Criminal background check and credit check

[HouseofCash]

Criminal background checks and credit checks seem to be running ramped. I under stand criminal background checks for CCW or handgun sales. I also understand Credit checks for loans or credit cards.

But, does every one know that at places like, Circit city, Best buy, Sam ash music, Guitar center and Sears if you are applying for work, you have to sing a waver for them to run your credit. Can some one tell me why? I really dont know.

Also, I guess every one in this country is a bad person since 9/11, because, now my 15 year old cousin walked into a famliy owned market for work, they made him do a background check, for $6.00 and hour and to sell freash fruit. Whats up with that?

Im just not the most comfortable handing out my SS# for every joe blow that asks for it.

Am I the only one here that is uncomfortable about giving out my SS# like it is a phone number?

                 Dave.

[FWiedner]

Background checks for gun purchases are a violation of the 4th Amendment no matter what the reason for doing them is.

The credit checks to screen potential employees are supposed to tell them if you have a history of significant financial problems.  They want to discover whether or not you are finanacially responsible.  The theory is that people in debt are more likely to be thieves.  Jeez, you'd think people in debt would just go out and get a job...oh, wait...

Face it, you're guilty until proven innocent.

As for the SSN, try not giving it out to every money-whhore who claims a place in line to F you.

Be prepared for an adventure into non-personhood, and many discussions with faggy manager-types revolving around how unreasonable you are...

 :?

[dukkillr]

As a matter of law your statement is incorrect.  Here's a case that explains why:

PATRICK RODGERS v. SYLVESTER JOHNSON which can be found at:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0427P.pdf

[FWiedner]

As a matter of law your statement is incorrect.  Here's a case that explains why:

PATRICK RODGERS v. SYLVESTER JOHNSON which can be found at:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0427P.pdf

Big surprise.

A court case wherein the coerced actions of the plaintiff are regarded by the state as voluntary, and thus no violation of what the state grants as an allowable "right".
Another individual right crushed and denied in the over-riding interests of the state and "public safety".

What you have, in truth, is the denial of exercise of one right (2A) by masking a state supported coersion to forfeit another right (4A), neither of which the state, according to the U.S. Constitution, has authority to regulate given the documented circumstances.

 :roll:

[dukkillr]

The problem is that you must operate in reality.  In reality you're stuck with the interpretations of the courts, even when you don't agree.

[FWiedner]

A lot of people choose that path of safe "reality", as you call it.

But isn't it really just a case of the slave cowering to avoid the next strike of the lash?

 :?

[dukkillr]

It's impossible to have a debate when "Reality" is compared to slavery.  It's also worth noting that the Judiciary was set up by the Constitution and since inception has interpreted the laws (sometimes in ways you wouldn't like).  That doesn't make it slavery.  The fourth amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure.  You and I and every American can have different opinions on what's "unreasonable" but ultimately it's what the Supreme Court decides that matters.  If that's slavery, it's been slavery since the Constitution was written.

[FWiedner]

Why is a discussion "impossible"?  Because you disagree with the analogy?

Background checks are done for one reason, and one reason only; because one group of men wants to hold power over and opress another group of men.

They tell them "According to the standards WE have determined, you are not deserving of the rights that other men have".

Do free men forfeit their god given rights because more powerful men will punish them if they do not?  What do you call men who bend to the will of other men who deprive them of their rightful liberty without question, because they fear to resist?  Law abiding citizens, I'll bet.

There is nothing reasonable about violating one right of a man merely because he wishes to exercise another of his rights.

As Mr. Jefferson was fond of saying: "...law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

The court is just another branch of government that has assumed authority that it does not have.

The job of the courts is to interpret the laws, but the court is not the final arbitor.

 :wink:

[dukkillr]

What I was hoping to do was educate readers that what you said with regard to background checks being per se violations of the Fourth Amendment is simply untrue.  If readers read that and believe what you wrote they are being misled.  I don't want an ideological discussion but rather a factual one.

[HouseofCash]

I look at it like this. There are things in life that I like/enjoy doing. If a gunshop needs a background check so I can bring home my new gun, then I have no problem doing that. If the TBI needs my finger prints to renew my CCW thats fine too. I have nothing to hind to from people like the state. Some stuff in life you just cant beat, and you have to deal with them as they come. Somethings are just a monopoly, like the state, or, comcast cable. I hate paying $50.00 a month for cable internet, but if I want to keep it, I deal with it, or, I dont have it. Same is true for things like CCWs and gun laws. You do what they say, or you break the law and go to jail, for a long a$$ time.

I was just pointing out I do not like people like "mom and pop" shops asking people for there SS#, or Bestbuy running peoples credit for a job.

            Dave.

[dukkillr]

It is not illegal to require a social security number.  This is a similar situation to another one that gets debated frequently here, that being the right of a private land owner to ban others from bring firearms onto the premises.  Remember that in this country, with very few exceptions (mostly based on racial discrimination) you can refuse to do business with anyone for any reason.  While it is well within your rights to refuse it's then well within their right to refuse to do business with you.  They are, afterall, private entities and have their own right to make decisions for themselves.  

Pretend that 200 years ago you wanted to buy some ground in a new town.  You go into the bank and ask for a loan.  Back then your name was enough to keep records and a signature would suffice.  But what would happen if you decided you wouldn't give your name?  The banker would tell you to take a hike.  Were you within your rights to refuse?  Yes.  Was he within his rights to refuse to do business with you?  Yes.  

You just have to decide for yourself whether the fear of ID theft outweighs the service you want.

[BuckTrucker]

As a matter of clarification to this discussion, every time you sign a paper that says a prospective employer can do a background and/or credit check, they DO NOT always do the credit check.  Background checking was combined with credit checking requirements in something called the Fair Credit Reporting Act several years ago to PROTECT individuals from having their SS#'s used in ways the individual did not authorize. When you accept employment, all employers are required to have your SS# and it was found that many employers were doing credit checks without the individual employees knowledge. This act was created/ammended to prohibit this unauthorized checking by employers and no matter which side of this debate you're on, this Act clearly did more to protect the individual's rights.

As an employer, I definitely believe I have a right to know if someone I'm hiring is lying about their work history, is a convicted criminal (doesn't make them unhirable, just tells me about their honesty) or if they have access to money, I need to know if they are so far in debt they may be likely to make off with the payroll. If an individual doesn't believe I have that right to protect my business and my property, then they don't have to allow me to do these checks and I will respect that and let them find employment elsewhere.  dukkillr is right about Reality, the world we live in has changed from the days when you could take a man at his word. I have uncovered so many liars, cheats and theives seeking employment that they would have bankrupted me several times over if I had lived in a unreal system of beliefs.

[alsatian]

Relative to a credit check for a job.  I don't think a potential employer holds debt against the applicant, I think they hold a poor credit repayment history against the applicant.  If you carry debt and you keep up your payments, this probably reflects positively on you as a prospective employee.  If you willingly undertake debt and then are irresponsible about paying back this debt, this reflects negatively on you.

I guess you can't blame the employer for wanting to get as much information to evaluate a prospective employee as possible.  Evidently the law allows this credit check to be run in this instance, whereas I believe it prohibits me, an ordinary citizen, from running a credit check on just anyone I want -- such as a coworker just out of nosey-ness.  Frankly, the employer isn't obligated to defend your 4th amendment rights -- that is your look out -- if the law allows them to dig into what is otherwise personal information, you can bet they'll do it if it makes economic sense.