Drug Testing for Welfare Assistance

  There has been some talk in Michigan of again reviving the idea that all applicants for state "welfare" aid  be required to pass a drug test. Not surprisingly there is substantial push back from groups who defend Constitutional right against such a proposal. Many people question where a violation of a Constitutional right would occur in such testing. The logic being that employers can mandate a drug test for their employees, why can't the same restriction exist for those receiving government aid?

  The short answer is, the difference is that a state is not a private actor, it is the government. 

  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. This includes searches of their person. As the state of Florida has already found out, the state cannot engage in suspicionless blanket invasion of a person without meeting a very high threshold. This is why Florida's law attempting to require such testing faced an injunction after only four months on the books (the link above goes to the opinion by the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals upholding that injunction). 

  While it is well and good to say that people benefiting from government aid should be held accountable for their actions at this time the Courts are skeptical of this argument. Perhaps the state of Florida can demonstrate a exceptional need but I don't know they it can.
  Using Florida's numbers from the short time that the law was in effect 4,048 people took the drug tests. Of that number 108 failed the test. That means that 2.67% (out of a very small sample) of people were actually impacted. I have a difficult time seeing a court rule in favor of a law that invades the privacy of a substantial section of the population in order to weed out such a small number.
  I am open to hearing other arguments on this issue but like it or not such laws are unlikely to stay on the books even if legislatures pass them. If we want the Constitution to protect us we have to accept that occasionally that protection will allow a small number of people to take advantage of the system. The Constitution protects everyone (good or bad) the same way.  

What the Heck?

Can someone explain to me the phrase "true American"?

It seems to crop up a lot in reshared facebook posts and in the commentary of the Tea Party and I do not understand what they are trying to imply.

I don't think they are referring to an immigrant from a poorer nation who struggled to afford to come to the United States for the promise of a chance at a better life.

Perhaps they mean someone with the courage to stand up for their beliefs and call bullshit when they hear others spewing words of hate or exclusion. But in the context I've seen it that doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe they mean the native Americans who have been treated terribly since Europeans landed on the continent. Nah.

So really, what is this "true American"?

More help for Boston

If you want to make a donation online to help in the Boston recovery efforts ArsTechnica has a great list of potential recipients.

Vote with your Feet

Glad to see I'm not the only one upset with the NRA, hopefully more people who feel the same way will follow this example.

To be fair to the NRA, the part of the organization responsible for safety education does excellent work. The certified instructors are knowledgeable and in my experience passionate about teaching. The advocacy are however no longer represents the interests of gun owners, so much as the interests of gun manufacturers. 

I am Sorry, but you're Wrong

As a person is supports the right of a private citizen to keep firearms for their own protection I have an important announcement for anyone who believes that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution creates a limitless right to guy ownership.

You are wrong.

Its just that simple. There is no limitless right to gun ownership, just as there is no limitless right to speech. The Supreme Court established that both of those rights are subject to reasonable restriction. This means for example that your right to free speech stops when you stop telling the truth or when your speech creates the imminent threat of lawless activity. It also means that government regulation of firearms is not a death knell for gun ownership.

This week a minority of Senators representing a minority of a minority of citizen blocked legislation containing provisions supported by 90% of Americans from even getting the chance at an up or down vote on its merits. It failed because the NRA and other pro-gun manufacture groups (because that's what these groups support, not gun owners) lie. These groups lied and scared people into believing that this legislation is the beginning of the government coming for their guns. They also scared legislators with threats to withhold campaign donations or to support someone else. So those Senators used a long existing, but recently grossly abused, tactic to kill this legislation before it reached a point where a simple majority of Senators could voice their approval and allow it to progress to the House (where it likely would have died for the same reasons).

To those people who say that this legislation is a stepping stone to a national registry of guns,

You Are Wrong.

In fact the legislation specifically creates a criminal penalty for anyone attempting to create such a registry. But while we're on the subject, why is a national registry a bad idea? The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A national registry makes locating those who have the greatest ability to serve in a militia for the defense of the county possible. It makes solving crimes easier for police. It makes it easier to see where illegal gun sales occur. If you are a responsible gun owner why are you opposed to any of these things?

Not to squelch counter-arguments before someone makes them, but the first person who says, "I need a gun to defend myself from the government and a registry tells them where to start the confiscations," is getting a verbal smack-down.

Here's three reasons that argument fails:

1. If the government is coming for you, no amount of weapons you can buy will stop it. You cannot afford to oppose an AC-130 or Apache attack helicopter. 
2. Do you really believe that the U.S. military and law enforcement would participate in the complete disarming of private citizens? If so, nothing I say will change your mind, but just for a moment think about what part of the population would be needed to enforce either an illegal taking or to change the Constitution to make such a seizure legal.
3. No one wants to take your guns. This has never been an idea put forward by anyone seriously involved in the debate. Yes there are plenty of loud voices say that guns are the problem and we need to eliminate them, but there are also a lot of voices saying we need to get rid of all taxes and that's not happening any time either.

I support the right to keep and bear arms. I support concealed carry. I think that a ban of "assault style" weapons is a waste of time and I question the usefulness of a magazine capacity limit.

I support universal background checks to prevent those with criminal convictions and the mentally ill from purchasing guns.

I support heavy punishments for legal purchasers who fail to report lost or stolen guns that are later used in the commission of a crime.

I support harsh punishments for those who engage in "straw-man" buys.

I support the ability to engage in significant study  of gun related issues (something that is extremely difficult under current law)

I support the ATF having a Director, something that hasn't happened in seven years.

All of these things have the potential to decrease gun related violence, crimes committed with guns, and make the country a safer place.

I encourage people who disagree with me to present me with good arguments because I'm willing to listen, but expect me to come back at you as strong as you come at me, because I hold these belief strongly and will defend them.

Making Sausage

I deplore the state of affairs in Congress. The House of Representatives continues to hold showcase votes to overture the Affordable Care Act. The Senate is unable to confirm Cabinet level positions and judicial nominees due to anonymous holds, public holds by Senators engaging in extortion in return for allowing work to get done, and "filibusters". The 112th Congress passed less legislation that any Congress since they started tracking that number and the 113th Congress is on track to be just as ineffective. 
There is a lot of blame to spread around for why things have reached their present state, to name a few problems:

• Long standing practices used by both parties (that have been used exponentially more in recent years).
• The inability of the Speaker of the House to negotiate on behalf of his Members.
• The idea that any success for the present administration is a loss for Republicans
• The refusal to of the Speaker of the House to bring legislation to a vote unless it is supported by a majority of Republican Representative
• Special interest money

The idea that compromise legislation regarding background checks prior to purchasing firearms, legislation supported by 90% of the public, never got voted on based on its merits disgusts me. Our legislative process requires that a majority of Congressmen approve legislation but because a minority of a minority fears the NRA and other special interest money more than they care about maintaining the oath they swore, the Senate will not vote on that legislation.
We need to change the level of discourse in this country. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. Its about what is best for the nation as a whole. 

I didn't write this to shame those Republican Senators who voted against closure for the background check legislation but former-Representative Giffords wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that does an excellent job of doing just that. 

Boston

The thing that strikes me about terrorism is that the only way that it can ever succeed is if everyone the terrorists target gives up hope. Not death, destruction of property, or physical and psychological damage represent a victory for terrorists. Those things are terrible but for the terrorist they are only the tools used to drive hope from their enemies. But every time a tragedy occurs, both here in the U.S. and around the world (remember what we experienced today happens every day in many locations around the world) if you look for it you will see people rushing toward danger to help those in need. You will see total strangers unite to care for one another. You will see the best of humanity rise to the challenge.
So as you morn for those hurt in Boston or the next time you hear the news report of innocent children killed in the crossfire of a war they are too young to understand do not give up hope. For these tragedies shall serve as examples of our greatest hours. Do not wallow in your inability to control the world. Act in any way you can to be the hope that others need to see. Give blood, help a neighbor, be there for someone in need, but never give up hope.

If you haven't read Patton Oswalt's thoughts, take a look

If you want to help check out the following
American Red Cross

If you're looking for someone
Google People Finder

Freedom of Speech

As a follow up to my comments on polite discourse earlier this week I offer the following thoughts on "Freedom of Speech"
Freedom of Speech is not the freedom to not be called an asshole because of your speech.People who disagree with you (and call you an asshole, bigot, or hate monger) are not interfering with your Freedom of Speech.If your position on an issue causes people to call you a hate-monger, bigot, or an ignorant fuckwad, that isn't suppression of your freedom of speech (it may however be a reason you should reconsider your position).
A private citizen telling you to shut up isn't suppressing your Freedom of Speech.
If a "celebrity" says something that offends a lot of people and the private company who employs that celebrity fires them, that is not a symptom of political correctness run amok, interference with their freedom of speech, or a violation of their First Amendment rights. It is an example of capitalist principals, i.e. my spokesperson is an asshole and now people won't by my product. Solution, fire my asshole spokesperson.
If the government isn't the one telling you to shut up, your First Amendment rights haven't been violated.
You have an absolute right to your opinion and to voice that opinion. If the courage of your convictions is strong, I commend that even if I disagree with your position, You do not have a right to not have other people comment on, challenge, and deride your opinion.A private citizen telling you to shut up isn't suppressing your Freedom of Speech.If a "celebrity" says something that offends a lot of people and the private company who employs that celebrity fires them, that is not a symptom of political correctness run amok, interference with their freedom of speech, or a violation of their First Amendment rights. It is an example of capitalist principals, i.e. my spokesperson is an asshole and now people won't by my product. Solution, fire my asshole spokesperson.If the government isn't the one telling you to shut up, your First Amendment rights haven't been violated.You have an absolute right to your opinion and to voice that opinion. If the courage of your convictions is strong, I commend that even if I disagree with your position, You do not have a right to not have other people comment on, challenge, and deride your opinion.

Talking Politics

Here's your friendly periodic reminder about political discourse.
Only Hitler is Hitler.
Fascism is not "That which hurts my feelings or that I disagree with."
You can not be a socialist fascist.
Cite your sources (make sure they're legitimate), avoid hyperbole, logical fallacies are not your friend, and don't be a dick.