# Part of the Patriot Act!?!?!? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 26, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674 "2005-05-26T22:50:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/21 "2005-05-27T13:47:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The Patriot Act is a desperate attempt by a misguided government trying to look like it is doing something. Now that, I’ll agree to. I should note that I don’t support this clause (as I noted above) because of terrorism. I’m more worried that someone with a criminal history was not be entirely trustworthy. Not in a, “Whee-lets-sell-nukes-to-Iran” way, but rather a “Whee-let’s-get-drunk-and-dump-toxic-waste-or-get-into-a-wreck!” way. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/22 "2005-05-27T13:51:41Z")
The reason for such legislation is so whiny little bitches like the OP can’t bitch about how lax homeland security is when a terrorist acquires a hazmat endorsement and blows up a building. Shut the fuck up already. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/23 "2005-05-27T13:58:57Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > The reason for such legislation is so whiny little bitches like the OP can’t bitch about how lax homeland security is when a terrorist acquires a hazmat endorsement and blows up a building. Shut the fuck up already. How is a terrorist not going to acquire a hazmat endorsement because of a background check and $84? ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/24 "2005-05-27T14:07:43Z")
> [@midget](#): > > 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? Or what if someone shoots you in the head, throws you in the back of the truck and then steals it? Then you don’t report the truck missing do you. A trucker on a long haul wouldn’t be missed for days. Plenty of time to get to a target or to transfer the hazmats to different and less suspcious vehicals. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/25 "2005-05-27T14:10:21Z")
As is usual, this sort of thing will inconvenience thousands of law-abiding citizens, but will make things more difficult for the criminal by not one whit. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/26 "2005-05-27T14:12:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am saying that the procedures described in the OP are NOT mandated by the Patriot Act. It’s Sec. 1012, which amends 49 USC 5103 to require state governments to run security, criminal record, and immigration status checks before issuing or renewing Hazmat licenses. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/27 "2005-05-27T14:16:05Z")
> [@hlanelee](#): > > [Are you so sure of that!!!](http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050519/phth039.html?.v=10) > > This was on top of the list. Google has many referencesto this. Good one hlanelee, I can’t wait to see Bricker’s response. OTOH I see no problem at all with requiring professionals to pay professional lisencing fees. Making sure people driving around with hazardous crap are not criminals seems reasonable. Nor do I think it offends any constitutional principals. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/28 "2005-05-27T14:39:34Z")
This illustrates the no-win situation that the Bush administration is in with regard to preventing terrorism. If action is taken, the response is “Why you facist bastards! You are eroding our civil liberties while cackling with glee!” If no action is taken, the response is “Oh I see…too busy raping the taxpayers with your Halliburton cronies to protect the working people…” If I were the President, I would act with impunity as well…because nothing I do will please those who are against me. ---
**Author:** ![zenith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e19b73/32.png) [@zenith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zenith)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/29 "2005-05-27T14:48:48Z")
Will there be reasonable standards as to type and severity of “criminal activities”? Or will “zero tolerance” prevail? I’d hate to see some poor American denied a CDL renewal because at some point in his life he was caught getting head in a back seat while a rich English actor got to keep his profession though caught doing the same. Also, there should be an appeals board set up to hear the particulars of convictions. Often, people of modest means have to use public defenders or court-appointed attorneys whose motivation is “Clear 'em out. Clear 'em fast.” and not the service of justice. Someone pressured by a bad attorney into" pleading down to a misdemeanor "rather than trying to completely clear his name in court shouldn’t have his livelihood taken away without a hearing. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/30 "2005-05-27T14:55:58Z")
> [@zenith](#): > > Often, people of modest means have to use public defenders or court-appointed attorneys whose motivation is “Clear 'em out. Clear 'em fast.” and not the service of justice. Do you have any actual knowledge of the motivation of public defenders or are you just spouting ignorance out of your ass? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/31 "2005-05-27T15:17:14Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > It’s Sec. 1012, which amends 49 USC 5103 to require state governments to run security, criminal record, and immigration status checks before issuing or renewing Hazmat licenses. Here’s the text: > [@USA Patriot Act](#): > > (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 5103 the following new section: > > § 5103a. Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses > (a) LIMITATION.— > (1) ISSUANCE OF LICENSES.—A State may not issue to any individual a license to operate a motor vehicle transporting in commerce a hazardous material unless the Secretary of Transportation has first determined, upon receipt of a notification under subsection ©(1)(B), that the individual does not pose a security risk warranting denial of the license. > > (2) RENEWALS INCLUDED.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘issue’, with respect to a license, includes renewal of the license. > (b) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DESCRIBED.—The limitation in subsection (a) shall apply with respect to— > (1) any material defined as a hazardous material by the Secretary of Transportation; and > (2) any chemical or biological material or agent determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Attorney General as being a threat to the national security of the United States. > © BACKGROUND RECORDS CHECK.— > (1) IN GENERAL.—Upon the request of a State regarding issuance of a license described in subsection (a)(1) to an individual, the Attorney General— > (A) shall carry out a background records check regarding the individual; and (B) upon completing the background records check, shall notify the Secretary of Transportation of the completion and results of the background records check. > (2) SCOPE.—A background records check regarding an individual under this subsection shall consist of the following: > (A) A check of the relevant criminal history data bases. > (B) In the case of an alien, a check of the relevant data bases to determine the status of the alien under the immigration laws of the United States. > © As appropriate, a check of the relevant international data bases through Interpol–U.S. National Central Bureau or other appropriate means. The background check is mandated, yes, but the cost of the background check is supposed to be born by the feds - specifically, the Department of Justice, as the statute commands the Attorney General to perform the check. It’s unclear to me under what statutory authority the state licensing agency is collecting a fee for this. Doing the background check? In the Patriot Act. CHARGING for it? Not in the Patriot Act. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/32 "2005-05-27T15:22:48Z")
You probably should have been clear in your snarky reply that you were referring to the cost and not the check itself, if that is indeed what you meant when you wrote it. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/33 "2005-05-27T15:24:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s the text: > > The background check is mandated, yes, but the cost of the background check is supposed to be born by the feds - specifically, the Department of Justice, as the statute commands the Attorney General to perform the check. It’s unclear to me under what statutory authority the state licensing agency is collecting a fee for this. > > Doing the background check? In the Patriot Act. > > CHARGING for it? Not in the Patriot Act. So you’re saying it is an unfunded mandate? You did not make that clear in your earlier post. Seemed like you jumped on the poster for not knowing what he was talking about, when in fact you did not know what you were talking about. This last post seems like a lot of ad hoc BS to me. Or are you suggesting that you were intimately familiar with the minutea of the Patriot act that you knew it contained this provision but you failed to point out that charging for it was the part not in the act? Not your best day Bricker. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/34 "2005-05-27T15:27:11Z")
> [@hlanelee](#): > > 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. . > [@Bricker](#): > > I am saying that the procedures described in the OP are NOT mandated by the Patriot Act. > [@Revtim](#): > > You probably should have been clear in your snarky reply that you were referring to the cost and not the check itself, if that is indeed what you meant when you wrote it. It was perfectly clear in my mind… the OP was complaining about the cost, not the check itself. But you’re right - on re-reading, it wasn’t as clear as it could have been. So please subtract any snark from my posts above; it was unintended. ---
**Author:** ![Q.N.Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3da27b/32.png) [@Q.N.Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.N.Jones)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/35 "2005-05-27T15:28:34Z")
> [@hlanelee](#): > > 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. Were you asleep through the entire coverage of 9/11? Terrorists came to the United States and enrolled in flight schools. They could have done this in the Islamic world, but instead they chose to do it here. The invested the time and effort into learning the skills they needed to pilot commercial aircraft. Then they did the deed. I’m no fan of these sorts of measures, but your OP is riddled with holes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/36 "2005-05-27T15:29:21Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Or are you suggesting that you were intimately familiar with the minutea of the Patriot act that you knew it contained this provision but you failed to point out that charging for it was the part not in the act? > > Not your best day Bricker. Already apologized for my lack of clarity - but yes, in fact, I knew this general provision was in there. As a result of both my work and this board, I have had occasion to go over the Patriot Act pretty thoroughly. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/37 "2005-05-27T15:31:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It was perfectly clear in my mind… the OP was complaining about the cost, not the check itself. > > But you’re right - on re-reading, it wasn’t as clear as it could have been. So please subtract any snark from my posts above; it was unintended. Bull shit. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Bricker > I am saying that the procedures described in the OP are NOT mandated by the Patriot Act. The procedures clearly are mandated. You were wrong admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/38 "2005-05-27T15:33:35Z")
The OP implies that all CDL licences are subject to the extra fee and scrutiny. However the PA only identifies CDLs that have HAZMAT as well. That is a significant point. One might object to performing a background check on a guy who just wants to run a backhoe, but may think it’s really important to have that check on someone who will be carrying gasoline or other hazmats. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/39 "2005-05-27T15:34:36Z")
> [@Q.N. Jones](#): > > Were you asleep through the entire coverage of 9/11? Terrorists came to the United States and enrolled in flight schools. They could have done this in the Islamic world, but instead they chose to do it here. The invested the time and effort into learning the skills they needed to pilot commercial aircraft. Then they did the deed. And no background check would have stopped them. They had clean records. So what use is it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674/40 "2005-05-27T15:36:08Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Bull shit. > > The procedures clearly are mandated. > > You were wrong admit it. The procedure the OP complained about was charging him money… not investigating him. THAT procedure is NOT mandated. Apologize for my lack of clarity? Yes, and I have. But what I’m saying now - clearly - is not wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/part-of-the-patriot-act/305674.md?page=3)