Background checks off limits to employers?

[DaveTN]

There is a difference between someone who writes multiple checks with the intent of defrauding the recipients compared to someone who is simply sloppy at keeping up with their balances. However, intentional or unintentional isn't the point; as I suspect you know given that you and I have had this discussion before.

There is a difference between a rapist or a murderer or and armed robber who should likely be in jail until he dies vs someone who wrote some bad checks or had a couple of ounces of weed and has completed his sentence. The rapist should never be allowed to be in society again making his "right" to own arms moot.  The person who's crime was nonviolent at all and who has completed a reasonable sentence should, in my opinion, have all his rights restored.

We aren’t talking about rights being restored. We are talking about laws being passed to restrict employers being able to do criminal background checks. Many employers are concerned about the safety of their employees and the security of their business. People with histories of alcohol and drug abuse, and domestic violence may let those problems interfere with their jobs. People with histories of theft may steal the business blind. If they had problems and are reformed they can explain that to potential employers and let them make the decision if they want to take the risk. At least they need to be able to make an informed decision.

 

This is just another case of a thug government wanting to force something on a private business that they would never allow for themselves. And by thug government I’m speaking specifically of the city government that wants to do this.

[deerslayer]

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

The only truly logical reason to deny convicted felons the right to bear arms is if by doing so they would be a danger to society but felons who are a danger to society/other people should not be out of prison and allowed to be part of society in the first place The fact that they are out of prison is a failure of the system.

 

Other "felons" who's crimes had nothing to do with violence/physical harm/firearms, etc and who truly are no longer a danger to society should have their rights restored to the same level as all other citizens.  We tend to think of felonies as only serious, violent crimes (rape, murder, etc) but I think we should take into consideration that many otherwise relatively minor offenses can "become" felonies...pass a few bad checks, even if it was unintentional and you may well be convicted of a felony...should that person forever lose his right to arms (or to vote, etc.) forever, even after long since completing his/her sentence?

 

I'm not suggesting that all crimes should be ignored but I think there is room in our current system to make some changes.

 

We can talk about what should be or what should happen, but the fact is that most violent felons will get out sooner or later and many will return to their old habits.  "Other" felons are felons because their crimes were so damaging or they were so negligent that they shouldn't be trusted with a firearm.  As for them losing their rights after completing their sentence, most of them never complete their sentence. 

[RobertNashville]

We can talk about what should be or what should happen, but the fact is that most violent felons will get out sooner or later and many will return to their old habits.

Irrelevant...I'm not suggesting that the laws be changed to allow violent felons should be able to legally own firearms; only that it should actually be a moot point in that such felons shouldn't be out on the street in the first place.

 

"Other" felons are felons because their crimes were so damaging or they were so negligent that they shouldn't be trusted with a firearm.  As for them losing their rights after completing their sentence, most of them never complete their sentence.

That's an assertion not supported by the facts and it's an assertion I don't accept.

 

Someone being caught with one oz of weed (instead of three-quarters of an oz) doesn't suddenly make their "crime" so damaging that they shouldn't be trusted with a firearm (frankly, there are quite a few folks that were it up to me I wouldn't trust them with a firearm but they have as much right to arms as I do). Likewise, I don't think that someone who once wrote a few bad checks or embezzled a few hundred dollars or committed any of the other myriad crimes that used to be misdemeanors but now can easily constitute felonies or crimes they committed in their youth but have lived a solid life for years after that should be denied arms.

 

Perhaps most pertinent, I very seriously doubt that our founders would ever have envisioned removing basic natural rights from someone forever for what are relatively minor criminal violations. Or to put it another way...if a convicted criminal should lose his right to arms forever, why should he ever again be able to enjoy any rights? Why should he be allowed have freedom of speech or freedom of religion or allow him to own property or to enjoy any of the other natural rights we obstinately believe a person has and that the Constitution protects?

 

I suppose what I'm saying is that the right to arms is so basic to being a free man I see no logic in saying a man can have other natural rights but not that one. 

 

As to "most of them never complete their sentence" I'm not sure what you mean...unless they escape from prison and/or break parole then they do complete their sentence - to whatever extent the court decides is appropriate.  I'm not suggesting that we make wholesale changes to the law regarding felons and weapons but there is a hell of lot of room for improvement.

 

I now return the thread to its original subject - carry on.

Edited August 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

We aren’t talking about rights being restored. We are talking about laws being passed to restrict employers being able to do criminal background checks.

I understand the purpose of the thread; I was responding to a specific statement in a specific post.

[deerslayer]

Someone caught with an ounce of weed for the first or even the second time won't be charged with a felony in TN.  Also, I bet a little research would reveal that the founders probably executed criminals for what are now lesser felonies or even misdemeanors. 

 

Most never serve their sentence means what it says--most parole out before the sentence a judge gave them is complete.

 

Rights being restored to felons is relevant in this thread.  Some would consider the ability to conceal one's past and "start fresh" just as much a freedom as owning a gun or voting. 

[TMF]

  Some would consider the ability to conceal one's past and "start fresh" just as much a freedom as owning a gun or voting. 

 

We don't have rights at the expense of others.  That is what this is about.  As an employer I should be able to ask you anything that I think is relevant to hiring you.  Criminal background is relevant for any business dealing in money, which by definition is nearly every business out there. 

 

I should be able to ask "may I do a criminal background check on you."  If the applicant says "no" then I should not have to hire him.  It's that simple.  Just like "do you use illegal drugs?"  If the applicant says "I don't want to answer the question", then I should have the right to show him the door.  It is MY business.  Not the convicted felon; not the city government's.  It's mine, mine mine mine mine that I have used MY money to start and MY money and hard work to make successful.  Why should I be told what I can and can't ask when hiring a potential employee?  Denying a job to someone doesn't infringe on anyone's rights any more than telling someone they can't come on my private property.  Telling an employer that he can't even inquire into a potential employee's past when it is relevant to the business is infringing on the employer's rights 100%.

[leroy]

TMF makes a real good point in the post above.  At it's core; the relationship between employer and employee is a contractual issue and has been looked at as such for a long time by the courts.  That's why i posted the stuff a bit earlier in the thread.  You simply cannot tell a business owner how to run his business when it comes to hiring.  The gubmt can require certain types of outcomes and reward some activities like; .... the minimum wage to pay, the percentages of minorities, etc. etc..... ; but I dont think they can tell ya you have to hire mother-stabbers and father-rapers.  

 

Havin said that; they probably can (...if they are ignorant enough....) give "extra points" on competitive bid evaluation(s) for those kinds of initiatives and programs that would "...hire a mother-raper or father-stabber..." as a community outreach...  That sounds stupid enough to be true in some locales; but i think that would be very self-destructive to the entity letting the contract --- no bidders...  Maybe this breathtakingly ignorant concept would work in kalefornia or san antonio, tx....??!  Who knows.....

 

leroy

[TMF]

Havin said that; they probably can (...if they are ignorant enough....) give "extra points" on competitive bid evaluation(s) for those kinds of initiatives and programs that would "...hire a mother-raper or father-stabber..." as a community outreach... That sounds stupid enough to be true in some locales; but i think that would be very self-destructive to the entity letting the contract --- no bidders... Maybe this breathtakingly ignorant concept would work in kalefornia or san antonio, tx....??! Who knows.....

leroy

The outrage will come when a city contract employee assaults or rapes someone on the clock, and it comes out later who they were. A that point the elected officials should be hung out to dry.

[Guest Cazador]

Ever see a law suit with only one person/ company / organization named? Lawyers name anyone that is remotely connected.

I agree the Govt should have no say in who I hire or how I hire them. If you don't like the way I hire then don't fill out an application. I will give a little on the min wage but not on minorities. I say the best man for the job no matter what color their skin.

Back to OP. If they say I have to open my hiring practices up to place my company at risk of loss or don't do business with them, fine by me. I wont do it. My right my choice. If the rest of the companies would do the same they would back down or pay ridiculous contract fees. They can stand in line with Detroit looking for a bail out. The people who elect these idiots should be outraged. It will be their property taxes taking the climb up Mt. Everest.

[Guest dieselshadow]

Havin said that; they probably can (...if they are ignorant enough....) give "extra points" on competitive bid evaluation(s) for those kinds of initiatives and programs that would "...hire a mother-raper or father-stabber..." as a community outreach... That sounds stupid enough to be true in some locales; but i think that would be very self-destructive to the entity letting the contract --- no bidders... Maybe this breathtakingly ignorant concept would work in kalefornia or san antonio, tx....??! Who knows.....



leroy

The outrage will come when a city contract employee assaults or rapes someone on the clock, and it comes out later who they were. A that point the elected officials should be hung out to dry.

That'll never happen... A politician held responsible for his actions? Yeah right....

[RobertNashville]

Someone caught with an ounce of weed for the first or even the second time won't be charged with a felony in TN. 

Well, I'm not and wasn't talking about "Tennessee"; every state is different with regards to weed; it was just an example.  As far as Tennessee goes, I think you are incorrect; at least to some extent...
 

Marijuana Possession and Casual Exchange
It is a crime to possess marijuana in Tennessee. It is also illegal to causally exchange (that is, with no payment) up to and including one half of an ounce of marijuana. Penalties vary according to the conviction, and increased penalties apply to offenses involving a minor. In addition to the penalties described below, a judge may order the defendant to participate (at defendant’s expense) in a drug offender school, perform community service hours, or both. (Tennessee Code Ann. § 39-27-418.)

• Possession or casual exchange (first and second convictions). Possessing any amount of marijuana, or exchanging up to and including one half of ounce of marijuana (without payment), is a misdemeanor. Penalties include a fine of up to $2,500, up to one year in jail, or both.
• Third and subsequent convictions. When the defendant has two or more prior possession or casual exchange convictions, the offense is treated as a felony. Penalties include a fine of up to $5,000, between one and six years in prison, or both.

   

Maybe I'm wrong but this all seems to hing on "1/2 oz" which tells me that more than 1/2 oz. is a felony.

 

 

Also, I bet a little research would reveal that the founders probably executed criminals for what are now lesser felonies or even misdemeanors.

I'd bet a little research would reveal that half of what are called "crimes" today, including many, many felonies were not ever considered crimes at all in the 16th and 17th centuries. We've had prisons in this country both before the revolution and after; while they may have executed more often in the late 1700's and 1800's I don't accept that such punishment was nearly as frequent or liberally applied as you seem to be indicating.  More to the point, there was NO restriction on the right to bear arms for these criminals once they had taken their punishment; that concept is a fairly recent one.

 

 

...Most never serve their sentence means what it says--most parole out before the sentence a judge gave them is complete.

If the are given parole and complete it successfully that IS completing their sentence. I'm fine with no on getting parole but aren't you the one above who said that was unreasonable?

 

I'm fine with NEVER letting out of jail anyone who has committed a serious, violent crime and the only thing that keeps our society from doing that is a lack of will to do so.

 

Are you in favor of background checks for firearm purchases or do you think they should be eliminated?

Edited August 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[deerslayer]

I'm no legal scholar, but it appears to me after reading your quote that the third conviction is when possession becomes a felony.

 

A quick google search revealed that some of silliest offenses were considered crimes by the founders.  Check out these links:

 

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring03/branks.cfm

 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=englishfacpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcolonial%2520capital%2520punishment%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26ved%3D0CFAQFjAG%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1061%2526context%253Denglishfacpubs%26ei%3D6mQAUrLeF4aA9gSv1oHABg%26usg%3DAFQjCNGAZOev6U2DPJM0dK6ngw84SS-KNQ#search=%22colonial%20capital%20punishment%22

 

I don't think hog theft, homosexuality, or bestiality is a capital offense nowadays. 

 

I never said parole was unreasonable, but I don't consider it fulfilling one's sentence when it is used merely to ease prison crowding. 

 

I don't see what background checks for firearms purchases have to do with this thread, but I have no problem with things the way they currently stand. 

[RobertNashville]

I'm no legal scholar, but it appears to me after reading your quote that the third conviction is when possession becomes a felony.

Which changes what? Having a half oz of weed on your person is still just a half oz of weed and it's pretty obvious that you don't have it because you are a major supplier whether you are found with it three times, one time or ten times. I know a man from Cincinnati who, over a period of three or four years, wrote three bad checks for a total value of less than $20 but because of the "three strike laws" was convicted of a major felony and sent to prison for over 20 years...is that person really such a danger to society that he should never again be able to own arms?

 

A quick google search revealed that some of silliest offenses were considered crimes by the founders.

I don't think hog theft, homosexuality, or bestiality is a capital offense nowadays.

There are all sorts of laws on the books even today that would be ridiculous were they actually enforced; it still doesn't prove your original assertion...our founders started building prisons almost immediately after the revolution (to complement the British ones that already existed)...they didn't need prisons if they were going to just execute everyone and when those former prisoners left prison they weren't denied their basic rights.

 

I never said parole was unreasonable, but I don't consider it fulfilling one's sentence when it is used merely to ease prison crowding.

I think you will find that the parole system has existed long before we had overcrowding issues but regardless of whey the system exists or why it's used today, it has part of our criminal justice system and successfully competing parole, if granted is completing a sentence.

 

I don't see what background checks for firearms purchases have to do with this thread, but I have no problem with things the way they currently stand.

I was curious.

Most people who support the 2A as written (i.e. shall not be infringed) are opposed to background checks because the only purpose they really serve is to infringe on our right to arms (and provide revenue and power to the government). However, many of those who are opposed to BG checks also say that convicted felons who have completed their sentence should not have access to arms which seems a significant contradiction to me since the only way to know if someone is a prohibited person is with a BG check.

 

I guess I just wonder if those in favor of restricting arms to specific classes of people but are opposed to BG checks for transactions are comfortable with the knowledge that without the BG checks all those "prohibited people" would be able to walk into any gun store and buy whatever they wanted.

Edited August 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Reaper]

C'mon now. Don't you people know that the only group anyone is allowed to pick on is the Christians.

[Guest copperhead_1911]

It is california so I am not surprised. 

[Spiffy]

How long before Pedophiles are a protected class? The "Marlin Brando Lookalike Association" has actually been lobbying Congress on that one. How they can do that and go before Federal Judges on that without getting followed and arrested is beyond me.

 

Took Homosexuals 30 years to go from "Mental Illness" to Lifestyle, I figure Pedos will get there in 25 if kids keep have babies younger and younger and the progressives get the age of consent lowered. Pedos can't help it they are just borne that way, right?  right?