Fealty To The State Concerning The Right Of Self Defense
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 6 months ago
For instance, in Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled a felon could not be required to register a gun because that would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Is requiring a person to submit to the background check and then prosecuting him if he fails equivalent? Especially if he doesn’t realize he’s “prohibited”? (Hey, it’s happened, and Neil Gorsuch said knowledge was necessary.)
And what about “false positives”?
[ … ]
Noting NRA’s penchant for the “law and order/enforce existing gun laws” mantra, what about this reporting bill did they craft and/or signal a green light for …
Good questions all around, but I’m not sure that the state cares, nor the NRA, frankly. As for false positives, I work in an industry where I am randomly drug tested under the “fitness for duty” policy. False positives happen. I’ve seen them before among coworkers. I feel certain that a plan like David describes is even much more susceptible than the one I’m under.
On May 15, 2017 at 11:09 am, Archer said:
As for false positives, I work in an industry where I am randomly drug tested under the “fitness for duty” policy. False positives happen. I’ve seen them before among coworkers.
Quick question, Herschel: What happens during those random drug tests if you or a coworker get a false positive?
I imagine the person gets retested using a more accurate (and probably more expensive and/or intrusive) test, right? For example, if the UA tests positive, they verify with a blood analysis test. Either way, the company/employer likely pays for both tests, and the person being tested continues working and faces no adverse consequences for false positives, until/unless they fail both tests.
Here’s where I’m going with that: Your “fitness for duty” drug testing is performed at no cost to you, and there are clearly-defined procedures in place to rule out false positives, also at no cost to you.
Compare that with background checks for firearm purchases/transfers. You pay for that “test.” If you get a false positive, you’re done; no gun for you. You can appeal the finding, but again, you pay for that more-accurate “retesting”. In the meantime, you don’t get to “keep working”; you’re not getting that firearm until the issue is resolved. And Heaven help you if they can’t (or won’t) resolve it or if you get double false positives.
One of these things is a vocation. The other is a Constitutionally-protected civil right. Which one has more safeguards built in?