Am I the only one here that would be nervous with the federal government having a database of all the Concealed Carry Permit holders in the country?

You think it doesn't already exist? I've heard they just hand over NICS check records to the Brits, who store it for them and keep them within the law.

State. Let the NRA come up with the standards for the safety course. Set a maximum reasonable maximum fee for the course ($150?
). Let buy in be voluntary. Once you have a few blocks of states, presure from the shooting community would push additional states to join.

Here in WA, we are a 'right to carry' state. Just a background check, 30 day wait, and your good to go. I don't think thats a good thing. I don't like the idea of having my time wasted in a safety course, but it would make me feel better about others who are being issued permits.

AFAIK, all the states that require classroom instruction require it to be done by an NRA-certified instructor. I've seen class fees range from $40-$200. But like a drivers license, why should I have to spend money on classes when I already know how to shoot and am well above average?

The ONLY state in the Union that doesn't have an egregiously oppressive, unconstitutional concealed-carry law is Vermont.

Why should we have to take your word for it? You had to take a written and driving test for your drivers license, should be no less for a CHL.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Not so for CCW. However, I'd be happy to take a test, but none is required other than range qualifying.

That is your opinion, but not even the Heller decision establishes any unfettered "right to carry" a concealed weapon.

Too many gun owners have this religious fervour about bearing arms, and refuse to accept any restrictions on guns, no matter how reasonable or modest. That sort of "my way or the highway" zealotry is counter productive. If the Thune bill had included minimum standards for CHLs, maybe it would have gotten two more votes.

I would like to see CHL applicants take a test on the legal use of their weapon, basic safety, and a range test. No need for a class if they can self study. Plus fingerprinting, criminal and other background check. Then they should be good to go. Their CHL should be recognized by every other state, just like the state's own CHL, if the state has a CHL. So if California wanted to stop AZ residents from carrying in CA, CA would have to stop issuing CHLs to their own residents.

Would you feel the same way if you were required to take a civics quiz before being allowed to vote?

Casting a vote recklessly or incompetently creates no risk of bodily harm to those around me. Because there is no risk, there is no justification for requiring safety training before voting.

Rick, I don't worry about you. There are some folks out there, particularly young folks who have never had a parent/leader teach them gun safety and they are not compotent to handle a weapon. My dad taught me from an early age to respect weapons, but sadly that is not taught in many homes.

What if they vote for someone like Chavez, Hussien, Hitler? That can cause millions of us bodily harm.

I think you're way off base with this assertion.

I disagree with many of your points, but particularly fingerprinting.

We don't fingerprint people getting driver's licenses, i see no need to fingerprint CCW holders either. Nor does my state.

Hi John,

I'm not one of the "gun owners hav[ing] this religious fervour about bearing arms." I do question whether or not the Supremes are overstepping the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment. I am not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer, but, I can read and have some education. It looks to me that there is nothing in the amendment that confers any rights to the states allowing them to regulate any aspect of the right to bear arms. I do favor training, and criminal background checks and even checks to see if a person is being treated for psychological disorders. I just don't see state's rights coming into play here, and that's one of the reasons the Senate failed to pass this. :)

Alaska. They will issue you a permit, so that you can carry in reciprocity states. But there is no permet required to carry in the state.

Democracy means the ruler is whoever the majority votes for. So, if harm is done by my vote in aggregate with your vote and everyone else's vote, that is a harm explicitly permitted by the democratic principle.

Yes we do, in TX you give both thumbs, no prints, no license.

I nearly walked out of their DMV but I'm already in the system so figured WTH do i have to lose at this point.

TX - FBI background check including finger printing, 8 hours of classroom training on "the law", firearm handling and shooting test, money.

And I'm up for renewal next year. Wow, 5 years goes fast!

Thankfully, we're not a true democracy, but instead, a constitutional republic. :)

In OR there is no actual shooting/range test required for the CHL. You don't have to demonstrate that you know how to operate your weapon, can handle it safely, or can hit what you're aiming at.

Not in Pa. For that reason alone i would not live in Texas.

Why is giving finger print so objectionable?

At least for me, no one has mine right now.

Because there is no legitimate reason for the gov't. to keep track of law abiding citizens only when they want to exercise their rights.

Some of you know where I stand on CCW and gun owner's rights....but if the govern't wanted to find you, they would regardless of whether you gave finger prints at the DMV or at boot camp. And if you are afraid they will match your print at a scene to the FBI data base...why wouldn't you then be more careful about a tiddy scene?

Seems that a name, address, phone number, credit card info, SSN will all be useful toward tracking you down by the right agency. Finger prints are associated with a name and your history....so unless you intend to commit a crime after which a finger print can lead to your conviction, why worry about it?

Don't go getting all worked up guys....I'm just playing devils advocate to understand why anyone things the lack of prints won't lead to an agency finding you.

If I have nothing to fear by giving them my fingerprints for no good reason, then I should have no reason to decline consent to search my car or house either, eh? I have a problem with being in gov't. databases. There is simply no good reason for it. Paying them for the "privilege" just adds insult to injury.

I would not consent to an unreasonable search (sans warrant) of my property, but a finger print is different IMO. Finger prints is on the same level as your name on public file or your SSN or your credit info. Prints are just identifiers which like names and SSN can't really harm your privacy. All of us are already in at least one govenment database finger print or not.

I gave an FBI interview once for a co-worker who was interviewing for the FBI. I was very surprise to find out that they had me on record word by word during the follow up interview prior to the co-worker being hired. Most likely they had some other information on me also to determine my trustworthiness.

There's just no way to live in the mainstream without being in someone's database...and if you have a CCW permit, you probably already gave prints...

Brandon Mayfield and Madrid bombing

Error in identification: Brandon Mayfield is an Oregon lawyer who was identified as a participant in the Madrid bombing based on a so-called fingerprint match by the FBI.[42] The FBI Latent Print Unit ran the print collected in Madrid and reported a match against one of 20 fingerprint candidates returned in a search response from their IAFIS — Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. The FBI initially called the match "100 percent positive" and an "absolutely incontrovertible match". The Spanish National Police examiners concluded the prints did not match Mayfield, and after two weeks identified another man who matched. The FBI acknowledged the error, and a judge released Mayfield after two weeks in May 2004.[42] In January of 2006, a U.S. Justice Department report was released which faulted the FBI for sloppy work but exonerated them of more serious allegations. The report found that misidentification was due to misapplication of methodology by the examiners involved: Mayfield is an American-born convert[42] to Islam and his wife is an Egyptian immigrant,[42] not factors that affect fingerprint search technology.

On 29 November 2006, the FBI agreed to pay Brandon Mayfield the sum of US$2 million.[42] The judicial settlement allows Mayfield to continue a suit regarding certain other government practices surrounding his arrest and detention. The formal apology stated that the FBI, which erroneously linked him to the 2004 Madrid bombing through a fingerprinting mistake, had taken steps to "ensure that what happened to Mr. Mayfield and the Mayfield family does not happen again."[42]

[edit] René Ramón Sánchez

René Ramón Sánchez, a legal Dominican Republic immigrant was booked on a DUI charge on July 15, 1995. He had his fingerprints affixed on a card containing the name, Social Security number and other data for Leo Rosario, who was being processed at the same time. Leo Rosario was arrested for selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. In August of 1998, Sanchez was stopped again by police officers, for DUI in Manhattan. René was then identified as Leo Rosario on October 11, 2000, while returning from a visit to relatives in the Dominican Republic. He was arrested at Kennedy International Airport. Even though he did not match the physical description of Rosario, the fingerprints were considered more reliable.[43]

[edit] Shirley McKie

Error in identification. Shirley McKie was a police detective in 1997 when she was accused of leaving her thumb print inside a house in Kilmarnock, Scotland where Marion Ross had been murdered. Although detective constable McKie denied having been inside the house, she was arrested in a dawn raid the following year and charged with perjury. The only evidence was the thumb print allegedly found at the murder scene. Two American experts testified on her behalf at her trial in May 1999 and she was found not guilty. The Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) would not admit any error, but Scottish first minister Jack McConnell later said there had been an "honest mistake".

On February 7, 2006, McKie was awarded £750,000 in compensation from the Scottish Executive and the SCRO.[9] Controversy continues to surround the McKie case and there is an ongoing public inquiry into the affair.[44]

[edit] Stephan Cowans

Stephan Cowans (d. 2007-10-25)[45] was convicted of attempted murder in 1997 after he was accused of the shooting of a police officer while fleeing a robbery in Roxbury, Massachusetts. He was implicated in the crime by the testimony of two witnesses, one of whom was the victim. The other evidence was a fingerprint on a glass mug that the assailant drank water from, and experts testified that the fingerprint belonged to him. He was found guilty and sent to prison with a sentence of 35 years. While in prison he earned money cleaning up biohazards until he could afford to have the evidence tested for DNA. The DNA did not match his, but he had already served six years in prison before he was released.

Mistakes do happen and considering the high rate of false convictions here in TX my paranoia is moderately justified.

I'm with you on that. This whole mentality of "i don't want to get involved" is complete BS.

Since you have a get-out-of-jail-free card (your badge), it's no liability for you to get involved. Not so for us civilians.

For the same reason gov't tatooing or RFID chip implantation is so objectionable.

Mistakes and bad detective work can happen without the prints being in some database. And if it did happen....as with the first case...I'll gladly squeeze every possible cent out of the agency that screwed things up in addition to a public apology and my record being wiped clean...and if the incident caused any detectable harm to my reputation and career....I'll be going after them for all future earnings.

If one is really concerned about prints...one should be extra careful not to leave any source of DNA anywhere, that includes cups and glasses at restaurants, any hair that may fall off your body in any public place, tissue used to blow your nose (should be burned after use), etc...

Like I posted earlier, it would be difficult to live a mainstream life being so paranoid.

I have no badge, but i would very much view it as a continuation of the oath i swore to protect my country, and my countrymen.

Consequences be damned, i would never stand by and watch innocents be slaughtered if i felt there was any chance at all for me to stop it.

That's just not who i am.

Gov't tattooing? In the USA?

The RFID thing is over blow IMO. Who are you afraid of? No greater harm can be done to you via the RFID than with your name, address and SSN.

You think fingerprinting is blown over too.

Obviously i disagree at the most basic levels.

To you it is a non-issue. To me it is fundamentally important.

...Impasse...