January 21, 2019

Updated September 11, 2021

DISCLAIMER: The author of this article is not an attorney nor is Security Training Center^® (STC) a law firm. Neither the author nor STC can offer legal advice. It is strongly recommended those wishing to appeal a BSIS judgement speak with an attorney with experience in Administrative Law.

BSIS Fails Firearms Permit Assessment

By Alex Haddox, M.Ed.

On July 1, 2018, the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) required all new exposed firearms permit applicants to pass a psychological assessment. Originally scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2018, the implementation was delayed by logistics and process problems. It finally went into full effect on August 14, 2018.

The idea behind the assessment stems from good intentions. The assessment "...evaluates whether an applicant for a firearms permit who is a registered security guard, at the time of the assessment, possesses appropriate judgment, restraint, and self-control for the purposes of carrying and using a firearm during the course of his or her security guard duties."¹ The private company contracted to administer the psychological assessment is PSI Services LLC (PSI) and the exam is called the "Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16pf)." The exams are administered in-person. Therefore, the guard must travel to one of the 23 testing centers around the state for the test.

Although well-meaning, the implementation and strategy is potentially a disaster. The law was originally intended to put EVERY exposed firearms permit applicant through the 16pf process which immediately proved impossible. Currently, applicants are selected at random for testing (which also calls legal compliance into question). After completing the training, passing the written exam, passing the live fire examination, passing the DOJ and FBI background checks, paying all the fees, and submitting the paperwork, the guard may yet have to undergo another exam, incur additional fees, and additional delays before the permit is issued. Below is a chart of just the average costs paid to earn the guard exposed firearms permit.

All fees are non-refundable. If at any time the guard's application is rejected, the guard is out of the time and money spent in pursuit of the license.

Beyond the money spent is the cost in time. At the time this article first published, the time to process a new exposed firearms permit by the BSIS is 59 days (8.5 weeks) starting from the day the payment is processed. The application form itself says to allow for at least 60-days to process the form and not to call the BSIS to request a status update until at least 60-days have passed.

After the payment has been processed and the background check cleared, instead of the exposed firearms permit, the guard MAY receive a "Notice of Eligibility for Assessment" notifying the applicant of the 16pf exam requirement. The letter may take as long as 10 days to arrive.

Once the notice is sent, the applicant must make an appointment and complete the 16pf within a timeframe specified in the Notice. If the applicant does not complete the assessment within the testing window, the entire exposed firearms permit application is rejected. The exam is computer-based but must be taken in-person at a PSI Services LLC testing center. There are 23 centers across the State. The guard must spend more time and money scheduling the exam and traveling to the site.

After completion, the applicant is not provided with the results of the examination. The BSIS is only provided with two responses: "Demonstrate" or "Did Not Demonstrate."

Finally, the BSIS will mail another notice to the applicant approximately 10 days after the 16pf assessment is completed with the exposed firearms permit (passed) or a letter of denial with an appeal process (failed).

Failures and Responses

If the candidate receives a "Did Not Demonstrate" notice, the individual is given 30 days to file an appeal. Letters from readers of this article state that the appeal process can take more than a year to complete. Readers also report that no appeal has succeeeded without legal representation. All those who attempt the process on their own have failed.

Alternatively, the candidate can wait 12-months and repeat the entire process (courses, fees, and retake the 16pf examination).

Therefore, the candidate can spend thousands of dollars on legal representation, endure stress, hearings, and testimony, or simply wait the 12-months it will probably take anyway and spend merely hundreds of dollars to retake the exam in hope the next 16pf assessment results in a "Demonstrate."

At the end of this article are stories shared by candidates who have "failed" the 16pf and attempted the appeals process.

Below is the estimated time to complete the application process:

The entire application process costs nearly $500 and may take over 3 months to complete. This does not consider the permit maintenance costs. The guard must requalify on the range and complete a 2-hours refresher course twice a year ($75 per qualification). The motivation for a guard to "upgrade" a license to include exposed firearms permit is financial. An armed guard normally earns $10,000 or more a year than an unarmed guard.

Applicants are exposed to huge potential legal and civil rights issues by failing the 16pf examination. The first stage is not being eligible for career advancement. Armed guards are more upwardly mobile as it shows the ability to handle more responsibility. Going the other direction, if the individual is deemed unworthy to carry a firearm on duty, is that person still employable as an unarmed guard?

Beyond employment issues, how might a failure result affect the guard in other ways? First, will the guard lose the constitutional right to own a firearm? If the guard is insufficient to carry a firearm on duty, is that same guard "safe" to own and keep a firearm at home? Similarly, what about concealed carry permits? Do we want someone "like that" carrying a weapon on our streets? or given hunting licenses? Is the individual "safe" to carry a loaded firearm and hunt wild game? Even more extreme, what about a self-defense case involving firearms? If the individual has already been deemed incapable of making life and death decisions while carrying a firearm on duty, how will the individual be able to defend the actions in court in a justifiable use of force case?

What if the applicant already owns firearms, has concealed carry permit, and a hunting license? Should these privileges be stripped from the individual? The new requirement also has the possibility of affecting defense contractors. Security guards who work for defense contractors are often required to hold and maintain a security clearance. Being judged not competent by the 16pf assessment could threaten that security clearance. A guard could be denied clearance, or even have current clearance revoked, because of a "Did Not Demonstrate" score.

The intent of the examination may be far from these concerns. However, it only takes a single prosecutor or attorney to challenge the purpose of the exam, subpoena the test results, and use the results against the individual years or even decades later.

The State has placed an extreme burden upon the applicant, beyond the time and cost. As evidenced by implementation delays and reworking of the plan when it was obviously untenable, this plan fails to account for many factors and the long-term ramifications of the examination have not been fully considered.

As previously stated, the idea and intent behind the new policy are good ones. However, the regulation must be reexamined with an eye to the rights of the individual as well as the good of the public. BPC Section 7583.47 must be suspended until these long-term consequences and personal liberty concerns are adequately addressed. If the concerns are impossible to reconcile, then the regulation must be rescinded. As BPC Section 7583.47 currently stands, it does more harm than good.

Reader Stories

All stories are shared with permission.

Submitted by Rhea T.

I really appreciate you taking the time to talk about requirements of BSIS, the assessment (Firearms ps16 Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16pf). I wanted you and others to know what I experienced from the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16pf) and the testing center PSI, in Riverside and BSIS.

First, When I sent in my firearms permit paper work on 12/31/2019, BISIS said they did not receive the packet until January 17,2020. Which is normal for BSIS. I called February 5th 2020 to check on scheduling the assessment. I was told they were processing November 2019 and to call back. I called back several times in February and March, and was told the same thing, to call back.

I called 916-575-7016, with the intention of reaching someone at BSIS (BSIS #916-575-7015). Too my surprise, a male voice answered and said he was a supervisor within BSIS Investigation division. He told me, he was not part of the approval or review process but would take a look at the application. He said my application had serval red marks, as if it was not completed properly and was not sure why BSIS did not contact me to clarify the application. The investigator said I needed to call BSIS and inquire of the discrepancies on the application. I tried calling several times and had no response.

In April, still no response/mail/ or email from BSIS. I called and was told again to call back they were not processing January 2020. Finally I spoke with one of the BSIS agents, who said I needed to email the supervisor at email SIS2@DCA.ca.gov or facilitiesandinstructors.DCA@dca.ca.gov.

Both emails responded with the same information. I was sent a letter explaining the processing during Covid and how to contact BSIS. I tried calling the BSIS investigator, no one answered and the voicemail no longer had the same voice. I called BSIS number 951-322-4000 and the representative who answered, was rude and nasty and did not provide any updates of my application. The represented explained procedures for the agents during Covid and said all agents were working from home.

I did some research and found links to the testing site PSI, on www.bsis.ca.gov/firearms . On April 21st, 2020 I called PSI, to schedule the 16pf assessment. PSI said the only appointment available was April 23,2020 or the next appointment would be months out, due to Covid. I was told I would be able to schedule the appointment but, needed the approval letter from BSIS to show proof of eligibility to take the assessment. They scheduled me for April 23,20 and accepted the $60.00 payment for the appointment. I was informed I needed to bring in the eligibility letter to take the assessment.

In the meantime, I continued to call and e-mail BSIS to obtain the eligibility letter. I called all day on April 21, and did not receive a reply.

On April 22,2020 at 0656 hours I received an email with the eligibly letter to take the assessment, which was signed PSI ADMIN. At 0723 hours, I received an email from BSIS containing a brochure how to schedule the assessment.

Just a side note, on www.bsis.ca.gov/firearms - site under the Firearms assessment requirement, #2 it states:
bureau anticipates issuing assessment notices around 6 to 8 weeks from the date the application or request for association is submitted. The bureau will mail you a Notice of Eligibility for Assessment that includes information on how to contact PSI and how to schedule an assessment-administration appointment. This is funny, I received the eligibility in 1 day and was it was signed: PSI ADMIN.

On April 23,2020 I arrived at the PSI Exam center in Riverside Ca. The PSI proctor was sitting at a desk with a wall that had large glass windows, looking into the testing area. She escorted me into the testing area near the window, next to the door. I was the only one in the room. Oh, by the way, I was not asked for the edibility letter.

The assessment, Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16pf) test has two parts;

First part has questions related to your feelings/emotional state. The answers are multiple choice. The test tells you not to pick undecided unless absolutely necessary. Example: Do you talk about your feelings to others? 1-always 2-undecied 3-never. Second part is logical reasoning, Example: A to B is c, so what is Z to Y? Available answers- 1.Q 2. s 3.W.

During the test I finished the "feelings" questions and continued to the logical reasoning. As I continued the assessment, the lights went out. I stood up to look for the PSI proctor and I was not able to locate her. I sat back down, before my time ran out, to finish the assessment. The lights turned back on after several minutes.

The assessment is to identify what personality you are. Keep in mind none of the questions are related to emergency situations or safety carrying a weapon. The test is to determine your personality/ state of mind.

Well, now after taking the assessment, I play the waiting game again. BSIS website says they have 30 days to receive the assessment. After I took the assessment the PSI proctor told me the assessment would be sent within a day.

I called and emailed BSIS after the 30 days, to inquire of results of assessment:

On June 4th 2020, I received an email from SIS2@DCA.ca.gov stating:
"Good Afternoon,
Your application has been forwarded to our Disciplinary Review Unit. You will receive a letter in the mail from them regarding your Firearm Assessment results.
Thank you,
BSIS"

I had no other communication from BSIS or Disciplinary Review Unit. On August 6,2020, I was finally contacted by Deputy Attorney General Michael Mr. Karimi. Mr. Karimi informed me, I failed the assessment per Business code 7583.47. Mr. Karimi said, if I choose a hearing, the date would be several months out and most likely the judge would deny my permit anyways. Mr. Karimi said after the court hearing the judge sends the decision to BSIS. BSIS receives the judge decision and enters the decision into BSIS system, then the case will be closed. After the case is closed, you are required to wait a year before taking the assessment again. Mr. Karimi said this could take up to 1½ years or more, depending on processing time and hearing date.

I told Mr. Karimi I would like to schedule a hearing, anyways.

Mr. Karimi continued to remind me he represents BSIS and the judge will not look at my situation individually or take my background or training into account. Mr. Karimi said, If the matter goes to hearing, I would have to show proof BSIS broke the law. Then he continued to say BSIS must deny an applicant who doesn't pass the assessment. I told him again, I would like to schedule a hearing. Mr. Karimi said he would check the calendar and get back with me.

While waiting for a hearing date I research 7583.47 and the assessment. 7583.47 under (D) line: ((ii) The assessment will be administered in accordance with the assessment manufacturer's requirements.

I asked Mr. Karimi what the manufactures requirement were and he said he was not sure what I was taking about. I researched PSI, and the requirements for the assessment.

The information I found was on www.psionline.com. The testing information for the assessments has 6 different assessments under 16pf.

On the Competency report, it states:
The test may be less useful if an individual undergoes major changes in their work or life circumstances.

Also in the overview section, it states:
References to situational factors are used in the narrative of this report to remind the professional that interpretations of scores in the midrange are especially likely to benefit from additional information gathered during the course of the feedback session (follow up interview).

I attached the reports for you to examine. It is very interesting how each test is to be administered and the qualifications of the individual issuing the test. None of the producers were followed by BSIS or PSI.

A telephonic date was set for November 17,2020. I called the courts and we proceeded with the hearing. I submitted three of the test profiles to the court as exhibits. I also submitted a letter from a co-worker who received a denial letter, he explained what he experienced. The judge threw out the letter from my co-worker and two of the PSI test profile. I explained to the judge, the test profiles explain how the test is to used and requirements issuing the test. I told the Judge BSIS did not follow the requirements. I pointed out the test profile recommends a follow interview if the test was failed. The judge said she was going to eliminate the third test profile because it did not have relevance to the hearing.

In my closing argument, I asked the judge why BSIS did not follow the guidelines of the PSI testing? I explained where to find the information for test profile procedures and asked to have my permit reinstated or approval to retake the assessment with the correct manufacture requirements. Also I asked the judge to have BSIS follow the manufacture requirements (7583.47) regarding the assessment for any person who would take the assessment in the future.

The judge said she has 30 days to send BSIS her decision and then BSIS has 120 days to deliver the final decision of reissuing my permit or authorize retake of assessment or uphold the denial.

I was disappointed that the judge said BSIS has the finally decision. I told the judge I thought the court date was for her to make the final decision of issuance of my permit. The judge said the hearing is set so I would have an opportunity to provided information to courts. I felt like I just wasted 10 months.

Submitted by Lucas N.

Link to sample BSIS denial letters. (PDF)

About the author:

Mr. Haddox has more than a decade of firearms instruction experience. He is a licensed firearms instructor in multiple states and the NRA, holds a Black Belt in American Kenpo, and a Masters degree in Adult Education and Training. He is a BSIS-licensed armed guard, firearms instructor, and baton instructor.

¹ California Business and Professions Code, Division 3. Professions and Vocations Generally, Chapter 11.5 Private Security Services, Article 4, Private Patrol Operators, Section 7583.47.

Information provided on this site is for educational purposes. It is not legal advice.