Fingerprinted and DNA for CPL - would you do it?

To get CPL I would?

  • Neither

    Votes: 27 22.3%

  • Fingerprinted

    Votes: 66 54.5%

  • Fingerprinted and DNA

    Votes: 28 23.1%
  • Total voters
    121
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

user3214

Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
156
Theoretical question, if you had to get swabbed for DNA to renew your CPL, would you do it?

DNA seems to be getting more and more popular, so it’s possible. I don’t understand why the fingerprint cards are required right now either, is it to verify your identity or run you through an unsolved crimes database?
 
You do know that in some states you already get fingerprinted for a carry permit, don't you?
 
Yes, but the questions is where do you draw the line, and say I won't do that for CPL
 
I don't like the idea of either, and I would protest the DNA, but I would also honestly jump through about any hoop I had to, if it meant keeping my CPL. I already gave them my fingerprints. That upset me quite a bit. So yes, if there was a DNA sample involved I would be outraged and I would be writing letters and picketting and all kinds of stuff, but I would still cough up a sample to keep my permit.

It's sad, and I hate to admit it, but that's the cold hard truth. It's a poor attitude to have, and Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave, but if you wanted to honestly know if I would give up my CPL or give them my DNA, the CPL is going to win every time.
 
If you're in the service they panagraph you, fingerprint you and DNA you. What's the difference?
 
As I have before, I'd grudgingly comply, with the comfort that those things don't stand up in criminal court the way they do on TV.

Fingerprinting is more art than science, and it's junk science in my opinion. I've never seen fingerprints used in a criminal case, and I've tried many. DNA is more reliable in a scientific sense, but its alleged presence at a crime scene proves nothing useful and so its possession by the authorities carries little legal risk.

As an invasion of privacy DNA is a pretty serious matter, as at some point the technology and politics may exist to deny, say, firearms permits or employment or education or liberty to persons possessing certain alleged predispositions or defects evident through DNA obtained decades or centuries earlier from their ancestors.
 
someone mentioned the service... i was in, so the gov't already has all of that stuff from me. even if they didn't, i would give them anything they wanted to keep my CHL. my way of thinking is that i am not a criminal and dont ever intend to be so i would give them to it. i'd give a urine sample too. i think they should do that anyway, if you have a drug in you that you are not prescribed or if its illegal, then they should not allow someone to get a CHL. Let the hating begin.
ps. i know some people who have talked about getting their CHL and they still do drugs. i lied to them and said they couldnt get one until they could pass a drug test:neener:
 
Been fingerprinted also. No big deal. I don't see the need for DNA but would do it if it was required.
 
Again I am reminded that people who obtain permits are a more law-abiding group than the average citizen. That is a statistical fact, that is hard to contort in either political direction.

Armed (wink wink) with that knowledge, why should I have to provide a fingerprint, DNA, etc to receive such a permit?
 
yea, i was fingerprinted for Dl in Texas... but i dont think I'd go for the DNA test. fingerprints are annoying enough as it is
 
I wouldn't do either. I even plan on obtaining NFA weapons in the next few years but will use a Trust/Corp to bypass fingerprints (along with CLEO signoff and a few others things like allowing multiple users without 'club fed' benefits).

TBH If the state I lived in required fingerprints/DNA I'd either carry unconcealed, if legal, or just carry discreetly and illegally.

Getting my permit here in Alabama was already a very annoying hassle, and it didn't even require fingerprints/dna (mostly due to confusion about the age for issue).

geronimo509, your bias against drug users in unfounded. I don't personally use drugs, but tbh it's nobody's business what I put in my body. If I murder someone it doesn't matter if I am drugged up or not.
 
I have been fingerprinted so many times, I make sure to wipe my prints off anything I touch.

Let's see....

US Government has mine...
Colorado has them twice
Utah
Illinois
Iowa
Nevada
Montana..

Im totally hosed if my print shows up anywhere
 
- Non-High Road Content Removed -
Seriously, DNA? What exactly to they plan to pull it from?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well the gov't already has my dna, and they needed my prints for the permit, so yeah i would be fine with that. it would be kinda dumb for me to say no when they already have it.
 
DHJenkins: "Seriously, DNA? What exactly to they plan to pull it from?"

Anything and everything. I mentioned in my earlier post that DNA, while more scientific than fingerpainting/fingerprinting, rarely proves anything useful.

Your DNA gets everywhere, and persists (think about how most 9/11 casualties were identified, through DNA). I'll bet if they exhaustively searched Fort Marcy Park for DNA in the Vince Foster case, they'd find Abraham Lincoln's DNA. Doesn't mean he killed Foster.

If told that "DNA put me at the crime scene" I'd argue that of course it was there -- I'd been in that building and on that street hundreds of times. So what?
 
Hey, I know some of you guys in this thread are LPRs, like myself, they already took a blood sample from us for our medical... who's to say they do not already have our DNA on file from the blood sample.

Finger prints are alright with me for CPL, I have a weird print too since I smashed the tip of one finger off.. it is "distinguishing"... as one person put it when they printed me, the other said it was "weird".. LOL
 
TBH If the state I lived in required fingerprints/DNA I'd either carry unconcealed, if legal, or just carry discreetly and illegally.
Click to expand...
We all have a line in the sand. DNA would piss me off, but it wouldn't cross my line.
 
Seriously, DNA? What exactly to they plan to pull it from?

if you mean how they get a sample from you, all it take is a cotton swab along the inside of your cheek, a fingernail clipping, blood sample, etc. not like you have to donate a finger :p
 
if you mean how they get a sample from you, all it take is a cotton swab along the inside of your cheek, a fingernail clipping, blood sample, etc. not like you have to donate a finger
Click to expand...
I think he means as evidence in a gun related crime, not the initial sample.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(UK) Take everyone's DNA fingerprint, says pioneer
Replies
17
Views
842
CZ-75
C
G
  • Locked
now proposed: take DNA of all who get arrested
Replies
15
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
D
  • Locked
Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested
Replies
19
Views
778
DRZinn
D
M
  • Locked
Measure to expand DNA criminal database approved
Replies
2
Views
430
tyme
T
P
  • Locked
DNA Profiling and Privacy - latest developments
Replies
12
Views
553
Soybomb
S
Back
Top