Current Events > Fingerprinting gun owners approved by Illinois lawmakers

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fingerprinting-gun-owners-approved-illinois-lawmakers/story?id=63365030

A bill passed on Wednesday by the Illinois House would require gun owners to be fingerprinted and pay more for identification cards.

The state Senate still must approve the bill before it could be signed into law.

Democratic Rep. Kathleen Willis of Addison, citing deficiencies in the state's current Firearm Owner's Identification system, said the bill comes in response to a shooting at a factory in Aurora where six people, including the gunman, were killed, according to The Associated Press.

Gary Martin, 45, killed five coworkers before dying in a firefight with police in February. A convicted felon, Martin never should have obtained the FOID card he used to purchase a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun used in the attack, police said.FOID cards currently cost $10 and last for 10 years.

The new bill would require cards cost $20 and instead last five years, and that card owners be fingerprinted.

IF this passes their senate there's no way this doesn't get struck down by the SCOTUS, right?
---

I think this sounds good? Maybe not the extra cost part though.
---

only cops should have guns
---

So you need to prove you don't have a violent criminal record to own a gun?
---

I don't see the issue. It's not like they are banning guns.
---

This sounds very reasonable and will probably make some folks feel better. In reality it probably won't do much though.
---

good
---

Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't actually interfere with someone's ability to own arms. $20/5 years is $4/year. That's easily affordable to anyone who's purchasing guns.
---

Literally where is the problem with this? Any legal, sane, law-abiding gun owner should be okay with this because it means less crazy people getting their hands on guns and doing horrible things that make all gun owners look bad.

Is paying an extra $30 over 10 years and having your fingerprints on record too much of a cost to help save people's lives?
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

I don't see the issue. It's not like they are banning guns.

This will be compared with voting IDs which is used as propaganda that it locks out poor African-American voters from voting.
---

How does a 10 dollar price increase stop anything?
---

HylianFox posted...

good

karlpilkington4 posted...

How does a 10 dollar price increase stop anything?

It doesn't, that would be to cover costs. The reduced time the cards are valid for and the fingerprinting are the parts that are supposed to do something.
---

Too intrusive, I much rather have their hunting/gun safety bill approved nationwide.
---

incoming SCOTUS strike down

Good. This means that the government knows which houses they need to go to when they start to confiscate weapons right before the government rounds up this century's new Jews, the Hispanics and then decide to invade Canada.

/s
---

HylianFox posted...

good

---

voldothegr8 posted...

IF this passes their senate there's no way this doesn't get struck down by the SCOTUS, right?

How is this unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional then not allowing felons to own legal guns would be too.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

How does a 10 dollar price increase stop anything?

It doesn't. The fingerprints are what's meant to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.

If someone tries to buy a gun and their prints match someone who has a felony conviction for a violent crime, they can't legally buy the gun. If a gun is used in a violent crime that was acquired illegally, the gun can always be traced back to whoever the gun is registered to, and they can either be charged for negligence (if the gun left their control without them knowing) or as an accomplice (if they gave/sold the gun to the criminal).

As I said before, none of this would affect legal, sane, law-abiding gun owners at all.
---

I had to go out of my way to get fingerprinted to get my CCW permit (presumably to assure that I'm not already an unknown suspect in an ongoing investigation), but to require every last gun owner to be fingerprinted is costly, time-consuming, and overall intrusive, especially if it cannot be done at the same place that issues the FOID. If their current system has proven itself to be unreliable in weeding out convicted felons from obtaining or renewing their FOID, adding fingerprinting requirements is not going to fix it.
---

GallisOTK posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

How does a 10 dollar price increase stop anything?

It doesn't. The fingerprints are what's meant to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.

If someone tries to buy a gun and their prints match someone who has a felony conviction for a violent crime, they can't legally buy the gun. If a gun is used in a violent crime that was acquired illegally, the gun can always be traced back to whoever the gun is registered to, and they can either be charged for negligence (if the gun left their control without them knowing) or as an accomplice (if they gave/sold the gun to the criminal).

As I said before, none of this would affect legal, sane, law-abiding gun owners at all.

Got it. Thank you.
---

AlephZero posted...

only cops should have guns

Because all cops are good?

voldothegr8 posted...

IF this passes their senate there's no way this doesn't get struck down by the SCOTUS, right?

what makes you think this is unconstitutional?
---

Unconstitutional bills banning abortions pass
Conservatives:

Common sense gun bill passes
Conservatives:
---

If you live in Chicago, obtaining a CFP already had a print requirement. And additional costs. And severe restrictions on where you could carry (carry permit is separate from FOID and CFP).

The question is if it will really help things or if it will just be a pointless nuisance like red light cameras. Sometimes going too overboard will just screw things up more.

this sounds fine to me.

What's the problem here?
---

Wow, 10 extra bucks and a fingerprint. This should fix nothing.
---

As a conservative I say this is okay. I mean its still cheaper than a CCW permit. Just need to hope the agencies dont keep failing to do their jobs.
---

scorpion41 posted...

As a conservative I say this is okay. I mean its still cheaper than a CCW permit. Just need to hope the agencies dont keep failing to do their jobs.

Accountability towards agencies?

*chortles*
---

You shouldn't have to pay an extra fee to the government to exercise your constitutional right.
---

not sure how this is going to fix anything other than putting more restrictions on people who fallow the law. the specific case they cited is another instance of the system itself fucking up and not doing what it should of done.

I dont understand why anyone is against things like this. It makes it harder for us good gun owners!...no it doesnt. If youre a good gun owner with no cause for concern you wont have any issue at all.
---

I don't see how this is even remotely restrictive to good gun owners.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

VipaGTS posted...

I dont understand why anyone is against things like this. It makes it harder for us good gun owners!...no it doesnt. If youre a good gun owner with no cause for concern you wont have any issue at all.

We are making people pay more money just to continue to have a constitutional right.

"Oh it's only another $____" sure but the government is nickeling and diming everyone to death already. We have to pay so many
fees and taxes and shit already across local state and federal jurisdictions. The proper response is to that is to start fighting against every last instance of it.

Are you pro or anti Voter ID?
---

I don't have an issue with this, but I would apply exactly the same logic about how this is a "minimal" burden to the requirement for voter IDs.

If the extra fee and time here are acceptable for someone to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, an even smaller fee and inconvenience should be fine to exercise voting rights and ensure no chance of voter fraud can occur.
---

Well what about gun owners who don't have fingers?
---

The Admiral posted...

I don't have an issue with this, but I would apply exactly the same logic about how this is a "minimal" burden to the requirement for voter IDs.

If the extra fee and time here are acceptable for someone to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, an even smaller fee and inconvenience should be fine to exercise voting rights and ensure no chance of voter fraud can occur.

I'd much rather Gary Martin commit voter fraud instead of killing 5 people.
---

I dont understand the argument of fees!...guns are a right but that doesnt mean everything about them should be or has to be cheap or free. As a society grows you sometimes have to look for solutions to certain problems. As guns have evolved weve uncovered some potential problems with regard to them and how people can obtain them. Yea its unfortunate that you might have to pay more to own a gun but simply shouting its a constitutional right! Isnt an argument against a fee to ensure safer firearm sales.

If I want to drive a car I own I have to pay a yearly fee to the DMV and a monthly fee for insurance. Buying a gun isnt any different just because the right to own one is in the constitution.
---

I'm fine with it except for the fee. It's like implementing DLC for Constititional rights.
"we were going to let you worship freely, but you forgot to pay your fee. Sorry, dawg."
---

VipaGTS posted...

Yea its unfortunate that you might have to pay more to own a gun but simply shouting its a constitutional right! Isnt an argument against a fee to ensure safer firearm sales.

Yes, it is. Your constitutional rights are not supposed to be infringed upon by the government. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that needless or excessive fees are an infringement.

If there was a new law that required a brand new type of ID specifically for the purpose of voting and it only cost a few dollars, which they partially justified as needing for upkeep of polling equipment, there would be an outcry that it's a poll tax and that it's unconstitutional. And the outcry would be absolutely justified.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

VipaGTS posted...

Yea its unfortunate that you might have to pay more to own a gun but simply shouting its a constitutional right! Isnt an argument against a fee to ensure safer firearm sales.

Yes, it is. Your constitutional rights are not supposed to be infringed upon by the government. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that needless or excessive fees are an infringement.

If there was a new law that required a brand new type of ID specifically for the purpose of voting and it only cost a few dollars, which they partially justified as needing for upkeep of polling equipment, there would be an outcry that it's a poll tax and that it's unconstitutional. And the outcry would be absolutely justified.

So then why arent all guns free? Its our right to have them why do we have to pay for them? Just because there is an extra fee doesnt mean your constitutional rights have been taken away. You can still own a gun.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Unconstitutional bills banning abortions pass
Conservatives:

Common sense gun bill passes
Conservatives:

Accurate af
---

The Admiral posted...

I don't have an issue with this, but I would apply exactly the same logic about how this is a "minimal" burden to the requirement for voter IDs.

If the extra fee and time here are acceptable for someone to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, an even smaller fee and inconvenience should be fine to exercise voting rights and ensure no chance of voter fraud can occur.

Study after study has shown that voter fraud is not an issue. Criminals getting guns and killing people have been an issue though.

To vote costs you no money, and you can register to vote from home, and even mail in early voting and absentee ballots from your home. To get a gun you already have to leave your home and pay fees, wait for checks, etc. Not to mention the fact that the people that craft the Voter ID laws, and shorten early voting times, and shut down polling places, and limit absentee voting have already admitted to only making these laws to cut down on minority voters who are more likely to vote against them. On the one hand you have people trying to save lives(however misguided that may be), and on the other hand you have people trying to suppress minorities so they can stay in power. It's not really comparable.

This law is okay, but I'm not sure how many of these cases of excons buying guns legally actually exist. They show one reference, but is it that common? Or is this an overreaction to one isolated incident?
---

The Admiral posted...

I don't have an issue with this, but I would apply exactly the same logic about how this is a "minimal" burden to the requirement for voter IDs.

If the extra fee and time here are acceptable for someone to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, an even smaller fee and inconvenience should be fine to exercise voting rights and ensure no chance of voter fraud can occur.

interesting take. consider that mass shootings happen with much greater frequency than voter fraud and the impact each one has. kind reminder that Trump's allegations of rampant voter fraud have been completely unfounded / based in reality.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

IF this passes their senate there's no way this doesn't get struck down by the SCOTUS, right?

what makes you think this is unconstitutional?

wonder why TC won't answer
---

VipaGTS posted...

I dont understand the argument of fees!...guns are a right but that doesnt mean everything about them should be or has to be cheap or free.

theres a difference between someone offering their goods and services at a price and the government implementing more stop gaps to keep more individuals from using their constitutional rights. its what the entire concept of the 2nd amendment was put in place to help stop.