Let’s start with some background on the background checks.
Obama Inc’s EEOC is claiming that conducting background checks of prospective employees is a form of racial discrimination.
Should it be a federal crime for businesses to refuse to hire ex-convicts? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which recently released 20,000 convoluted words of regulatory “guidance” to direct businesses to hire more felons and other ex-offenders.
The EEOC ignored that judicial thrashing and pressed on. Last April, the agency unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions,” declaring that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”
Former EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, in testimony in December to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, warned that employers could be considered guilty of “race discrimination if they choose law abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions”.
EEOC lawsuits included even cases where hiring a felon would mean potentially giving him a gun. So firearms do not provide a special exception.
This is a key issue in a case the EEOC commenced in 2010 against G4S Secure Solutions after the company refused to hire a twice-convicted Pennsylvania thief as a security guard.
G4S provides guards for nuclear power plants, chemical plants, government buildings and other sensitive sites, and it is prohibited by state law from hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. But, as G4S counsel Julie Payne testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this past December, the EEOC insists “that state and local laws are pre-empted by Title VII” and is pressuring the company “to defend the use of background checks in every hiring decision we have made over a period of decades.”
While Title VII covers employment discrimination, it’s a subset of the Civil Rights Act. If Title VII trumps all state and local laws, then so does the Civil Rights Act… which we already know it does.
If background checks discriminate against minorities when it comes to employment, then they must likewise discriminate when it comes to firearms ownership.
That would mean that background checks discriminate against minorities when it comes to the purchase of firearms. This is a problem when it comes to the right of self-defense and it interferes with some forms of employment.
Paradoxically, Obama is against background checks for jobs where ex-felons would have to carry guns, but is enthusiastically for them when it comes to buying a gun.
How do we explain this paradox? It would seem that Obama does not believe that there is a right to buy a gun, but does believe that there is a right to employment.