Fingerprinting in Massachusetts

[LinuxUser]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/26/content_2264129.htm

Massachusetts introduces the country's first system to instantly check gun buyers' fingerprints, and links it to the system which checks potential buyers' legal records.

What do you think? To me, I think this is basically a good idea. FFLs need to check eligibility before they can make a sale. This makes that check process more secure, and protects me from the very small but possible risk that a criminal might try to buy a gun in my name. I basically think that if we could have better controls on gun transfers to make it harder for criminals to get access to guns, we would have fewer problems and maybe gun control advocates would have a harder time getting support for nonsense bills like the AWB.

But I see downsides to it, too. Biometric databases are worrisome. However, we already need to give fingerprints to get an ID card here in California, and if so if that practice spreads to other states (as I expect it will if it hasn't already), fingerprinting is going to be a fact of life for US citizens anyway. Registration of guns is also worrisome to some people, for good reasons. But I accept background checks and waiting periods... just let me have my Glock 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_18)!!!

[Fescue4u]

1. If your going to live implement draconion laws and restrictions

Might as well be efficient about it.

I hear the trains ran on time in Italy to.

[el_gato]

2. just one more way to lock down society

as you say "fingerprinting is going to be a fact of life for US citizens anyway" as well as constant monitoring with surveillance cameras, retinal scans, rfid chips first in your passport and next in your skin, databases tracking your every move, purchase, group affiliations, etc. etc.

Meanwhile the rich and powerful can go about their business hiding behind the cloak of government secrecy.

Your just asking for more Big Brother.

[LinuxUser]

5. I agree on this...

Even though it seems to contradict what I said in my original post, I basically agree. We shouldn't have ID cards, fingerprinting or social security numbers. But we have all those things and we're going more of them every year, so adding a fingerprint requirement for guns doesn't really make any difference.

But even if we did abolish these Big Brother tools of ID cards and SSNs and fingerprints, I still think there is a reasonably good case to be made for putting firearms under some fairly strict regulations for transfers and ownership. They really are very dangerous.

[napi21]

3. I don't have a problem with it, but it won't stop gun sales to illegals.

Illegals being felons, or anyone else currently not permitted to buy weapons. I can't tell you how many guns we have purchased just from someone we knew or were told about by someone. It has nothing to do with us not being able to legally buy guns, but all to do with a good deal, and no taxes.

I suppose some would be caught using this fingerprint method, but I'm just not sure it's worth the fight.

Much better idea would be to increase the penalties to those using a weapon for illegal purposes! Face it folks...guns are like drugs...if you want it , you can get it.

[sui generis]

4. I don't care about fingerprints AT ALL

fingerprints are no more an invasion of privacy than having a social security number. Now don't get me started on DNA though.

When the company that logs your DNA is a subsidiary of a health care conglomerate, you may just find yourself unable to get insurance or a job or a mortgage, and that is why the insurance industry is part of the DNA lobby.

DNA "fingerprinting" is absolutely irrefutably an invasion of privacy.

[el_gato]

6. well there is something called a slippery slope

[sui generis]

7. we're all responsible for every slope

it's not a generalizable bogeyman. And as long as it's defined as apples and oranges, slippery slopes don't apply.

[Ducks In A Row]

8. what do they do for people older than 65

because that's about the age your fingerprints begin to disappear.

really.

[-..__...]

13. What about people who work in the pineapple processing industry?

Apparently, the acids in pineapples will erode fingerprints (learned that from "Hawaii 5-0" B-) ).

Besides, the elderly will die off soon enough anyhow. Who cares if they can't defend themselves?

<insert-some-sort-of-sarcasm-tag-for-those-that-can't-figure-it-out>

[Hoka Ke]

9. I disagree...

I think it's a further infringement of the legal purchase of firearms by law abiding citizens.

IIRC, the Federal 4473 form requires the buyers name, address, silly questions regarding the buyers civil status (felony convictions, U.S. citizenship, drug use, mental status, etc.), and place of birth among other questions. In the states where I've purchased firearms, the state forms require similar information in addition to the buyers drivers license data. In my new home of Virginia, a secondary proof of residency is also required. If there's a discrepency between the information on the forms and the primary / secondary identification forms the application is denied.

Is there any other data missing on either one of these forms that links the buyer to a criminal conviction? How much more information could be asked for? At what point will you say "enough"? DNA samples... officials interviewing your neighbors... three references from persons unrelated / not living at the same address? And of course the big question...is it going to make anyone safer than the precautions already in place?

So we can add this to the useless gun laws in this country designed to infringe on legal firearm ownership. Ballistic fingerprinting was a bad joke...even if it worked, the states imposing it can't spend enough to comply. The AWB was worse... a weak law that did nothing to address the real causes of criminal activity and was so easy to get around that it was laughable. And if you think that the "instant" background check is a one time deal, you're mistaken. FFL holders are required to keep their 4473's on file for 10 years, and have a written record of the transaction recorded in a "bound book". De Facto gun registration exists; ask anyone in Maryland who owns an AR type rifle about the police searches during the D.C. beltway shootings, (I refuse to call them "snipers". I have too many friends who fill that billet in the military and police to use that term as loosely as the popular media).

So again, I ask you; how much more are you willing to give up for the sake of someone else's feel-good legislation?

Hoka"whatgoodisarightifyouhavetoaskpermissiontouseit"Ke

[MrSandman]

10. It is not that exact...

To me, I think this is basically a good idea. FFLs need to check eligibility before they can make a sale. This makes that check process more secure, and protects me from the very small but possible risk that a criminal might try to buy a gun in my name.

The CIB fingerprint checks I have had done for work come back as "classes" of prints. If a class matches the name, you are prone to a false positive.

On edit: Isn't the MA DL pretty positive ID?

[alwynsw]

11. What's next, DNA samples?

We're overly regulated where firearms are concerned as it is. That's just what many folks want to do: let's all go buy a gun so Uncle Sugar can have our heretofore unrecorded fingerprints on file.

Just what's to stop the dishonest shop owner from saving scans for future reference?

[-..__...]

12. "I cried because I had no boots until I saw a man who had no feet".

(No criticism of you, just something I have to vent about).

Firearms and the Massachusetts experience... one mans journey into Hell.

(updated link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-12-02-gun-prints_x.htm)

(BTW... I make all my firearms purchases at the gun store mentioned in the article and I know the owner very well. I'll make it a point to ask him more about the system next time I'm in there... maybe by the end of next week).

To start with, the gun laws in this state are so overbearing, complicated and ridiculous that any change is better than what we have now.

For MA gun owners, this is actually an improvement over the current system (I've lived here for 48 years and have been a gun owner for 30 of them).

Anyhow, I'll try to simplify it as best as I can... bear with me :smoke:

MA is one of the few states that requires it's citizens to register their firearms. It's been this way for as long as I can remember. It's also been a requirement that one must have a license (issued by the local Chief of Police), in order to own, posses and purchase *any* firearm in the Commonwealth.

Currently this license (and there are 3 different ones; 4 actually), is also required to purchase: ammunition, reloading components (bullets, brass, primers, powder) and high capacity magazines. The law must be working; I've yet to read about a bust involving a bunch of gang-bangers or crack-heads working up a new "cop killing" load on their Rock Chuckers.

(For the unenlightened: http://www.rcbs.com/default.asp?menu=1&s1=4&s2=2&s3=6).

The application procedure works something like this...

You go to your local police station and request an application for an FID/LTC (Firearms Identification Card/License to Carry). I won't bore you with the details about the questions but you can probably guess.

After you fill out the application (be very careful to dot all your "I's" and cross all your "T's"), bring your completed form back to the police. Expect your application to sit in the "Inbox" for a few weeks. At some point you'll get a phone call to come down to the police station to be fingerprinted... usually on a workday between 8:00-11:00 AM.

All PD's have an officer who is assigned the duty of processing firearms applications. Depending on the officer, where you live and who you are will dictate how smoothly the processing goes. Regardless, expect to be asked at the very least what you want the license for. You'll then be fingerprinted in the traditional manner... rolled ink impressions.

...Oh, wait a minute <slaps forehead>, I forgot one very important step. After you fill out your application, and before you bring it back, the "applicant" must attend an "MA certified firearms safety course". It varies, but plan on at least one or two weeknights and a weekend day. Cost? It varies, but figure at least $100.00.

Ok, so where was I?... Oh yeah, bring your completed application and safety certification back to the PD on the appointed day and hour.

After the question and answer period and fingerprinting, your application will be sent off to the MA State police for further investigation and scrutiny.

The best part is you also have to include a check for $100 to process your "privilege" (it's still $100.00; regardless whether or not you want a license to carry concealed or simply own, posses or purchase). Even better, %50 of that money goes to the "general fund". Even better than that.. if your application is denied you don't get your money back! But, don't worry, there's an appeal process that will only cost you another $110.00.

(BTW... the license used to be $35.00 and good for 4 years. It wasn't until recently that it went up to $100.00, but now it's good for 6 years... what a bargain!).

By law, from the time the PD receives your package and the time the "investigation" is completed should be 45 days. In reality its discretionary... 45 days, 60 days, 90 days... pick a number. Remember, these are bureaucrats and law enforcement officers. They're too busy to be bothered with details like "the law".

So, some magical day you get a phone call to come pick up your license.

You drive down to the PD full of elation to pick-up your license of "privilege".

Then, the fat assed, over paid, past-prime-to-retire fossil (please, God, don't let him die before he finalizes my "license"), with a sorry looking whatcha-em-call-it on his hip that looks like it hasn't left the holster in years wants to get all chatty about guns.

You grunt at him and nod in solemn agreement as he takes your picture then laminates and hands you your license.

Yeahhhhh... all is fine and good and Democracy works!

Not so fast, fella... you ain't seen nothing yet. :crazy: :mad: :puke: :eyes:

Part 2 tomorrow... I have a roast in the oven and some "vest busting" rounds" to re-load. B-)

[Columbia]

14. ...shall not be infringed.

:cry:

[LinuxUser]

15. I had no idea

When I posted this topic and said "this seems reasonable to me" I had no idea what the existing status was. Wow. I changed my opinion: there is plenty of regulation. They don't need any more. Anyone who goes through all that should be able to own whatever he wants, including the Glock 18 that I want. If you go through all that you should be able own and carry that Glock 18!

For those who aren't aware... a Glock 18 is a 9mm pistol which looks like a regular Glock, but it has a little selector level on the side so it can be used in a full-auto mode if desired. It's basically a submachinegun you can put in a holster, but you also get all the safety, reliability and accuracy of a Glock (typical subguns like Mac 11s or whatever are junk with terrible accuracy).

[EDT]

16. It gets far worse in Massachusetts- here's my favorite hidden Gem-

If you move from one town to another WITHIN Massachusetts, you have 30 days to fill out a form provided by the police, which needs to be sent by certified letter to the Mass Criminal Systems History board, and the chief of police of your old town, and your new town, "warning" them that you've moved and are now a resident of their town.

The BEST part of this is, if you don't send the certified letter within 30 days of moving, the law clearly states you will LOSE YOUR RIGHT to own firearms in the state.

Kind of like being a sex offender just to own a gun in the compassionate, caring state of Mass.

It's all in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140, Sections 129B and 131(I)

[alwynsw]

17. I've told this story before, but it's worth repeating

I got transferred form AZ to NH while in the Air Force. After a quick check of state laws regarding forearms popssession and transportation, I drove through New York (state), avoiding NYC because I was transporting my firearms in my car. I also dodged MA altogether by going from NY to Vermont, then over to Portsmouth, NH.

In order to simply drive through MA at the time (1978) with handguns in my trunk - locked, cased, and unloaded - MA authorities wanted $45.00 per handgun plus both sides and frontal mugshots and fingerprints - one set per handgun. At the time, I didn't need to do anything special for the long guns. Had I driven thru MA without the registrations for the handguns and for whatever reason had them discovered (I could just see a traffic accident popping my trunk) I would have been the guest of MA for a mandatory one year vacation - no leeway on that one.

Later that year, I went home for leave. I planned to do a little hunting, so I took a couple of long guns with me. I flew out of Logan (in boston for the uninformed). The long guns, a rifle and a shotgun as I recall, or possibly two shotguns, were in a locked hard case. I was detained and questioned several times - three I seem to recall - by the local constabulary. Each time I was "checked" I was escorted to a little room off in a corner of the airport where I was forced to show my leave papers, I.D., was frisked, and had my guns handled and "inspected" by the cops. (I could tell by the way they handled them that they likely weren't too sure which end the bang switch was on).

The moral of the stroy: MA was anything but a shooter's/hunter's paradise 25 years ago and it seems to have gotten worse. Glad I don't have need to be there.

[MrSandman]

19. Doesn't sound worth going around NYC...

$45 a pop to transport. No wonder the Big Dig leaks.

[alwynsw]

20. That was in '79 for MA to transport.

Who knows what it is now. I just flat didn't want to spend the time and money to do either NYC or MA, so I dodged both. As I recall NYC was almost as bad as MA on fees and such.

$45.00 per handgun on a GI paycheck on '79 was a ton.

[FurryCritter727]

18. irony

It is an especially rich irony that Massachusetts was the birthplace of the American Revolution.

:cry:

[slackmaster]

21. The FBI and California Department of Justice already have my prints

I've been a bank employee, had a military security clearance, and am a registered California "assault weapon" owner. Giving another set of prints wouldn't bother me personally at this point. If I want a firearm that the government knows nothing about I can always make one.

I have to wonder, if we keep collecting more and more data on people who haven't done anything wrong, are we not facing a possible state of information overload, where it becomes useless due to its sheer volume?

:shrug: