not ashamed to admit this), I have auditory hallucinations. I worry about the day the police come to my door and I'm unable to respond appropriately because I can't think clearly and have lost touch with reality.

I pray that never happens...
 
jillio said:
All this question asks is if the applicant owns a gun
Click to expand...
No, that is not the only question the form asks. It also asks about how you use the gun.

... and if so, to provide proof of registration. Registration is required by law. Therefore, this question is only attempting to discern if the applicant is law abiding.
Click to expand...
Not so. Guns are registered by the state (which is a topic for another thread). It is none of the employer's business.

It is no different in context than any of the previous 58 questions that come before it, nor does it in any way imply that a person who legally owns a gun would be exempt from employment.
Click to expand...
I agree that many of the rest of the questions are also beyond the pale.

Well, the questionnaire will certainly narrow down the field of applicants in a hurry.

This thread is nothing more than another attempt to twist the intent and purpose of a question on an employment application. The purpose is to make people believe that there is something to worry about when there isn't. Don't let such posts influence you, people. You are smarter than that.
Click to expand...
Every one can read the entire application form and draw their own conclusions.

How many of you would want to fill out that form for a job?
 
XBGMER said:
If this is happened in USA ,Obama want to disarm people. Unfortunately there will be more popular selling hot-shot guns to people thru smugglers. Because I've seeing the rising of the hot shot guns selling blacks by smugglers on street anywhere.
Click to expand...
Do you mean stun guns?
 
Hmmmm. I don't understand how this is hostile towards gun owners. if you're applying for a position in the federal government, you don't think they're going to ask you if you've ever owned, or currently own, a gun? Or not do background checks, which are dang intrusive as well?
I thought there was more critical thinking in this board than what I've seen so far. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top