GAH.. Fingerprint Nightmare

W

Waspinator

New member
So, I have been hearing that there has been a major problem with getting fingerprints through for CCW licenses here in CT., but figered it was overblown.

I submitted my application, along with prints, in early April. I just got a call from the local PD, and sure enough, my prints were sent back. Now I have to go and get re-printed (aka, back of the line). I asked the police officer if this is as common as I have heard from other people. He said that it is crazy.. some prints come back 3 or more times now, where as in the past all of them would have been accepted. These are prints taken from many different police officers too, so its not like its one guy messing everything up. This is, apparently, running rampant across the state at this time and it is making everyone's application process take much,much longer.

He told me he is just getting back approved license applications from early January(4 months!). So, I guess that means I wont be seeing mine till July some time (that is, if they don't send the prints back again making it take even longer !!!)

Sorry, had to rant :mad:
 
I have not been printed for a handgun license (to purchase) yet, but will have to do so in MD before October.

But I have taken prints as a deputy sheriff and been printed literally dozens of times as part of getting/keeping a security clearance, and the fact is that many police have no idea how to take good prints, but that doesn't stop them from trying. The last time I went through the process, I had to just tell the woman officer to stop trying (after ruining a half dozen cards) and let me do it. I took my own and they were fine.

The whole fingerprint thing for a gun purchase is racist and has about zero to do with crime or straw purchases. The purpose is to discourage blacks from buying guns, since the white power structure and their black toadies think most blacks will forego a right rather than interface with "the man". Or that blacks' applications can be messed up or denied on spurious grounds until they give up. It is just a variation of the old poll tax and literacy requirement.

Jim
 
The whole fingerprint thing for a gun purchase is racist and has about zero to do with crime or straw purchases.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. Everything is not about race,maybe affirmative action is but not requiring fingerprints.
 
Everything is not about race,maybe affirmative action is but not requiring fingerprints.
Click to expand...
You may be surprised. Gun-control laws have always been about protecting the privileged classes while ensuring the undesirables could not resist with force. In many states, particularly in the south, gun-control laws can be traced back to the Jim Crow years.
 
You may be surprised. Gun-control laws have always been about protecting the privileged classes while ensuring the undesirables could not resist with force. In many states, particularly in the south, gun-control laws can be traced back to the Jim Crow years.
Click to expand...

While that may be true it has nothing to do with requiring everyone to submit fingerprints today. If they only required prints from blacks or Hispanics or Indians etc then one could claim its based on race.

Just because a certain race decides fingerprints are racist because they don't want to give them doesn't make it racist.

Would requiring shoes and shirt to enter a store in today's world be considered racist because 50 years ago a certain minority group could not afford shoes and shirts? I think not

The south gets a bad rap when it comes to racism. Why did Chicago get burned down? What started the race riots in California? It sure wasn't a southerner.

Look up "mass racial violence in the United States"

It hits every corner of this country and parts in between.
 
"I have not been printed for a handgun license (to purchase) yet, but will have to do so in MD before October."

Virginia is MUCH friendlier, Jim.

Just sayin'...
 
In my township, the police directed me to go to an electronic fingerprint facility because the police "don't do the fingerprinting". :confused: Cost $60. :mad:
Then when they called me to come pick up my permit (FOID), they fingerprinted me the old fashioned way. :confused::rolleyes::mad:
 
I had my finger prints taken at the local UPS store. Girl behind the counter scanned each finger and off it went electronically for final approval. Couldn't have been any easier.
 
yeah, I wish they had that scanner over here... But my local-yokel resident trooper station is comprised of a older then dirt farm house, a radio that looks straight out of the 50's and the old ink pad for prints, lol

Hopefully the state takes the second set, if not I'll have to look into traveling somewhere that has a scanner.
 
same here on the electronic scanner. paid my 60$ scanned my fingerprints, went home and ate a sandwich, and just as i was putting away the bread the Sherif called and told me to come pick up my licence...easiest thing ive ever done. Oregon BTW
 
Waspinator, go to HQ and they will print you on the AFIS machine. If you are in the NW corner of the state, Troop L and Troop B both have AFIS machines. The "local-yokel" resident trooper is not buying a $40,000 machine to print 50 people a year.
 
The whole fingerprint thing for a gun purchase is racist and has about zero to do with crime......... It is just a variation of the old poll tax and literacy requirement.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that frequently a gun used in a crime can be traced back to an FFL and a buyer. And it seems that a fingerprint record would tie the purchaser to the gun and perhaps corroborate evidence at the crime scene.

I can see a case for this. It's not a guaranteed thing, but I can see a justification for it. Actually, all on it's own, I like this better then background checks.
 
lcpiper said:
I can see a case for this. It's not a guaranteed thing, but I can see a justification for it. Actually, all on it's own, I like this better then background checks.
Click to expand...

We had a break-in at the shop about 10 years back... I was talking to the investigators while they were looking for evidence. He told me he'd been an investigator for 15 years and had solved ONE crime by using fingerprints. That case involved a broken window that had a sheet of plastic between the panes. Only one print on it...
 
I watched fingerprint matches roll in almost daily where I was working.

It's sort of like business, location, location, location.
 
We had a break-in at the shop about 10 years back... I was talking to the investigators while they were looking for evidence. He told me he'd been an investigator for 15 years and had solved ONE crime by using fingerprints. That case involved a broken window that had a sheet of plastic between the panes. Only one print on it...
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I've seen multiple experts say on the witness stand. I am personally aware of only one case, a homicide, where a fingerprint was used to help solve the crime. It was on a piece of duct tape used to cover the victim's mouth.
 
lcpiper, the difference would appear to be that you were at the end that matches prints - so the investigating end would always find usable prints prior to sending them to you.

You would not know about cases where prints were not found or used.

That would bias your perception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top