Legislator all thumbs?
I'm trying to reconcile the recent decision by the Tennessee State Legislature to:
...end a requirement for Tennessee firearms dealers to take the thumbprints of people buying guns.... (NewsChannel 5)and their desire to authorize:
... the affixing of the person’s fingerprint to the citation instead of or in addition to the person’s signature. (Ben Cunningham)My understanding is that the thumbprints for guns was often illegible and rarely requested. So now we think that police officer's will be more able to obtain a legible print from drivers on the side of the road in a citation book than a gun dealer can on a post card at a store counter?
2 comments:
Well, I'm not for the second bill, but sure, the police department and police officers have a much more vested interest in collecting fingerprints and getting them done correctly. Do you really think most gun store owners care as much about collecting fingerprints as law enforcement does?
One of them has not even been suspected of committing a crime and is making a purchase from a private citizen's business. And it most definitely does get asked for. Shouldn't the required TCIS background check (paid for by the guilty-until-proven-innocent buyer) be enough of an infringement to determine if they are a felon?
The citation one has some bad language throughout with all the "either a signature OR both a signature and print" statements. It ends up reading as though you could be cuffed and stuffed for refusing to either sign OR sign and submit prints, i.e., you end up risking arrest if you will not do both. I am guessing the intent was to deal with illegal aliens or others with no state ID, but it comes off really poorly.
Post a Comment