How do you feel about being fingerprinted?

[Colts]

Since I had never had prints taken before (knowingly), it may have delayed my decision to obtain LTCH. But it seems it may be a requirement to re-enter the country soon (non-US citizens are already fingerprinted?)?

I would have preferred not to be fingerprinted (just not sure how well the information will be controlled/protected), but it was the price to pay to legally carry a handgun.

Tiebreaker was lifetime LTCH.

 

[daddymikey1975]

I've been figerprinted, poked and prodded by so many federal, state and local agencies over the last 38 years, one more time aint gonna hurt.

so you pay taxes too ?

 

[Vladislas]

It is what you have to do to get the LTCH so it has to be done.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Correction, or rather perspective.

It is what the political powerholders have decided you have to do to get an LTCH, therefore, they say it has to be done.

It's all just one well written bill away from being reformed.

 

[Bunnykid68]

 

[MTC]

I'd like to know your thoughts on being fingerprinted to acquire a LTCH.

Being fingerprinted like a common criminal for anything having to do with the right to keep and/or bear arms is another insulting, humiliating indignity that is part and parcel of the biggest one of all: the statutory loss of a right. A fundamental, specifically enumerated and supposedly guaranteed right. This should be obvious to even the most obtuse, and further proof that you do not have a right to do whatever it is that you are applying to do, through the mandated submission of all manner of personal information.

It was legislatively taken from you.

 

[kludge]

^^ Agree 100% ^^

 

[isius]

It is what you have to do to get the LTCH so it has to be done.

Not necessarily. AFAIK one could set up a corporation or trust and forego the figerprinting, at a cost.

 

[CX1]

I'm not really understanding the "it proves you are who you say you are" mentality. If someone steals your identity, they can be fingerprinted as you, right? In other words, their fingerprints to your name.

To me, the requirement of being fingerprinted to legally carry a handgun is an INFRINGEMENT on the right to bear arms. It doesn't have anything to do with being fingerprinted for whatever other reason (i.e. security clearance, military, etc.) that "makes it okay," because we are talking about rights. Would it be okay if you were required to obtain a permit or license in order to exercise free speech, or peaceably assemble?

Consider this for identity theft, would having your prints on file from 15 years ago aid you in establishing your identity should some imposter have prints on file under your stolen identity that are only a few months old? Or to say another way, wouldn't the older prints be more likely to trump newer ones?

And as to the peaceably assemble there are permits involved with that in many places as well. Google "open-air assembly permits " for examples.

 

[camcdonnel]

While I was not 100% comfortable with it, my LTCH was more important.

 

[P-Shooter]

The fingerprinting does serve a purpose in one respect. When running the background checks for a LTCH, it's not the prints that get run locally, it's the name, SSN, DOB, etc. If something pops up, prints get compared. There are millions of people with the same name or who have used aliases in the country, but your prints will not match theirs when compared. In Indy, I believe the prints taken get sent to the state police, who may keep them in a database. However I know that IMPD does not, the fingerprint database they use only contains prints from those arrested, registering for parole, probation, or as a sex offender, and prints from employees. And those are only from Marion county, not the whole state as many believe. As for the "why do they keep taking them if they don't change?" question, basically government entities don't like sharing. The FBI is supposed to get prints from any individual arrested on a B misdemeanor or higher. When that happens, they kick back a report listing where that individual has been arrested previously, including outstanding warrants or if they are registered as a sex offender, or are on a terrorist watch list. I have seen these many times, and there's never any mention of having a handgun permit, or of military service. Pretty sure nobody gets access to those without going through Uncle Sam or whatever employer had them taken for their own purposes. And as for those prints on your birth certificate, if they are anything like mine, they are utterly useless. Many newborns don't have the greatest ridge detail, and doctors aren't trained in evidence collection lol. Having prints of yourself and your kids isn't a bad idea, just be sure you know what you're doing or have them done by someone who does.

 

[VN Vet]

Being in the Military and having pawed some things, I've been finger printed and DNA'd so many times it no longer matters to me. If they want to get you, they will get you.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Being in the Military and having pawed some things, I've been finger printed and DNA'd so many times it no longer matters to me. If they want to get you, they will get you.

Sad isnt it?

 

[VikingWarlord]

Already had to do it for a DOD investigation and the one time I had some legal issues. One more set doesn't matter.

 

[shannonneumann]

Not really a huge fan of the fingerprinting, as I'm not convinced it's 100% anyway... BUT, having said that, I tend to think that our digital fingerprints (all of the other stuff we do via electronic means) have FAR more potential to be used against us.

 

[Cemetery-man]

I gave up my fingerprints over 40 years ago and I'm still here. No cops, no black cars in the driveway and no pin-striped suits at the door yet.