I have been wanting to get my CWP for a while now and hopefully I'll have the time in the next month or so. I've always had this nagging issue about the whole thing though. And that is, how did you all feel about being fingerprinted for your CHL/CWP? I don't know why this particular issue bothers me but it just does. Your thoughts?
Question for those with CHL/CWP's
- Thread starter Cel
- Start date
- Status
C-grunt
Member
My father had the same issue. He got over it and did it anyways. But hey look on the bright side. At least her in Az, if you have your CWP, buying a gun is a lot faster.
AirForceShooter
Member
I've been printed so many times it wasn't even a thought for me.
My wife who has never been printed in 40 years of work had a porblem with it.
She finally got them done.
AFS
My wife who has never been printed in 40 years of work had a porblem with it.
She finally got them done.
AFS
jackstinson
Member
I felt the same way I've always felt when being fingerprinted.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
deaconkharma
Member
Don't like it
but I did what I needed to to provide safety and security to me and mine...
Does that help you sleep better getting printed? It made it easier for me. Lesser of two evils...
I mean I'm not advocating illegal Concealed, but that is always your choice as is dealing with the consequences. Of course in 12 years or so, I've never been "made" either... Weigh the odds, do the math, take the risk, or get the prints and do it right. Up to you.
Or you could do like on Gone in 60 seconds and glue some fakes on your fingertips.
Seriously, your family is worth it. Your life is worth it. And for dang sure your vote on 2nd amendment issues will be needed in our ranks, these days more than ever. heck do it for us
There are so many other ways to get your identity anyhow. The fingerprint deal is the easiest and quickest identifier yes, but think also about DNA and trace DNA getting more and more useful to where really the fingerprint thing is sorta getting antiquated. Possibly it is more of a feel-good measure anyhow for legal/law maker purposes. so just remember if it ain't the fingerprints, it's DNA so quit worrying and get it done
(Warning tinfoil hat alert) And if you really want a conspiracy theory from me: When my sons were born they required a genetic test for certain defects that aren't really that common. There was a news piece done a year or two ago on a woman who refused it for religeous reasons and had her infant removed from her care. Did my little mind think DNA database? sure did. it's veering off topic but even the article says that the test, tests for RARE illnesses. So my point in all this is to minimize your concern over the fingerprint deal.Anyway there are way to many other ways to identify or database you, fingerprints are not a concern when you have all this other potential. here's the case I mentioned about "genetic testing" I guess I'm the only one who thinks this is scary?
Deputies seize baby so state can test blood
Friday, Oct 19, 2007 - 10:46:00 pm CDT
OMAHA — A nearly 7-week-old baby is home after sheriff’s deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy’s parents object to on religious grounds.
Mary and Josue Anaya of Omaha say their due process rights were violated and they’re considering legal action against the state and county, which decided to “grab the baby and ask questions later,” said their attorney, Jeff Downing of Lincoln.
The Douglas County attorney’s office says it only did what was necessary to protect the baby’s health. The blood test — usually performed within 48 hours of birth — screens for dozens of rare diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.
[+]EnlargeMary Anaya holds her 6-week-old son Joel in Omaha Wednesday. The baby is home after sheriff's deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy's parents object to on religious grounds. (AP)
Mary Anaya holds her 6-week-old son Joel in Omaha Wednesday. The baby is home after sheriff's deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy's parents object to on religious grounds. (AP)
“Our job is to uphold the law and provide for the safety of a child that’s at risk,” said Nicole Brundo Goaley, a deputy Douglas County Attorney. “We wanted to make sure the testing was going to get done.”
It’s the first time in Nebraska a child was taken from parents to draw the drops of blood from the baby’s heel for the screening, said Marla Augustine, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services. Nebraska is one of four states — South Dakota, Michigan and Montana are the others — that doesn’t offer a religious exemption for parents who don’t want the test performed.
Health officials say the newborn screening is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs. Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state’s Newborn Screening Program.
The Anayas and some other families say the screening is not only unnecessary for them, it may be dangerous to their children’s physical and spiritual well-being.
The Anayas believe that the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood and that ignoring that directive may shorten a person’s life.
Mary Anaya gave birth to Joel on Sept. 2 at home. She filed a birth certificate with the state, and state workers noted that the child had not been tested. They sent a certified letter to the Anayas, then called, Augustine said.
Mary Anaya told a health worker they would not have Joel tested, and health officials told the county attorney’s office, which got an order from a juvenile court judge, saying the child was in “imminent danger.” With the order came permission to place the baby in foster care while the test was performed.
Deputies came Oct. 11 to take the baby.
“The fact that they could grab custody apparently by making him a ward of the state, that was beyond my imagination,” Mary Anaya said. “They were claiming immediate danger when there was no immediate danger.”
On Oct. 12 a judge ordered that the baby remain in foster care until the preliminary results came back and confirmed further testing wasn’t needed.
In the meantime, social workers let Mary Anaya nurse her son several times a day, and he was returned to her Tuesday when the tests came back negative.
“It was all for nothing,” Mary Anaya said. “He didn’t have anything. ... There was no immediate danger.”
The county attorney dropped the case, and no criminal charges were filed.
The Anayas have been through this before. In 2005, the state Supreme Court ruled against them when the state said they had to test their eighth child, but the baby was 2 years old by then and was never tested.
The county could have pressed the issue and asked a judge to hold the Anayas in contempt of court, but the parents still could have prevented the testing by going to jail themselves, said Kristin Lynch, a deputy Douglas County attorney.
A different county attorney was in office then, and the people who worked on that case aren’t with the office, Lynch said.
“The follow-through wasn’t there,” Goaley said. “This time it was.”
Mary Anaya gave birth to their ninth child in Iowa, which offers a religious exemption.
Earlier this year, state Sen. John Synowiecki of Omaha introduced a measure in the state Legislature to provide for a religious exemption, but the bill didn’t make it out of committee.
Goaley said the boy was taken from his parents because “each day made a difference.” The diseases tested for are easier to treat the earlier they’re caught.
“We had to use the most efficient way to take care of this child,” Goaley said.
Downing said that if state and county officials believe that, they would have taken the boy much sooner.
“They did not even send any letter to this family until several weeks after this birth,” Downing said. “With each passing day, it became clear he was not exhibiting symptoms of these rare diseases.”
Augustine said a letter was sent soon after the birth certificate was filed, and Goaley said the county took action as quickly as possible.
“We were making sure we did it right,” Goaley said.
but I did what I needed to to provide safety and security to me and mine...
Does that help you sleep better getting printed? It made it easier for me. Lesser of two evils...
I mean I'm not advocating illegal Concealed, but that is always your choice as is dealing with the consequences. Of course in 12 years or so, I've never been "made" either... Weigh the odds, do the math, take the risk, or get the prints and do it right. Up to you.
Or you could do like on Gone in 60 seconds and glue some fakes on your fingertips.
Seriously, your family is worth it. Your life is worth it. And for dang sure your vote on 2nd amendment issues will be needed in our ranks, these days more than ever. heck do it for us
There are so many other ways to get your identity anyhow. The fingerprint deal is the easiest and quickest identifier yes, but think also about DNA and trace DNA getting more and more useful to where really the fingerprint thing is sorta getting antiquated. Possibly it is more of a feel-good measure anyhow for legal/law maker purposes. so just remember if it ain't the fingerprints, it's DNA so quit worrying and get it done
(Warning tinfoil hat alert) And if you really want a conspiracy theory from me: When my sons were born they required a genetic test for certain defects that aren't really that common. There was a news piece done a year or two ago on a woman who refused it for religeous reasons and had her infant removed from her care. Did my little mind think DNA database? sure did. it's veering off topic but even the article says that the test, tests for RARE illnesses. So my point in all this is to minimize your concern over the fingerprint deal.Anyway there are way to many other ways to identify or database you, fingerprints are not a concern when you have all this other potential. here's the case I mentioned about "genetic testing" I guess I'm the only one who thinks this is scary?
Deputies seize baby so state can test blood
Friday, Oct 19, 2007 - 10:46:00 pm CDT
OMAHA — A nearly 7-week-old baby is home after sheriff’s deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy’s parents object to on religious grounds.
Mary and Josue Anaya of Omaha say their due process rights were violated and they’re considering legal action against the state and county, which decided to “grab the baby and ask questions later,” said their attorney, Jeff Downing of Lincoln.
The Douglas County attorney’s office says it only did what was necessary to protect the baby’s health. The blood test — usually performed within 48 hours of birth — screens for dozens of rare diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.
[+]EnlargeMary Anaya holds her 6-week-old son Joel in Omaha Wednesday. The baby is home after sheriff's deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy's parents object to on religious grounds. (AP)
Mary Anaya holds her 6-week-old son Joel in Omaha Wednesday. The baby is home after sheriff's deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy's parents object to on religious grounds. (AP)
“Our job is to uphold the law and provide for the safety of a child that’s at risk,” said Nicole Brundo Goaley, a deputy Douglas County Attorney. “We wanted to make sure the testing was going to get done.”
It’s the first time in Nebraska a child was taken from parents to draw the drops of blood from the baby’s heel for the screening, said Marla Augustine, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services. Nebraska is one of four states — South Dakota, Michigan and Montana are the others — that doesn’t offer a religious exemption for parents who don’t want the test performed.
Health officials say the newborn screening is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs. Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state’s Newborn Screening Program.
The Anayas and some other families say the screening is not only unnecessary for them, it may be dangerous to their children’s physical and spiritual well-being.
The Anayas believe that the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood and that ignoring that directive may shorten a person’s life.
Mary Anaya gave birth to Joel on Sept. 2 at home. She filed a birth certificate with the state, and state workers noted that the child had not been tested. They sent a certified letter to the Anayas, then called, Augustine said.
Mary Anaya told a health worker they would not have Joel tested, and health officials told the county attorney’s office, which got an order from a juvenile court judge, saying the child was in “imminent danger.” With the order came permission to place the baby in foster care while the test was performed.
Deputies came Oct. 11 to take the baby.
“The fact that they could grab custody apparently by making him a ward of the state, that was beyond my imagination,” Mary Anaya said. “They were claiming immediate danger when there was no immediate danger.”
On Oct. 12 a judge ordered that the baby remain in foster care until the preliminary results came back and confirmed further testing wasn’t needed.
In the meantime, social workers let Mary Anaya nurse her son several times a day, and he was returned to her Tuesday when the tests came back negative.
“It was all for nothing,” Mary Anaya said. “He didn’t have anything. ... There was no immediate danger.”
The county attorney dropped the case, and no criminal charges were filed.
The Anayas have been through this before. In 2005, the state Supreme Court ruled against them when the state said they had to test their eighth child, but the baby was 2 years old by then and was never tested.
The county could have pressed the issue and asked a judge to hold the Anayas in contempt of court, but the parents still could have prevented the testing by going to jail themselves, said Kristin Lynch, a deputy Douglas County attorney.
A different county attorney was in office then, and the people who worked on that case aren’t with the office, Lynch said.
“The follow-through wasn’t there,” Goaley said. “This time it was.”
Mary Anaya gave birth to their ninth child in Iowa, which offers a religious exemption.
Earlier this year, state Sen. John Synowiecki of Omaha introduced a measure in the state Legislature to provide for a religious exemption, but the bill didn’t make it out of committee.
Goaley said the boy was taken from his parents because “each day made a difference.” The diseases tested for are easier to treat the earlier they’re caught.
“We had to use the most efficient way to take care of this child,” Goaley said.
Downing said that if state and county officials believe that, they would have taken the boy much sooner.
“They did not even send any letter to this family until several weeks after this birth,” Downing said. “With each passing day, it became clear he was not exhibiting symptoms of these rare diseases.”
Augustine said a letter was sent soon after the birth certificate was filed, and Goaley said the county took action as quickly as possible.
“We were making sure we did it right,” Goaley said.
Deanimator
Member
As many times as I've been fingerprinted for military and civilian security clearances, it's nothing to me.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
My prints are already on file ... 
The Bushmaster
Member
Ever been in the military? My fingers are perminantly stained by finger printing ink...
Prince Yamato
Member
Think of it as "fingerpainting for grown ups." And think of being able to carry a handgun as your "work being hung on the 'fridge." You will have that same smile you had when you were little now that you have Mr. Handgun on you.
mljdeckard
Member
I'm the same as deanimator and bushmaster. Between military time and civilian licenses I have held, they've checked me so many times there's probably a sticky note on top of their monitor reminding them to let me through.
And remember, there is a legal separation between prints given for non-criminal reason and prints (or DNA for that matter) collected as a result of arrest or criminal suspicion. (Unless you think my tinfoil hat should be thicker.)
And remember, there is a legal separation between prints given for non-criminal reason and prints (or DNA for that matter) collected as a result of arrest or criminal suspicion. (Unless you think my tinfoil hat should be thicker.)
Jason M
Member
I don't think, I believe I should be allowed to carry with no permit required, but I got over it real fast. Better to jump through a few simple hoops to get where I want to go than to wake up one day and realize they put up a brick wall.
Jason
Jason
DFW1911
Member
Roger that. For me the end far outweighs the means.
One really cool thing about a TX CHL is buying a firearm: you don't have to go through the background check while your CHL is valid.
Just my $.02
DFW1911
The fingerprinting was not a big deal to me. In Georgia you are fingerprinted for you drivers license so they already have them anyway. Besides as someone else said being printed for a firearms license-drivers license is a lot more pleasant than the first time they took them.
WoofersInc
Member
I had to get fingerprinted for my nursing and paramedic licsense so I was already in the system anyway. Not a big deal for me.
revolverforums
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 105
I have no problem with the fingerprints. I have given them so many times in years gone by from military service to background checks. I really don't see it as a big deal. You leave dna behind all the time and that is actually a much more precise finger print to you then just about anything.
indiandave
Member
Move to Pennsylvania, no fingerprinting for your LTCF(concealed carry permit). They did get me when I lived in New Jersey for my Fire Arms ID card though.
- Status