Part of the Patriot Act!?!?!?

So last week I had to go and replace my driver’s license. Replace understand, not renew, so everything worked out. On the door was a notice, “Background Check Required for New CDLs with Hazmat Endorsement and on Renewals after Some Date, I don’t remember”.

I asked the particulars and was told that under the Patriot Act it has been decided that someone should check the backgrounds of people with a CDL that can carry hazardous materials. The background check would cost $84.00 and the applicant would pick up the expense. This makes us safer? How?

Trucks are much the same in most countries, I believe. A person interested in murder and mayhem is not what I would define as law abiding and would not invest the time and effort to get a commercial driver’s license. It would be much easier to learn to drive a truck somewhere else in the world and come to America and hijack a truck. Drivers off-loading things like gasoline or propane or liquid oxygen are usually alone and could be subdued by someone armed even with clubs or knives. It would be cheap and easy and a very good way to get a few tons of something that could cause lots of trouble.

I was told that most trucking companies would probably pay bill. That doesn’t help me. I got a Class “A” CDL on a challenge when I was a heavy equipment operator and do not intend to drive a truck for a living. I maintain my license because it was real hard to get and I think that it will look good on the resume of an aspiring civil engineer. Wouldn’t a contractor prefer an engineer that could operate a backhoe or bulldozer or have a truck driving license? Maybe I am mistaken. When I have to, I wil pay the fee and bitch about it when I do.

I’ll bet George W keeps a copy of the Constitution by his bed so that he can piss on it when he gets up at night. I didn’t vote for the fucker…twice!!!

I’ll bet you DON’T keep a copy of the Patriot Act by your bed. If you did, this thread would not exist.

Thank god someone has raised one of my pet peeves again. “Just because they do X to make us safer, the bad guys can still do Y!!!” It’s been weeks since I’ve heard this crap.

Let me ask you, hlanelee: do you lock your car doors at night? Why do you lock them if a thief can simply smash a window and get in your car anyway?

Do you think we should disestablish all passport inspection stations at international airports because illegal immigrants can simply swim across the Rio Grande?

Why have CDLs at all, since someone who doesn’t know how to drive a truck well can simply carjack a truckdriver, whether the crook has a CDL or not?

That’s all just silly. Folks lock their doors so it won’t be quite so easy for theives to steal your radio. We have passport inspection stations so that we can deter many undesireable people from sneaking into the country, even if we can’t catch everyone. And CDLs exist so that there is some confidence among the public that truck drivers know what the hell they are doing.

I think it is entirely reasonable to prevent people with long criminal backgrounds or folks who have entered this country illegally from getting a drivers license with which they could get a job driving chlorine, explosives, nuclear waste, or god knows what else around the country. This step alone might not stop terrorism, end drug abuse, eliminate road rage, or promote world peace, but it seems like a pretty fucking commonsense thing to do.

If nothing else, this probably helps keep the pay for Hazmat CDL drivers at a decent wage, because illegal aliens can’t get such licenses and find work making peanuts, driving down your pay, too.

I’m sorry you have to make up crappy reasons why this is a bad idea, rather than sticking with what seems to be the most reasonable one: you simply don’t want to pay $84.

I disagree with Ravenman, and mainly for the same reasons as the OP. Their line of thinking goes something like this:

To foil evil ter’rist plot, bury potential ter’rist and law-abiding citizens who make the economy go 'round in loads of paperwork and added expenses in time and legal tender.

It’s a very Beaurocratic way of doing things, and just what I would expect from the government as a measure to “combat terrorism”.

Sam

Bolding mine, unless someone is controlling my thoughts. If they are, blame them for the bolding.

I’m all for keeping budget expenses minimal and all, but doesn’t this punish only the law abiding citizens? Can’t the terrorists just get a fake i.d. with the cdl?

I don’t agree on the “pissing on the constitution” part. I’m hoping that Bush is at least good at making it to the potty. I agree with most of the rest though.

Just for clarification, the OP was arguing against background checks for CDL operators, not licensing.

Why bother with a fake i.d. at all? How often are you asked to produce your driver’s license? All that someone needs is the knowledge to drive a truck. This is easy enough to get, anywhere in the world. Then look for a driver that’s off-loading gasoline or LOX or something equally hazardous, you’ve seen it done again and again, at a gas station off of the interstate in the middle of the night, behind a hospital, I see truck loads of propane everywhere, etc . It would be easy to subdue a driver with a bat or stick a knife in his ribs and the truck is yours. No one will look for it for a long time.

Having to pay for your own background check seems unreasoanble for something like this. Also it is hard for me to even guess at what background details would render someone unfit to have a CDL license?

Yes, that is one way for a criminal to get his hands on that stuff. But it is not the ONLY way.

Prior to 2001, apparently, someone with a criminal background a mile long could apparently stoll into a DMV, and walk out with a license that would allow him to get a job hauling dangerous stuff with no concern whatsoever that the authorities might know about his shady past. Do you really see nothing at all wrong with that situation? Setting aside the $84 you are complaining about, do you really think it is advisable for a government to remain ignorant of the background of people doing dangerous jobs that could threaten the life and health of the public?

And lastly, what the hell does any of this have to do with the Constitution?

Well, that’s just sloppy sign writing there.

Yeah, but you already took that one in your op :frowning: .

leavin me to find the lame reason <sulks off into the night>

Shouldn’t you be able to deduct the fee on your income tax as a business expense?

While I think it’s a good idea, better to require individual busineses to do it, not the DMV. And it shouldn’t cost the individual.

The argument that a criminal could just hijack a truck carrying hazardous materials and use it to accomplish their means is highly flawed.

If somebody steals your truck, you’re going to report it to the police right away. Good luck getting close to a key terrorist target when your driving a flagged truck. Furthermore, terrorists would not apply for a truck license or driving classes if a background check was involved, so their lack of driving skills might be more noticeable on the road.

It’s much easier to pretend to be a law-abiding citizen (ala 911 hijackers) and then pull a terrorist act while flying under the radar. If there’s no background check involved, anybody with the will can get a truck license and a job carrying hazardous materials. Why would someone go to all the trouble and risk of hijacking a truck when they could get a job where people HAND them their weapons?

The problem with the argument midget and others have put forth is that all of you folks are assuming the Bad Guy in question actually has a criminal record.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers had clean slates. No background check would have picked up anything suspicious because that escape was their first Bad Act.

Every criminal or terrorist has a first time bad act. Prior to that, he’ll likely pass any background check.

Now, that doesn’t mean background checks are useless, but they aren’t a cure all and they won’t stop terrorist and criminal acts completely.

The flip side is the cut off for various flagged items on a person’s record. If (for example) someone passes a bad check at 18, should that bar them from a long list of professions for life? If someone passed a bad check at 18, should that prevent them from obtaining a job driving a truck at 33, even if for those intervening 15 years they’ve been a model citizen?

You’re bitching about having to pay for a background check. My dad has to submit to additional searches and an onerous identification check everytime he flies (which is quite often, 10-15 times per year). He has never even been suspected of any crime more serious than a traffic violation in his 61 years. He is white, well-groomed, and not at all unusual in appearance. He is of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and a bit of Native American ancestry and has a very common Anglo surname. He is also a retired US Army Brigadier General.

But someone with the same combination of given name and surname (a very, very common combination) is on the “no-fly” list.

Oh, yeah, the Patriot Act is a wonderful thing and a great tool for preventing terrorism. :rolleyes:

Was my subtle sarcasm unclear?

I am saying that the procedures described in the OP are NOT mandated by the Patriot Act.

If everyone does understand this, and are simply commenting on the general wisdom or lack thereof of the background checks, then that’s fine.

Tell Gen. John Smith I feel for him. :slight_smile:

Personally, I’d have a lot more faith in the no-fly list (ie. more than zero) were I to not hear news stories about people on the no-fly list…you know, flying.

But that’s just me, I guess. It seems like something that should be adequately determined before they, you know, start flying.

-Smith, Joe

Are you so sure of that!!!

This was on top of the list. Google has many referencesto this.

The Patriot Act is a desperate attempt by a misguided government trying to look like it is doing something. Too much time and effort and money is put into trying things that MIGHT work rather than trying to find out why things that are in place might FAIL.

The best quality control is done concerning FAILURE RATES. That is why things always break right after the warranty expires. Manufacturers know how long their product will last.