# Weapons prohibition



## jsine (1 Feb 2013)

Hello everyone, I just have a quick question.  I've done some searching and I believe I'm not starting a duplicate thread, but if I am I apologize.  I made some mistake in the past and ended up with a 10 year firearms prohibition.  I've just spoke with a lawyer to get the ball rolling to try and get it lifted so I may apply for a position as an combat engineer.  I was just wondering if anyone else has had this problem and did get it lifted for employment with the military.  Thank for reading.

Jordan


----------



## brihard (1 Feb 2013)

I've never heard of it happening for someone joining the CF. The criteria for lifting a weapon prohibition are quite strict, and with good reason. "I want" does not normally satisfy.


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (1 Feb 2013)

I've seen this request be shortly entertained, if the person was able to get a letter from the CF stating that the prohibition holds them back from being employed.  Note, the CF WILL NOT provide this letter.
Even if the prohibition is lifted, it does not mean you will be granted the required reliability status.


----------



## cupper (1 Feb 2013)

Wouldn't this fall under the same situation as the guy in another thread who is still under suspension and paying fines for his DUI? An outstanding legal obligation that needs to be fulfilled?


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (1 Feb 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> Wouldn't this fall under the same situation as the guy in another thread who is still under suspension and paying fines for his DUI? An outstanding legal obligation that needs to be fulfilled?



If the ban is removed, he has fulfilled what was required since the ban is no longer required.


----------



## brihard (1 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I've seen this request be shortly entertained, if the person was able to get a letter from the CF stating that the prohibition holds them back from being employed.  Note, the CF WILL NOT provide this letter.
> Even if the prohibition is lifted, it does not mean you will be granted the required reliability status.



Out of curiosity, in the past what circumstances allowed people to get such a letter that the CF will not provide? Did they used to do so?


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (1 Feb 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, in the past what circumstances allowed people to get such a letter that the CF will not provide? Did they used to do so?



To Clarify, the request was shortly entertained by the judge, "you get me a letter saying this ban prevents you from being gainfully employed and I'll lift the Ban."  Whereas the CF will not provide a letter because your not an applicant that has completed the process and is thus eligible to be gainfully employed... because you have the prohibition.  It's kind of like a catch 22 I guess.


----------



## JorgSlice (2 Feb 2013)

What gets me is 10 year weapon prohibition... I went to High School with a "gangsta" type guy who had a 2 year prohibition handed to him for being caught with a telescopic steel baton. To be handed a 10 year prohibition is a pretty big deal. 

If you couldn't be trusted to handle firearms or other weapon-type objects (Whether prohibited or not), how does one expect you can join the military and be trusted?

Sorry but I don't like this, not one bit.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Sorry but I don't like this, not one bit.



Agreed. It has to be a serious offense to have a 10-year weapons prohibition. Just because you want to join the CF, isn't an easy way out of your legal commitments.


----------



## jsine (2 Feb 2013)

Thanks for all the quick responses.  As for the severity of my crime and being trusted with a firearm.  I have no violent crimes and nothing to do with a firearm.  When I was a teen I was charged with trafficking, the prohibition was mandatory with the charge.  It wasn't my intent to piss anyone off with this topic, I just wanted to see if anyone had gone through something similar.


----------



## Scott (2 Feb 2013)

No one's pissed off, they're just saying they have some reservations about someone with a ten year ban. If you can't see the reasoning for that then you have issues.

You've got some advice here, I suggest you look into it.

I'd also suggest being prepared to have to live with decisions you made. One possibility might be missing out on a career with the CF. Even if you get the prohibition lifted you still have a long hill to climb because you'll have to explain yourself at some point - and there are loads of applicants who do not have trafficking charges on them.

Good luck.


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (2 Feb 2013)

I find these topics very interesting.  The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.  Despite common opinion, get it lifted and you stand a chance.


----------



## brihard (2 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I find these topics very interesting.  The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.  Despite common opinion, get it lifted and you stand a chance.



Everyone stands a chance. But you take 2 people with the exact same files, only one of them with a trafficking conviction, who do you think is going to get picked?


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (2 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Everyone stands a chance. But you take 2 people with the exact same files, only one of them with a trafficking conviction, who do you think is going to get picked?



I really wish I could answer that, but I won't.


----------



## Scott (3 Feb 2013)

I'm also curious about what part the Charter has to play in this.


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I find these topics very interesting.  The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.  Despite common opinion, get it lifted and you stand a chance.



The Supreme Court already ruled that the mandatory Weapons Prohibitions were deemed NOT to violate the Charter's protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.



			
				The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I really wish I could answer that, but I won't.



You can't, or you won't? Big difference. Simple answer is, they'd take the one without the charge. 'tis life.


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (3 Feb 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court already ruled that the mandatory Weapons Prohibitions were deemed NOT to violate the Charter's protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
> 
> You can't, or you won't? Big difference. Simple answer is, they'd take the one without the charge. 'tis life.



Its not the weapons ban, it's once it is over it can not be used against you.  You can not be punished again for something you have done your time for.  I wont get into time and distance between unlawful activity, but once you have done your time, you nave done your time.  The caveat is, "legal obligation."  If your weapons ban is over, than it's over, you can apply and if you do well on the CFAT, score well on the interview and you score within what everyone else that's gets selected score, you will get picked up.  The exception to this would be crimes of a, "serious," nature, (Murder, sexual crimes, crimes against children) will impace if you can get reliability status as well as time and distance from the crime.


----------



## Scott (3 Feb 2013)

Wouldn't a criminal record go along with a conviction for trafficking? 

Loads of places won't touch someone with a record and loads more would use it as a tool to weed out applicants. At the very least he'd have additional steps to take just to apply.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I really wish I could answer that, but I won't.



You're posting all around the forum on every thread about criminal convictions with a "holier than thou" attitude that you know it all but "can't" tell us. Unless you're going to put up some information for us to believe you, we're all going to go with the common sense answer that a serious criminal conviction can harm your chances of getting into the CF. The only case I can see is if someone was convicted, did their time, and received a pardon. After all, isn't the question on the form "convicted of a criminal offense for which a pardon has not been granted"?  You're pushing all this information to people that their criminal convictions aren't a big deal when applying to the CF, so when they walk into a recruiting center they have a nonchalant attitude about it. There are consequences to people's actions, and the CF shouldn't be a dumping ground for people who can't get a job anywhere else because they have a serious criminal offense on their record.


----------



## Scott (3 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're posting all around the forum on every thread about criminal convictions with a "holier than thou" attitude that you know it all but "can't" tell us. Unless you're going to put up some information for us to believe you, we're all going to go with the common sense answer that a serious criminal conviction can harm your chances of getting into the CF. The only case I can see is if someone was convicted, did their time, and received a pardon. After all, isn't the question on the form "convicted of a criminal offense for which a pardon has not been granted"?  You're pushing all this information to people that their criminal convictions aren't a big deal when applying to the CF, so when they walk into a recruiting center they have a nonchalant attitude about it. There are consequences to people's actions, and the CF shouldn't be a dumping ground for people who can't get a job anywhere else because they have a serious criminal offense on their record.



 :nod:

MilPoints inbound.


----------



## Old and Tired (3 Feb 2013)

I've been following this discussion since its beginning. I don't have my recruiters handbook with me a the moment and my new computer hasn't got the ecopy on it yet, so I will do a detailed search once I'm back at my desk tomorrow.  What I say right now is that the weapons ban is a part of a larger sentence, if the OP was convicted, for the trafficking charge.  As such, even if the ban were to be lifted, the rest of the sentence may still be in effect and therefore the legal obligation has not been discharged. Also, trafficking of any kind, (Drugs, Alcohol, Illegal Tobacco, whatever) is considered to be a "Serious Offence" as it is an indiction or pointer, of other more serious character traits.

Once the complete sentence has been servered, the best approach is for the OP to try and get a pardon, assuming he is eligible, as this would so that the Courts consider him to be of low risk to re-offend.  Having said that you can be assured that there would be a detailed examination of his back ground and that even if he is successful with the application process and id found to be an acceptable applicant, some occupations and types of employments would be off limits.

Again, I will check the Handbook tomorrow at work and get the best info I can and PM the OP with the answers as they are non of anyone elses' business unless or until he chooses to make them public.


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> Its not the weapons ban, it's once it is over it can not be used against you.



Yes it can. It'll still be on your "Contacts, Arrests, Charges and Convictions" records visible to anyone who runs your name through CPIC/Entrust/RMS etc. A weapons ban will always be issued with a conviction (there are crimes in which it is mandatory), and therefore has just as much weight as one.



> You can not be punished again for something you have done your time for.  I wont get into time and distance between unlawful activity, but once you have done your time, you nave done your time.  The caveat is, "legal obligation."



Sure, he's done his time, but you can certainly be punished again, regardless whether you've done your time. It's called being a Repeat Offender. What I think you're trying to get at is that you cannot be handed the same charge and conviction, for the same crime.



> If your weapons ban is over, than it's over, you can apply and if you do well on the CFAT, score well on the interview and you score within what everyone else that's gets selected score, you will get picked up.



Yes, it's over, to a point. It still tags along with you through life just like any criminal activity can and will.



> The exception to this would be crimes of a, "serious," nature, (Murder, sexual crimes, crimes against children) will impace if you can get reliability status as well as time and distance from the crime.



Most trafficking charges and convictions are Indictable (including Hybrid offences), Indictable offences are considered "Serious Offences" where as Summary Offences are considered "petty crimes" (the Summary Offences deemed serious are put into the Hybrid Offence category). The list of what is considered serious is quite long.

The CF want people of good character as PuckChaser also transpired. Old and Tired makes very sound advice.


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (3 Feb 2013)

Well it seems I have myself backed into a corner.  Firstly, lets all remind ourselves of the initial question posed on this thread and my initial answer,



			
				The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I've seen this request be shortly entertained, if the person was able to get a letter from the CF stating that the prohibition holds them back from being employed.  Note, the CF WILL NOT provide this letter.
> Even if the prohibition is lifted, it does not mean you will be granted the required reliability status.



I clearly state that he would be able to apply and at the same time wouldn't necessarily be successful.  That reply was specifically directed to his ability to apply.  I have read comments from different posters commenting on eligibility to get in based on the what the original poster disclosed as their crime.  Unfortunately, some of these comments are irrelevant.  If you do not have an outstanding legal obligation, your application will be accepted for processing and processed up to the point of reviewing your criminal record to grant Reliability Status.  What happens upon review of that is not for ANY of us to say as their are so many factors and two applicants with the exact same criminal record could have different results because of their attitude towards the crime and the time and distance from the crime.  The final determination will be that of CO of the recruiting centre if adverse information is discovered during the reliability check.

I answered the OPs question about the weapons ban to the best of my ability, and all my subsequent posts after the above quoted statement were meant at discouraging him from listening to anyone else comments regarding his likelyhood of being a successful applicant, as he did not ask that, he asked'



			
				jsine said:
			
		

> I was just wondering if anyone else has had this problem and did get it lifted for employment with the military.



This brings me to my second point, I have seen lots of people claim to work or have worked in the recruiting system.  This will probably start a fire storm and I apologies to any colleagues and friends I offend, but working as a support worker at a CFRC or as a Reserve Unit Recruiter may  qualify you to be considered a part of the recruiting system but, in my opinion, not to the point where you have something to contribute to this topic that is that is above and beyond the value that any member or non member could provide.  Stating a party line such as, "Hiring is extremely competitive and we only accept the best," is not insightful, new, limited to the CF or knowledge gained only through your expertise within the CF recruiting system.  Only those that have received the formal Recruiter, File Manger, MCC, PSO or CFRC CO courses and completed the required OJT training should, in my opinion, be stating that the work or have worked within the recruiting system when commenting on parts of the recruiting process done only at a CFRC.

As for commenting on the left and right of arcs on the granting Reliability status, only those that have actually processed/ handled to completion an ERC or sat on a Reliability Board could be speaking to the left and right of arcs, based on their personal experience, on what criminal record and credit hits they have seen and what passed and didn't pass for reliable.

The only thing I would tell an applicant is, if you have any legal obligations, you can't apply.  If you have criminal convictions in the past, your taking a chance, but isn't any applicant?

Now, talking about a general weapons ban, not specific to the OP.  If you had waited out a 10 year weapons ban, 10 years has passed.  IOT get it, you probably were convicted of a crime, and with court delays, this was likely 1-2 years prior to the ban.  Therefore, its been 12 years since you commeted.  Depending on your age when you committed the crime, that could be a big chunk of your life.  Depending on the specifics of the crime relating to the type of weapon and degree of use (1 hit with a baseball bat v/ 40 hits with a baseball bat), which you will have to disclose in order to continue processing, it could have an impact on the perceived severity of the crime.

In this thread, the OP did not disclose his age, age during the offence, specifics, or the time elapsed since the event before many comments were already made.  Those are a lot of unknowns that could have a large impact on if the person will be successful or unsuccessful.

I have personally seen 2 year, 10 year and 99 year weapons prohibitions.  What happened to each and every applicant is something I can't discuss, however, I can say that to all the people that are commenting, yet have not witnessed the outcome of those applications, It leaves me to believe your comments are not based on facts but generalizations and assumptions


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (3 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're posting all around the forum on every thread about criminal convictions with a "holier than thou" attitude that you know it all but "can't" tell us.



Other than this thread, I have posted 1 comment and 1 link on one other thread.  If that constitutes, "posting around the forum on every thread," than guilty.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're pushing all this information to people that their criminal convictions aren't a big deal when applying to the CF, so when they walk into a recruiting center they have a nonchalant attitude about it. There are consequences to people's actions, and the CF shouldn't be a dumping ground for people who can't get a job anywhere else because they have a serious criminal offense on their record.



I have not said, "convictions aren't a big deal."  I have said as long as they do not have any outstanding legal obligations they are welcome to apply.  Please do not twist my words.  Many posts I read are are commented on without knowing specifics about the crime.  I don't want to see someone not apply because someone that doesn't know what they are talking about generalizes that they should not apply.  I have indicated that they, and you, might be surprised at the results.  Let the recruiting centre be the judge, that's why they get payed the big bucks.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> "convicted of a criminal offense for which a pardon has not been granted"?



I'm new to this, so I might be mistaken, but I thought the Forum was Recruiting and the topic was Weapons prohibition.  If I wondered into a forum about criminal offenses for which a pardon has not been granted, my apologies, I'm still learning how to navigate this site.



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Wouldn't a criminal record go along with a conviction for trafficking?
> 
> Loads of places won't touch someone with a record and loads more would use it as a tool to weed out applicants. At the very least he'd have additional steps to take just to apply.



I did mess up the effectiveness of my original reply by only addressing the Weapons ban.  Yes, the original charge would constitute a legal obligation if he was still on probation.  Once done, barring any other obligations, he is able to apply.  The effect of the charge will be weighted at the Reliability Board.



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Yes it can. It'll still be on your "Contacts, Arrests, Charges and Convictions" records visible to anyone who runs your name through CPIC/Entrust/RMS etc. A weapons ban will always be issued with a conviction (there are crimes in which it is mandatory), and therefore has just as much weight as one.



Weapons bans are tacked onto a variety of serious and non-serious conviction.  Also, as I understand it, you do not need to be convicted of a crime to get a weapons ban.  This might have been the case in this OPs situation, we now know he had a trafficking charge... thus that would come up at the reliability stage of the process.



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Sure, he's done his time, but you can certainly be punished again, regardless whether you've done your time. It's called being a Repeat Offender. What I think you're trying to get at is that you cannot be handed the same charge and conviction, for the same crime.



OK, so the point your making is if he committed another crime and was caught he would be punished.  Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> Weapons bans are tacked onto a variety of serious and non-serious conviction.  Also, as I understand it, you do not need to be convicted of a crime to get a weapons ban.  This might have been the case in this OPs situation, we now know he had a trafficking charge... thus that would come up at the reliability stage of the process.
> 
> OK, so the point your making is if he committed another crime and was caught he would be punished.  Thanks for pointing that out.



 Section 109: Mandatory prohibition order
They follow convictions and discharges which are defined under Section 109.

The point I was making is that you made it sound like he could not be given a weapons prohibition again, because he had served or is serving his time on one already (same goes with the trafficking conviction). That's all.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I'm new to this, so I might be mistaken, but I thought the Forum was Recruiting and the topic was Weapons prohibition.  If I wondered into a forum about criminal offenses for which a pardon has not been granted, my apologies, I'm still learning how to navigate this site.



No one here is saying someone with a criminal offense cannot apply to the CF. What everyone is pointing out, and you're dancing around the actual big picture topic (sometimes actual debates move into bigger topics) is that someone with a criminal conviction who has to check "Yes" on any of the questions in Para 4 here: http://cdn.forces.ca/_PDF2010/CF_application_form_demande_emploi_FC.pdf is not going to be competitive against the exact same candidate (in every way) who checked "No". Once the OP has a pardon, the CF can and should treat them just like anyone else. Until then, they are a convicted criminal and thats not going to look good at a merit board.

By all means, fill out an application with having a non-pardoned trafficking conviction, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the file won't go far. This isn't the 50s where they can sentence you to military service anymore.


----------



## Old and Tired (4 Feb 2013)

OK all, I'm in my office and have my Hand book available.  As I said previously if the OP wants to get a detailed answer for his particular case he can fire me a PM and I will do my best to give him ACCURATE information from the recruiting system.

In general here's what the BROAD policy is.

*206	Convictions and Probations*

1.	It is the policy of the Canadian Forces that individuals who have an outstanding 
obligation to a judicial system of this country shall not be eligible for enrolment.  
Therefore, applicants who are incarcerated, on suspended sentence, on probation, or on  
parole are not eligible for enrolment until the sentence term or disposition has ended.   
These applicants shall have an additional period of six months free from further offences 
in order to be considered eligible for enrolment.  The CO of a CFRC/Det may waive the  
waiting period for a one time minor offence.  Applicants awaiting trial cannot be 
enrolled until the outcome of  the trial is known and any resulting sentence, disposition 
or probation, are completed.

5.	The guiding principle is that the CF will not interfere with the due process
of law. Enrolment of an individual may take place only when the applicant has no
outstanding legal commitments; any other situation will lead to the individual's
release under QR&O 15.01 Item 5e.

( BEGIN SUBTEXT (QR&O 15.01 Item 5E as fol:

5 Service Completed, (e) Irregular Enrolment.  Applies to the release of an officer or non-commissioned member by reason of an irregular enrolment other than Item 1(d). 

5 (d) Not Advantageously Employable.  
Applies to the release of an officer or non-commissioned member:
because of an inherent lack of ability or aptitude to meet military classification or trade standards; or
who is unable to adapt to military life; or
who, either wholly or chiefly because of the conditions of military life or other factors beyond his control, develops personal weaknesses or has domestic or other personal problems that seriously impair his usefulness to or impose an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces.) END SUBTEXT)




*207	Pardons*
1.	The Criminal Records Act is a means to assist people who have been found guilty 
of a criminal offence and having satisfied the sentence imposed, have subsequently shown 
that they are responsible citizens.  A pardon under this act is a formal attempt to 
remove the stigma that restricts or adversely affects an individual's peace of mind, 
social endeavour, or career.

2.	The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination with respect to employment based on
a pardoned conviction.  Further, the Criminal Records Act specifies that no application 
form or employment documentation within the federal civil service, a Crown Corporation, 
the Canadian Forces or any business within federal legislative authority shall contain 
any question requiring a pardon recipient to reveal a pardoned conviction.

3.	A pardon does not erase the fact that the individual was found guilty of an 
offence. It is evidence, however, that the conviction should no longer reflect adversely 
on the person's character and any disqualification as a result of the conviction should 
be removed.

4.	Care must be taken in questioning regarding criminal convictions, to ensure that
information regarding pardoned convictions is not elicited.  The correct wording should
refer to "convictions for which a pardon has not been granted".

The OP can apply, and processing can take place, however until all the conditions as described above are met, he is not eligible for enrolment.

Caveat of course is that I DO NOT have the details of his case, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN or RECEIVED any communication from him so this is a BROAD, GENERAL answer based on known information. Every case, and every applicant is unique and therefore things turn out differently for everyone one who applies.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> ....working as a support worker at a CFRC or as a Reserve Unit Recruiter may  qualify you to be considered a part of the recruiting system but, in my opinion, not to the point where you have something to contribute to this topic that is that is above and beyond the value that any member or non member could provide.


And where does it say that one has to be a File Manager, Military Career Counselor, or whatever standard _you_ believe, to post in the Recruiting threads?  Those not ordained as a *real recruiter*TM should just STFU?

Despite you sneering at them, would not a Medic (a "mere" support worker at a CFRC) be a suitable responder for a medical question?  How about a specific-to-Reserve recruiting question being answered by a "lowly" Reserve Unit Recruiter?

Several people -- several very, *very* patient people -- take an inordinate amount of time to shepherd the repetitive, self-entitled, often-sickly posters through their recruiting woes here.  Sure, occasionally it goes off the rails, like when some militia guy who still looks at his watch when discussing "time in" slags someone about a RegF BMQ question, but overall these people should be thanked for their efforts.

Now, I don't know if working in Recruiting is the most noteworthy thing you've ever done, and you don't want to share that glory...but the Recruiting threads are not your eminent domain.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (4 Feb 2013)

Way back when I was in the Governor General's  Horse Guards there was a Pte (R) who was in a legal mess and was under court ordered Weapon Prohibition and he came to gun camp at  Meaford for a weekend. Being the CO and RSM driver I had a lot of extra duties given to me, one of them was ammo NCO, fire piquet NCO and any other position that  the RSM saw that needed to be filled. 

One of my  jobs was to find this PTE(R)  a tasking he was able to fill without breaking the court order. Could not help count or issue bullets or cougar rounds , could not do fire piquet as they  were armed at night and around ammo. Could not help clean weapons due to court order.  Think he ended pushing a broom and cleaing the hay boxes all weekend and cleaning trucks.

Back at unit he could do not Recruit training as it involved weapons training, or parades with weapon drill.


I think he later was released as the court order was not something the unit could work around. I believe his court order came up after he was sworn in and was awaiting court action for charges pending. 
Not all the details were given to me back then as it was not my  problem or nor did I have the need to know. 

With a weapons prohibition what  do oyu  expect you could offer the Forces after all every  trade has weapon training, has to attend range training and even do parades under arms.


----------



## SentryMAn (4 Feb 2013)

Read what the OP posted:
Convicted of Trafficking during Teenage years.

I read that as he was convicted of Trafficking Illegal/Controlled substances while under the age of 20.  

when I was originally in the Recruiting process I was told(suggested) that I get a pardon for some stupidity I conducted in my teens as well.  This was 8 years after the incident and the pardon was easy and rather cheap($200) to obtain.  I would start the process to have the weapons ban lifted provided that you can in fact get it lifted.  Then work on getting a pardon for the stupidity done.

These are suggestions from my experience, I do not work in, nor have I ever worked in a Recruiting center, office, team, etc.

All in all I think the OP is facing an up hill battle to enter the CF


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (4 Feb 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And where does it say that one has to be a File Manager, Military Career Counselor, or whatever standard _you_ believe, to post in the Recruiting threads?  Those not ordained as a *real recruiter*TM should just STFU?



You are completly misqouting me.  what I stated was, in my opion, 



			
				The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> not to the point where you have something to contribute to this topic that is that is above and beyond the value that any member or non member could provide.



You have totally taken my point out of context.  I am not saying people should shut up.  This is a great resource for a variety of issues.  The trend I notice is people make a comment and back it up with a quilifier, ie, "BMQ was harder back in the day than it was now.  I did BMQ 15 years ago and than released shortly after.  I just did it last year and it was way easier than back in the day."  (NOT MY CASE FYI)  The qualifying statement is that the person did both BMQs.  A couple posts I have come across on various threads back up an opinion based comment with some sort of, "I work(ed) in recrtuing."  This makes you sound like an SME and your doing so by mis representing your background and area of expertise..  I was once at Dwyer hill, but it doesn't mean Im going to comment on being an assualter.  After all, I only drove by it on my way from Kingston to Kanata.


Take "Old and Tired."  It appears to me he is in recruting beacuse he talked about the RHB.  At no time has he stated he is in recruiting because he could get in trouble for commenting in any official capacity.  At no point as Old and tired stated anything other than facst from the RHB, and on countless occasions pointed out how they have not been given enough facts to make an opinion.  This approach also makes me think they are in the recruiting system and are not using that fact to insert their opinion on people applying to the CF that have had a weapons ban.  unless he is a CO at a CFRC, it doesn't matter cause they decide what gets through and doesn't.

I will comment on what I have seen happen to people with weapons prohibitions cause I have seen several of them.  I have processed hundreds of ERCs and have a good grasp of it, hence here I am.   I am not off in a forum about the F35 because despite how many times I have been on an Airbus, I don't know squat about it.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Despite you sneering at them, would not a Medic (a "mere" support worker at a CFRC) be a suitable responder for a medical question?  How about a specific-to-Reserve recruiting question being answered by a "lowly" Reserve Unit Recruiter?



You caught me red handed.  I listed off Recruiters, File managers, MCCs, PSO and even the CO but forgot the medics.  My bad.  Like I have been saying, stick to what you know.  Of course you should want to hear from the medics about medical related questions, but if you call them, they will not talk to you about Reliability status and an MCC wont talk to you about your heart murmer.  Stick to what you know.

Again, my point is, stick to what you know.  If you think mailing applications to your local CFRC makes you an expert on weapons prohibitions or heart murmers, well I can't stop you.  If you want to tell someone what you think and prefix it with, "In my opinion," fire away and ill even throw you some mags to fire with.  But DON'T qualify your statements with your inflated resumes.  

Try, "I have never had anything to do with criminal record info, but I have spent a bit of time in recruting and have had a couple friends have issues when applying, and based on their issues and not on my recruting backgroun, I can tell you that......" if that be the case.  

Lastly,



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Now, I don't know if working in Recruiting is the most noteworthy thing you've ever done, and you don't want to share that glory...but the Recruiting threads are not your eminent domain.



Now your just being a prick.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Feb 2013)

I didn't know you were one of the DS on Army.ca, here to police who can post in what threads. I must have missed the emblem under your name.

Until the CF pays a recruiter to come onto these forums and answer the 17,000 questions that are posted a month, the members here will do their best using their own goodwill and free time to answer them using whatever open source information available combined with their years of service. Comments are "peer-reviewed", so if someone knows someone is out to lunch, they are corrected and everyone goes about their day.

This isn't an official recruiting website. If people don't like the information they get here, they are welcome to close their browser and not come back. However, I'm willing to bet the VOLUNTEERS on this forum are saving the CF recruiting system thousands of phone calls asking the same silly questions over and over. You've got a bee in your bonnet about no one here being an official recruiter, yet you've offered absolutely no evidence (IE profile information) that you are even in the CF, let alone tied to the recruiting system to be called a SME. You've ridden in here on a high horse of righteousness claiming to know everything about weapons prohibitions and entering the CF, and I'm pretty sure everyone is getting pretty tired of your self-importance. 

If you want to man up and say you're a recruiter and start answering every single question posted here, by all means do so. Until then, how about you let people discuss things... on a discussion forum. Imagine that.


----------



## sappermcfly (4 Feb 2013)

I hate to answer this, as it will identify me to people who know me but here goes.

I have experience in this field as both a recruiter and as an applicant.

Bottom line is that a weapons prohibition is a show stopper as it is considered a legal obligation.  

I had some misadventure as a youth that resulted in both a 5 year ban and an adult record. As a result I had to wait for 5 years to apply. Rather than bucking the system, crying about it and making waves, I sucked it up for 5 long years. After 5 years, and without a pardon, I reapplied and was accepted.The issue did remain on my file until I received a pardon and there were instances, many years later, where I was counseled about the incident , usually by a RegF TP Wo.So I can tell you from personal experience that it is possible to overcome this, however my advice would be to remain patient rather than make a case out of it.If you are trying to get the prohibition overturned, don't involve the CF. 

Keep in mind that this incident occurred over 20 years ago and I went through the recruiting system in the mid 90's.

On the note of a reserve recruiter not being a real recruiter, that kind of makes me laugh, but also brings back bad memories of having to deal with some poor attitudes of certain clerks with an attitude not dissimilar to that, at the local CFRC. I worked closely with the RegF counterparts and often accompanied them on their jaunts and had a good rapport with most of them. This was before the bright idea to centralize recruiting at the brigade level was implemented. Bottom line is that I have come across just about every situation as a reserve recruiter, having dealt with over 500 individual files and personalities, all the way from people offering me bribes to two guys using fake Id's to get in, to people with medical issues that needed resolution, to foreign military guys, to a guy at a job fair wearing a hat with a swastika on it, etc. Suffice it to say, I feel confident to address any recruiting question that may arise, as I have probably already encountered the actual situation and had to kick it upstairs for clarification at least once. Saying that, it has been several years now, but I still think a lot of the issues and policies remain the same.

The bottom line is that entry standards for reserve and regular force are basically identical with several very narrow differences.


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (4 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you want to man up and say you're a recruiter and start answering every single question posted here, by all means do so. Until then, how about you let people discuss things... on a discussion forum. Imagine that.



Well most people can read between the lines,


			
				The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> I will comment on what I have seen happen to people with weapons prohibitions cause I have seen several of them.  I have processed hundreds of ERCs and have a good grasp of it, hence here I am.



Anyone employed by Canadian Forces Recruiting Group is aware you can not identify your self as an employee on here and continue to post.  From that point on everything you say can be taken as policy.  Therefore, many post on here and leave little carrots for people to pick up on what there expertise might be.  When someone reply's with exactly how many spots are open for DEO Arty or something, its not cause they are a Veh Tech in Pet that they know this.

In my opinion, only two people can be helpful to this lad.  People who have applied with a weapons ban and people who have processed people with a weapons ban (that has been served)



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Agreed. It has to be a serious offense to have a 10-year weapons prohibition. Just because you want to join the CF, isn't an easy way out of your legal commitments.



Please go forth and continue to tell people they wont get hired because based on your best guess they wont.  Go a head and assume, "it has to be a serious offense to have a 10-year weapons ban," without knowing squat about the individuals situation.  Please continue to discourage people that mistake your opinions for facts and forget about a career with the forces despite what could have been small indiscretion as a youth and it could be waived.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Feb 2013)

The_Green_Basterd said:
			
		

> Well most people can read between the lines



What army are YOU in?


----------



## cupper (4 Feb 2013)

It's interesting to note that the OP hasn't said diddley since he thanked everyone who responded for a quick response, yet we seem to have continued on.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Feb 2013)

Anyhoo..... I think the original question has been answered, at least to the OP's satisfaction.

Since this had degraded into internet pokey chest I am locking it up. If anyone has anything constructive to add, please PM a Moderator.

A reminder to those interested in joining the CF that this is an internet message board, many responses will be unvetted and certainly are posted by anonymous posters. Your best course of action in these matters is *always* your nearest Recruiter who can and will answer your specific question with the most up-to-date information.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Feb 2013)

Hello all. Here is some follow-up info which we have been provided with that we feel is worthy of sharing and which reflects a more appropriate response to the original post.

_Every Canadian Citizen has the "right" to make application to the CF, regardless of their personal circumstances.  With regards to the original post, the application process in this case would in all probability be concluded at the Reliability Screening stage, as the weapons prohibition would come back as a "hit".  The processing manual in cases such as this specifically state....

 "On occasion applicants to the CF are in the process of completing an obligation to the judicial system, such as probation, arrest warrant, firearms or driving prohibitions.   As the CF cannot interfere with the judicial system, an applicant who is under a judicial process is ineligible for enrolment in the CF until the judicial obligation has expired or has been lifted. "

Furthermore, when a case arises where an "adverse" event is identified during the Reliability Screening process which may lead to the "denial" of a Reliability Clearance an internal board usually comprising of three Officers must review all relevant information before rendering a decision.

With regards to "criminal convictions" and the possibility of enrolment into the CF.....

"The existence of a criminal record can be, but need not be sufficient grounds to deny a Reliability Status. A criminal record should be considered in light of such matters as the duties and tasks to be performed, the nature and frequency of the offence, and the passage of time. The authorizing manager will need to determine:
a. The person's attitude towards the unpardoned offence(s) and the extent to which he or she has changed behaviour in this regard;  and
b. The likely recurrence of similar offenses and their potential effect upon job reliability."

Hence, it is a judgement call and a call NOT made by any one individual!  The OP can apply but should be given fair warning that the chances of success are slim to none._


----------

