Prairie Pucker Posted March 27, 2013 at 07:36 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 07:36 PM At present I do not have a non-resident CCW from any other state, so I've never been through the application and fingerprinting process. Mostly I've been holding back to see what the reciprocity situation will be once Illinois begins issuing permits. But I've been imagining the process and especially the fingerprinting part. And it troubles me and makes me pause. I don't have a criminal record, never been in trouble with the law, never been fingerprinted before. Mostly I tend to associate fingerprinting as something that happens to somebody who got crosswise with the law. I also realize that fingerprinting is a requirement for certain jobs such as working with children, military service, etc. But working with kids is not exercising a constitutional right. Carrying a firearm for protection is. And it galls me that apparently I will need to undergo this intrusion into my privacy in order to legally carry. The state doesn't require fingerprints to obtain a driver's license or to buy booze, both activites which carry potentially serious consequences. I suspect that when the general booze-buying and driving population are examined those activities are statistically much more likely to cause injuries than the activities of CCW holders, whose activites 99.99% of the time involve nothing more serious than putting it on and taking it off. Yet we're the ones being fingerprinted. I keep returning to the question: What is the purpose of fingerprinting? It doesn't prove I'm me. Other types of ID would do the job better. And ultimately anyone who has a past history which they don't want revealed by fingerprinting will skip the process and carry illegally. So once again the law only affects the law-abiding. Am I missing something? For those who've been through the process, how did you reconcile it? PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted March 27, 2013 at 07:53 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 07:53 PM Simply the other state(s)' choice on how to make sure you are not a "prohibited person", whose fingerprints would be on file. Very embarrassing when a convicted felon is issued a CCW permit. Want the permit, submit your prints. Don't want to submit your prints, then no permit, because they cannot determine that you are not a prohibited person. ID can be fiddled, fingerprints not so much. Not much different in principle from registering to vote, providing documentation of your identity. Reasonable burden on the right to vote, reasonable burden on RKBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted March 27, 2013 at 09:50 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 09:50 PM Finger prints can be instrumental in determining who committed a crime - they can also prove one's innocence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Pucker Posted March 27, 2013 at 09:53 PM Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 09:53 PM Simply the other state(s)' choice on how to make sure you are not a "prohibited person", whose fingerprints would be on file. I'm sure that's what the legislators would say, too. But in practicality, has the "prohibited person" really been prohibited from carrying? I doubt it. Assuming he even bothered to submit prints and was turned down in the first place. Your comment about registering to vote is excellent. I'm not even asked for fingerprints to register to vote, which is a right. Or write letters to the editor. Or to attend church (so far.) Heck, I'm not asked for fingerprints for just about anything else. Except to exercise my right to carry. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right, yet no prints required. Something just seems out of whack. PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM PP Welcome to the site. I don't know if you have been lurking and reading or if you just found us here. If your new to the 2A fight, keep reading. Your analogy is correct. The fingerprinting is one of many issues. The anti-gun politicians have concoted many ways to infringe on our constitutional right. What it comes down to is this. Either you get fingerprinted to get an out of state carry permit or you don't. It's your choice. It is an individual decision on how far you will go or how much BS you will accept from government infringement. To me getting fingerprinted for an out of state permit was not that big of a deal. Welcome to the fight and don't get too stressed out over the fingerprint issue. There are bigger issues and you have only touched the tip of the iceberg KING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Pucker Posted March 27, 2013 at 10:25 PM Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 10:25 PM Finger prints can be instrumental in determining who committed a crime - they can also prove one's innocence... Sure. But it feels like the presumption is that I'm more likely to commit a crime because I wish to have a CCW permit. Therefore my prints need to be on file so I can quickly be tracked down. That suddenly I'm a scary dude because I wish to carry. Because I must be on the verge of turning into an elusive criminal and that the authorities think they need to take the first step of already having my prints on file for the time when I go on the run as a wanted criminal. I'm 62. I've got tons of ID. Own a home. Vehicles. Have applied for loans. Credit cards. Voter registration. Accounts with the bank, phone company and ComEd. Have an Illinois driver's license and a FOID. I wasn't fingerprinted to serve on a jury. But to exercise the right to CCW I gotta be fingerprinted? It would be different if carrying was a privilege instead of a right and that fingerprints had to be supplied in order to obtain that privilege. But to obtain a right??? Now of course, if the occasion arose where my prints were needed in order to prove my innocence, obviously it would make sense to provide them, at that time. PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geneseo1911 Posted March 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM I'm with you PP. I hate the fingerprint thing. I can't put my finger on why (no pun intended!) other than the fact that a law abiding person has always traditionally been able to go through life without being "in the system". Just one more aspect of the government having complete access to your life. Unfortunately, it looks to me like it's inevitable, as I will have to be fingerprinted to do anything at my kids' school and/or do anything with kids at church. So I guess I might as well smile and bear it, and get my CCL and SBR stamp while I'm at it. For the record, I thought long and hard about whether to apply for SSN's for my kids; but again the government has made the carrot (and the stick) too big to not be "in the system". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM It's no big deal. I've been fingerprinted for a Chicago Media ID. CC permits for several states. I even got printed once for driving with expired plates. No problems, ever. It's kinda fun, and just part of what you've gotta do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:53 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:53 PM When I was a kid my father (who was a LEO) took my sister and I down to the Police Station to get fingerprinted. It was in case you were kidnapped, went missing etc.... My fingerprints have been on file since then. I have had to go back and be re-fingerprinted for so many things its rediculous. Asking you to give and pay big $ for prints 10 times for misc things is not right. I thought there was supposed to be a national database? Why do I need to keep paying $50 every time I get prints done for something? If they want fingerprints for a CCW license they should be free. Charging for it is as bad as a FOID CARD. Seeing all the degenerates in lockup was enough to let me know I never wanted to go back there either. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:55 PM Share Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:55 PM Obviously the people who have never been printed have never been in the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbinex556 Posted March 28, 2013 at 12:05 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 12:05 AM For me it's not a big deal to be fingerprinted just to CHECK that im not a felon, however I dont believe my prints should be filed into the system for doing nothing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted March 28, 2013 at 12:08 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 12:08 AM For me it's not a big deal to be fingerprinted just to CHECK that im not a felon, however I dont believe my prints should be filed into the system for doing nothing wrong. Having more fingerprints on file so (potentially) solve a crime is something our side should be saying during the CCW legislation battles. I mean, what police don't want more prints on file? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted March 28, 2013 at 02:00 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 02:00 AM Not sure where I read it, or if it's even true, but I recall reading about 2 categories of prints. One set of "Criminal" prints that are kept and cataloged and a different set of "Inquiry" prints, used for checking and discarded. Does anyone know if this is true or BS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoffsoft Posted March 28, 2013 at 02:08 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 02:08 AM I'm pretty sure there are 2 pools, the criminal prints that are kept separate from the pool of the many other things you can get printed for. Military, clearances, jobs, permits, you name it. I had the same thought when I got printed for Utah, and The Google convinced me it's not a sinister plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illinoiscc Posted March 28, 2013 at 03:21 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 03:21 AM At present I do not have a non-resident CCW from any other state, so I've never been through the application and fingerprinting process. Mostly I've been holding back to see what the reciprocity situation will be once Illinois begins issuing permits. But I've been imagining the process and especially the fingerprinting part. And it troubles me and makes me pause. I don't have a criminal record, never been in trouble with the law, never been fingerprinted before. Mostly I tend to associate fingerprinting as something that happens to somebody who got crosswise with the law. I also realize that fingerprinting is a requirement for certain jobs such as working with children, military service, etc. But working with kids is not exercising a constitutional right. Carrying a firearm for protection is. And it galls me that apparently I will need to undergo this intrusion into my privacy in order to legally carry. The state doesn't require fingerprints to obtain a driver's license or to buy booze, both activites which carry potentially serious consequences. I suspect that when the general booze-buying and driving population are examined those activities are statistically much more likely to cause injuries than the activities of CCW holders, whose activites 99.99% of the time involve nothing more serious than putting it on and taking it off. Yet we're the ones being fingerprinted. I keep returning to the question: What is the purpose of fingerprinting? It doesn't prove I'm me. Other types of ID would do the job better. And ultimately anyone who has a past history which they don't want revealed by fingerprinting will skip the process and carry illegally. So once again the law only affects the law-abiding. Am I missing something? For those who've been through the process, how did you reconcile it? PPthe way I read 997, is that they may ask you for prints, so it may not be required all the time. Think about all the John Smiths who share the same birthday... they need another way to make sure that a particular John Smith is not that murdered John Smith... make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted March 28, 2013 at 04:09 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 04:09 AM At present I do not have a non-resident CCW from any other state, so I've never been through the application and fingerprinting process. If I recall, no fingerprints were required to get the PA permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Wheezy Posted March 28, 2013 at 04:57 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 04:57 AM As a former insurance/investment advisor and current school teacher fingerprinting is nothing new to me. That being said, I understand your frustration but fingerprints are something that is easily transferrable and reportable to other jurisdictions. For me it is the least intrusive thing. Just imagine tyring to run a background check on William Smith or John Jones across state lines and jurisdictions. I' much rather trust my fingerprints to speak for my non-criminal identity than I would my name. And with identity theft - it is pretty hard to steal fingerprints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtr100 Posted March 28, 2013 at 08:13 AM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 08:13 AM Finger printing is simply a 'barrier to entry' to RTC It should be avoided but is not a poison pill on an otherwise reasonable bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallbore Posted March 28, 2013 at 01:58 PM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 01:58 PM This topic crosses into the topic of whether those who served their time should regain their God given write to self defense. Our judicial system once placed the burden on the government to prove we are a criminal. Now we must pay for finger printing to prove we are not guilty or where never guilty of something to exercise a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyP Posted March 28, 2013 at 02:27 PM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 02:27 PM The Army has had my prints since 1971, Utah has my prints, to get my mandatory Chicago Firearm Permit? Yep, more prints. It's not something I have ever lost any sleep over. At least Chicago uses the modern clean screen digital format - the other two sets were the old style ink pad and paper style and it is messy to clean up. There are legitimate philosophical discussions concerning the need for such thing, and the reality is that only the good guys, the majority of whom will never commit a crime, will ever obey any law or requirement on anything, guns included. And that has been true since the Code of Hammurabi was created over 3700 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted March 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM Share Posted March 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM There are something like 100 professional licenses of various types in IL that require a PERC card that requires fingerprinting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper103in Posted March 29, 2013 at 01:20 AM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 01:20 AM When I was a kid my father (who was a LEO) took my sister and I down to the Police Station to get fingerprinted. It was in case you were kidnapped, went missing etc.... My fingerprints have been on file since then. I have had to go back and be re-fingerprinted for so many things its rediculous. Asking you to give and pay big $ for prints 10 times for misc things is not right. I thought there was supposed to be a national database? Why do I need to keep paying $50 every time I get prints done for something? If they want fingerprints for a CCW license they should be free. Charging for it is as bad as a FOID CARD. Seeing all the degenerates in lockup was enough to let me know I never wanted to go back there either. . just went this morning for my prints for my TN. permit, prints are included in the initial fee you get your permit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agalloch07 Posted March 29, 2013 at 01:51 AM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 01:51 AM Some people don't have finger prints what happens to them? years ago I grabbed hold of hot metal i had welded and melted some of my finger prints off. But now that im looking at them they appear to have reformed. Whats to keep someone from sanding or burning them off? Also im diabetic and my finger tips are all messed up from 20+ years of checking my blood not sure what they will say about that. I dont like the idea of them having my prints but i guess there's not much you can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:51 AM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:51 AM Them "having" your prints is not a big deal. If it's an issue ask Todd, etc about an amendment to our carry bill that would say something about "any prints submitted for qualification are to be destroyed once the permit is issued and are not allowed to be transferred to any other agency, jurisdiction etc." I have fingerprinted lots of people in the field, usually for elimination prints when investigating a crime. If you're lifting prints from a homicide scene etc, the lab needs prints of those who had legal access to the resident in order to know which prints could belong to a suspect and which were left there by family members and friends/visitors. Will your prints remain on file? Probably. They'll be stored in the FBI's AFIS system and checked against any crime scene prints etc for the rest of your life, and maybe beyond. But we've been trying to convince the public that we are "honest citizens" so why should we be concerned about our prints being on file? I've been printed multiple times, first when I obtain a PERC card in 1993, then again in 1996 when I entered law enforcement, and several times since them for jobs I've held since I left law enforcement. It's no big deal to me. I've never committed a crime so I don't worry about them being on file. Like I said though, if it's a major issue, ask about a language change in the bill that would require the disposal of the prints once the check is complete. According to the FBI prints submitted to them for "civil" reasons only take an average of an hour and twelve minutes to run through the system. Once checked they could be deleted if it's that big on an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted March 29, 2013 at 03:19 AM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 03:19 AM And remember, especially those of us who are former military or have security clearances, the agencies are prohibited by law from sharing that information, no matter what CSI and the other TV shows say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyP Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:18 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:18 PM It's simple, if you decide on a life of crime? Wear nitrile gloves. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:53 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:53 PM See I always thought the finger prints where run through a database. Not entered into a database... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.