Obama has called for the abolition of employment background checks.
“Gun Control” advocates cite the need for the background check. For example, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says that, “‘Universal background checks’ on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns.” They offer absolutely no substantiation of these claims. The Brady campaign wants to “Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states.” Key phrase here: “other relevant records”. Just what, specifically, does that mean and/or include? Can anyone say, “Opening the door?” The “Brady Bunch” also says that “… 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.” Again, they, of course, offer no source for these percentages.
Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama announced on January 23, 2013, that he would, through Executive Order (EO), take 23 actions regarding “Gun Control.” Among them are:
“… require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”
“Address unnecessary legal barriers … that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”
“Improve incentives for states to share information with the background-check system.”
“Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”
But (and there’s always a “but” with Obama), Obama has called for the abolition of background checks, maintaining that they are unconstitutional. Regarding background checks, I guess that because it was issued in 2006, the Justice Department’s report, “THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT ON CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS,” is not applicable since it was issued during the Bush administration, predates Obama’s reign, and any background check is, therefore, not unconstitutional. In the executive summary, the report states: “There is widespread interest in obtaining access to criminal history record information from reliable sources for the purpose of screening an individual’s suitability for employment, licensing, or placement in positions of trust. … The interest is based on a desire or perceived need to evaluate the risk of hiring or placing someone with a criminal record in particular positions and is intended to protect employees, customers, vulnerable persons, and business assets.” What is most important is that the “Justice Department” report also had this to say: “Employers and organizations are subject to potential liability under negligent hiring doctrines if they fail to exercise due diligence in determining whether an applicant has a criminal history that is relevant to the responsibilities of a job and determining whether placement of the individual in the position would create an unreasonable risk to other employees or the public.”
But, according to Obama and his “Justice Department,” background checks on potential employees assumes a criminal past of these potential employees and should not be allowed since they are unconstitutional.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Carolina Freight Carrier Corp. of Hollywood, FL, for refusing to hire as a truck driver a Hispanic man who had multiple arrests and had served 18 months in prison for larceny. The EEOC argued that the only legitimate qualification for the job was the ability to operate a tractor trailer. The EEOC’s position that minorities should be held to lower standards is an insult to millions of honest Hispanics. I guess the EEOC didn’t have access to a dictionary, didn’t know the meaning of the word larceny, didn’t consider the man to be a larceny repeat risk. Nor did it consider a larceny conviction to have any bearing on a hiring decision. The EEOC somehow found that the trucking company had no right to deny employment to the criminal saying it [the background check] violated his “civil rights.” Yet, Obama issued several EOs that call for or mandate background checks. I guess that means that we gun owners/sellers/potential buyers have no civil rights.
According to Obama, background checks on potential employees assumes a criminal past of these potential employees and should not be allowed. Are we gun owners/sellers/potential buyers also assumed, because of Obama’s call for a background check, to have a criminal past? If so, I personally find this assumption to be highly insulting! Further, should the Obama background check be limited, as the EEOC suggests, only to the operation of a gun?
As Warner Todd Houston wrote, “If background checks violate a person’s civil liberties in order to gain employment, then background checks also violate a person’s civil liberties in order to enjoy their Constitutional rights. After all, the right to a job is not in the Constitution, but the right to a firearm is.” [Houston’s emphasis]
So, which is it, Obama? Do background checks violate civil rights or not? This is clearly a case of Obama trying to “have it both ways.” This is yet another example of Obama’s and Democrats’ hypocrisy of pursuing what best suits their agenda, while ignoring the same thing that doesn’t further their agenda. And what’s worse is that the MSM is right there with them.
But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my very conservative personal web site.