While the President and many in Congress are demanding federal legislation that will require background checks prior to purchasing a weapon, another piece of our government is insisting that background checks could be unlawful.
Most, if not all companies perform criminal background checks before they hire. They do so because there has developed a body of law called “neglegent hiring”. It goes something like this…if an employer hires someone he knew or should have known was a danger, and that employee does something dangerous while on the job causing damage, then the employer can be held liable for the dangerous acts of the employee.
Follow the bouncing ball, here.
Though blacks make up only 13% of the U.S. population, more blacks were arrested nationwide for robbery, murder and manslaughter in 2009 than whites, according to the FBI. The imprisonment rate for black men “was nearly 7 times higher than White men and almost 3 times higher than Hispanic men,” notes the EEOC. These statistical disparities inspired the EEOC to rewrite the corporate hiring handbook…
In light of these statistics,
[l]ast April, the [EEOC] unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions,” declaring that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”
What is the impact of this rule, you ask?
If a background check discloses a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a company to do an intricate “individualized assessment” that will somehow prove that it has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-offender (or that his offense disqualifies him for a specific job). Former EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, in testimony in December to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, warned that employers could be considered guilty of “race discrimination if they choose law abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions” unless they conduct a comprehensive analysis of the ex-offender’s recent life history.
As my brother would say, you can’t make this stuff up.
This sounds like more liberal intentions gone awry. Is this how we would up with Obama? He definitely skated on the background check. So someone with a criminal record is must get a job — are they even qualified? — just because they applied for it and?they happen to be black? Sounds messed up to me.
About background checks: Most gun people agree that some government is needed for firearms purchases. What they and I don’t want is to be “registered.” I can think of no reason why the government should keep track of who has what. The government needs only to verify that you are a legitimate, law-abiding citizen and are not crazy and/or a felon.
Any list can be abused. Ask anyone who has been falsely put on the “no fly list.”
I do not agree with “Universal Background Checks.” There is nothing universal about them. The paperwork generated from a firearms transaction is supposed to be destroyed within 24-hours. Ha! Paper forms submitted by dealers are scanned. Computer records are forever, same as the info supplied by the NICS check.?
The lie the Democrats are trying to get put into law is just that, a Democrat lie. And, if criminals are exempt, then the only information being gathered and analyzed is of law-abiding citizens who legitimately purchase a firearm? Nothing good can come of giving the statist liberals more authority!
The liberals have made a mess of this issue. In trying to get more restrictive laws written, all they have accomplished is exempt criminals.
How many? background checks were done by Obama before hiring his minions? How many fingers will it take to count the ones that can pass a? background check? A simple question I should think.
The question should be how many background checks were done on Barry before hiring ?
Like Gulliver, we are bound by Lilliputian regulators, each vying with puny tethers to be more restrictive and controlling than the others, all in the name of some imagined public good.? God help us.?
Has Jefferson’s timetable for revolution finally come?
Under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibited persons cannot be forced to comply with background checks. ?Haynes v. United States, 1968. ?Mr Haynes, a felon, was arrested in possession of a short?barreled?shotgun. ?Since he did not comply with NFA 34, he was charged with violations of that law. ?Tossed by SCOTUS, 7-1. ?Registration requires compliance with background checks.
Well at least there isn’t some kind of onerous cost levied on the business!? Do they realy wonder why the labor market is what it is?? Really?
Hmmm.?? Affirmative action for felons (AAFF).? Didn’t see this coming….. (/sarcasm)
Couldn’t this be looked at as profiling for felons, i.e. if we can’t use race to arrest people (via descriptions), why can we use race to excuse them from the natural consequences of their crimes?? Will their be a move to allow them to own guns after committing felonies?
Does this crap ever end?? What ever happened to “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”?
I think the reelection of ?bama was a prime example of “negligent hiring”……? 😉
Yes, he is the worst president ever.
Our long National Nightmare continues . . .
Mr. Obama says Chicago’s gun laws are a model for the country. What’s he smoking? Some of that stuff? he was doing in Hawaii at the most expensive private school in the islands. Who paid those tuition fees? ??