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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you have any actual knowledge of the motivation of public defenders or are you just spouting ignorance out of your ass?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bull shit.
The procedures clearly are mandated.
You were wrong admit it.
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.
And no background check would have stopped them. They had clean records. So what use is 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.