fingerprints and CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
Get a PA non resident permit.

But I am of the belief that I am one of the good guys and what harm will it be if they have my prints.
What good will it do if they have them? Several states do fine without fingerprints. We already know the permit process doesn't keep criminals from carrying guns illegally anyway. Why support something that restricts your rights with potential for abuse?
 
Increasing numbers of states are obtaining more "biometric" data before they issue a state ID. So, for instance, the state of OK does an optical fingerprint scan when you go in to renew your driver's license. Along with a digital photo. I've also seen the little optical scanners at Customs when entering the US.

Gregg
 
Uhhh...ok. Would he not give up his prints to cash a check?
I tried to cash a check at a bank once that needed a print. I walked out and cashed it elsewhere and never have gone back even though it is fairly close.

The government having prints, I don't like. The private sector, which can and do share information all the time, forget it.

What can you do with prints? Give me a sample of yours and I will show you. I can make a rubber stamp of one of your prints in about 30 minutes and apply it wherever I wish. Apply a little oil, gun oil should do it :neener: and stamp your print on whatever. If someone wanted they could even remove thier own print, and using yours to make a mold actualy temporarily give thier fingers your fingerprints by making thier fingers heal with the mold. They would have your fingerprints for a short time until thier own grew back.

Try explaining to a jury how your fingerprints got somewhere you were not. Yeah right like they are going to believe that.

When you give people too much power, especialy unnecessary you are just putting yourself and your freedom at risk for no reason.

RFID is quickly being seen as having potential. Basicly a chip that when a radio frequency is applied responds with data. It is passive and essentialy allows you to be read like a bar code.
You could put RFID readers in doorways, and in passive checkpoints throughout a city. Make it illegal to not have one. Then use a computer program to watch where all the little dots (people) move throughout the day.
Much like London already tries to do with cameras and facial recognition software. Anyone passing through points without a reading would be breaking the law and could be detained. As long as you have nothing to hide...

This sounds far fetched, but the technology exists and is being implemented already for other purposes.
Check out this: they even install them in newborns. http://www.verichipcorp.com/
Reading these passively is easy. People can scan others in public without them knowing.

Once someone is scanned a malicious individual can then make thier own device with the same signal and could pretend to be whoever they wanted.
They could cover thier own in lead or otherwise make it hard to read temporarily.

Too much information is too much information. Just because you cannot think of a way to use someone else's information maliciously does not mean others will not.

Even DNA can be replicated by someone with a sample if they have the resources. DNA is considered bona fide non disprovable evidence by many. It can actualy be replicated en masse and they sprayed or applied wherever.
You need a sample first though.

I don't yet know of a way to duplicate a retina for a retinal scan. However I imagine if one was to see the 2d image the computer creates, it could easily be used to make a fake "eye".
 
My Prints

I carry a Nevada Gaming Control ID card.

You have to get printed to get the card.

I've been in the USAF. I got printed for that.

Somewhere down the line, I've been printed a couple of other times.

If they want to, they can find me in the system.

That said . . .

"If you have nothing to hide" is an astoundingly naive point of view.

When the folks who (at a moment's notice) either do know or can know who you are, where you live, what you do, and what you have, can decide unilaterally that some aspect of your life is either illegal or needs to be penalized in some fashion (all morality and rightness aside), you now have a bulls-eye and they have the superior manpower.

I'm not breaking any laws . . . today. Everything I do is within the parameters of "legal" as applied . . . today. And yet . . . I have speeding tickets in my past. I have guns in my present.

Can anyone here promise me -- and make it stick -- that Lautenberg Jr. won't someday make anyone with a "speeding conviction" a prohibited person?

I'm in the registry of a little Baptist church in Biloxi Mississippi (just off base, near Keesler) for a baptism that was performed in 1969.

I would have a real hard time denying I was a Christian. It wouldn't matter that a couple of other churches would also show me in their registries for whatever reasons.

The day that being a member of a church (especially a Christian church) becomes grounds for a special mental evaluation (hey, if you're not crazy, you have nothing to worry about, right?) to determine fitness for gun ownership, it won't matter if you haven't attended in twenty years.

Sure, those scenarios are extreme. Yup. It's absurd to think that a person's religion could ever be a source of oppression. It's equally absurd to believe that a speeding ticket could make one a prohibited person.

You know what would worry me?

The even more absurd conditions and events that I can't even currently imagine that will, in a completely reasonable fashion (for the children), be used to preclude my kids from owning guns.

They were home-schooled for five years. Well. You all know what that means.

Failure of imagination. Hijackers only want ransom.

Don't go out of your way to imagine stuff like this.

That would mean you're paranoid, and must be evaluated.

I mean, come on, who would do anything that bizarre?

[Twilight Zone music . . .]
 
Getting fingerprints from a law abiding person is over the top for me.
That is one of my personal lines in the sand. I wont get a Utah permit because of this dumb requirement.

Nothing like being treated like your a felon to protect yourself ( dont see this requirement in the Bill of Rights---words mean things)

to each their own...
 
I just had mine done yesterday for my ccw license, I too thought the machine was neat. I just figured that it is part of the process of having a ccw. Do I like it? No, but if I want to carry, I have no other choice.

10 years ago my wife and I had a business that was broken into. The detective took some finger prints in the store and also ours to separate ours from those of the bg. I am sure they ran ours to see if anything were to come up.


Children's emergency/DNA kits can be had on the web for free. I would keep it yourself. My wife had a link to one before our daughter was born, if anyone is interested pm me and I will see if she still has the link or can find it.
 
Last edited:
Nothing like being treated like your a felon to protect yourself

Many states have decided that they want hard proof that you are who you say you are. Fingerprints is one of the only ways to do it, even though it is a negative logic method. If they had a secure ID, it would be a moot point, but since they don't, they ask. Is it right? Depends on who you ask, I understand both sides of the argument. Then again, if felons were locked up behind bars until they could be trusted, then you wouldn't need fingerprints, would you? It is one of the few workable solutions to a broken system, just like NICS, nothing more.
 
Many states have decided that they want hard proof that you are who you say you are. Fingerprints is one of the only ways to do it, even though it is a negative logic method. If they had a secure ID, it would be a moot point, but since they don't, they ask. Is it right? Depends on who you ask, I understand both sides of the argument. Then again, if felons were locked up behind bars until they could be trusted, then you wouldn't need fingerprints, would you? It is one of the few workable solutions to a broken system, just like NICS, nothing more.
I think to call it a workable solution it needs to...well, work. Can you make an argument that concealed carry licensing keeps criminals from carrying guns because they would be breaking the law? If they're going to carry them anyway the entire licensing scheme is not a solution no matter how sure the state is of the identity of the person holding the car. Lets not give it more credit than its due.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top