Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Tribune on the case of Michael Myers/Trivasano/Arquero…

The emergency medical technician has changed his identity at least twice since 2001. Born in New Jersey with the name Larry Myers, he presented himself to authorities as Michael Trivasano during a series of arrests between 2001 and 2002 — a sequence that ended with a five-year prison term for attempted murder.

Once out of prison, he legally changed his name from Larry Myers to Michael Arquero and began a new life. He married, started a family, got his EMT license — and obtained a firearm owners identification card and later a concealed carry permit, all as Michael Arquero.

Arquero is now charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. A simple fingerprint check would have revealed that he was a felon — albeit one known as Michael Trivasano — and disqualified him from owning a gun. But in Illinois, fingerprinting is not part of the background check required to get a firearm owners identification card or a concealed carry permit. Someone who wants a concealed carry permit has the option of supplying fingerprints to expedite the permit process. […]

Lawmakers could have incorporated fingerprint checks into the language of the concealed carry bill when it passed in Springfield, but they didn’t. They reasoned that someone with a criminal background wasn’t likely to apply for an FOID card or a concealed carry permit anyway. A felon will simply get a gun illegally, they shrugged.

Michael Arquero proved them wrong. It was alarmingly easy for him to defeat the supposed safeguards by misrepresenting his identity and his background. It wasn’t until he was arrested again that his fingerprints were discovered to match those of the felon known to the Illinois Department of Corrections as Michael Trivasano.

Background is here.

* The Question: Should FOID card applicants be required to undergo fingerprint checks? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

panel management

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:28 am

Comments

Voted yes because it’s common sense and would prevent stuff like this. Ex-cons starting a new life = good. Starting it under a new name = bad.

As an aside I loved his lawyer’s reaction in the original story — “Even if he used 10 different names, if they were doing their job on their end, all they had to do is run it in their computer system and see that he’s lying,” Uche said.

“Now the state, I know, disagrees with how he got those documents,” he continued. “But the bottom line is he got them from the state of Illinois. They’re not fraudulent pieces of paper, they are legitimate. The state made a mistake. He shouldn’t pay for it.”

Classic.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:38 am
Voted yes. I don’t think fingerprinting them would be unconstitutional and it could benefit public safety. No brainer.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:43 am
Voted NO. Could be switched to a YES if we have the same requirements to vote. Let the bashing begin…

Comment by Big Muddy Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:43 am
Yes. NRA response to standing in the way of the 2nd Amendment in 3,2,1…

Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:43 am
NO. You should not have to give the government your fingerprint to access a constitutionally protected right.

Comment by John Rawls Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:45 am
I voted yes.

If you are a “law abiding citizen” have all the guns you want. Go for it. Stock up on guns and ammo because Obama is going to take your guns away (8 years later still waiting . . .).

Most people agree that it is reasonable to prevent felons and people with serious mental health challenges from having easy access to firearms.

Most people.

Reasonable.

Comment by hockey fan Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:46 am
Voted yes. I would like to see the nation go to a National Identity Card that would include fingerprints and a DNA sample. The Federal government has had my fingerprints since I swore an oath to defend the Constitution at 19. Since then I have provided fingerprints to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the City of Chicago, and the State of Illinois. None of them used my fingerprints to restrict my freedom.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:48 am
Seems common sense to do so. Question would be: in the States that require them, who foots the bill? The State or the person applying?

==Was Arquero a “good guy with a gun,” a guy who had turned his life around?==

Well he clearly lied on his FOID and concelealed carry app, along with any 4473 he filled out if he ever purchased a firearm, all felonies and all done after he supposedly “turned his life around”, so I’m going with “no, he’s not a “good guy.”" He’s a felon who should be back in prison. And his family seems to have been somewhat in on it as well. So he was in DOC for years under a false name, and they didn’t know? Please.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:48 am
I’d also ask: how was he able to become a licensed EMT with that background?! That’s almost as scary as having a FOID card. They don’t fingerprint for that either?!

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:53 am
No. You do it for FOID cards, it’s just a matter of time before other interests will want to add fingerprints for Medicaid, driver’s licenses, welfare and/or SNAP benefits, etc.

Be careful when you open that door, because once you start, you’re going to be dealing with the Law of Unintended Consequences.

“If it’s good for one, it’s good for all”.

Think long and hard before you do this.

Comment by Anon Downstate Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:58 am
I said yes. Some states require a thumb print to even get a driver’s license. Why should it be easier to get a FOID card than a license? And I’ve worked plenty of jobs where I had to have prints on file. I agree that becoming an EMT without being printed throws me a wee bit too.

Comment by HangingOn Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:58 am
I would support a fingerprint requirement for a concealed carry permit, but doing fingerprint checks on everybody with a shotgun seems excessive to me.

Comment by benniefly2 Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:04 pm
The problem with requiring it for FOID is the cats already out of the bag, so to speak. There are a few million FOID card holders, do we require all of them to come in and get printed? Who pays for that?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:10 pm
Yes, this is common sense.

I live down the street from the scene. It’s across the street from a high school. Fingerprinting wouldn’t necessarily stem the violence in Chicago, but we should be taking every common sense action to help stop the killing.

Comment by Senator Clay Davis Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:11 pm
To be clear: The FIOD check does not include a fingerprint; therefore it only checks for ILLINOIS State Police Criminal History Information (CHI). Not out-of-state crimes. How do you like that?

Comment by Shakeandbake Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:18 pm
===Anon
FOID cards expire after 10 yrs; if IL overreaches on this issue and requires fingerprints you would get all those millions over time as the cards expire. FOID card costs $10 now - I’m sure MjM would be more than happy to up the cost to cover the fingerprinting expense.

Comment by Lech W Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:18 pm
Voted No! I don’t think a felon should be allowed to change his identity. This one was not really attempting a new life.

Comment by Matt Vernau Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:19 pm
he should have been fingerprinted for his job. that is the more scary point. we can barely pay for the production of FOID cards now as it is..

Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:20 pm
==To be clear: The FIOD check does not include a fingerprint; therefore it only checks for ILLINOIS State Police Criminal History Information (CHI). Not out-of-state crimes. How do you like that?==

That’s not correct. The State Police has access to the FBI national database

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:21 pm
No. Do away with the stupid FOID altogether and require prints for the concealed carry license. We’ve had the FOID since 1968 and it is a useless burden for law abiding and nothing for criminals. If it did half what it was supposed to do, all the other states would have it too.

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:21 pm
No

Comment by Citizen not Subject.... Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:31 pm
Anyone who wants TSA pre-check to fly has to get fingerprinted.

Fingerprinting is just the new technology for ID to stay ahead of criminals. The government already requires you prove you identity, I don’t know why we should be afraid to use the best technology.

Comment by siriusly Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:32 pm
Voted yes and per John Rawl’s comment, I would be fine with fingerprinting voters or other biometric requirement - same for employment with E-VERIFY or somesuch system. If we have the technology to stop fraud, why limit it to one area?

Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:34 pm
Lets see, you can’t require an ID to vote, but in order to exercise your right to own a firearm, you have to get processed as if your a criminal.

So now in addition to the cost of the FOID, you’re going to have to go apply in person, and get printed and pay another fee just so you might want to buy a gun or keep the ones you have.

Most people fail to realize we are one of 4 states that even have a license for mere ownership of a firearm.

ITs interesting to see how quick people are willing to toss red tape, regulations and fees on to exercising 2A rights, and all the excuses they make for it.

So how is this going affect minorities? With all the anti-cop stuff going on I’m sure everyone is going to just want to line right up at CPD, so they can get their mug shot finger prints and interview so they can keep a Glock at home.

Comment by Todd Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:35 pm
Yep, let’s show IDs for voting and then we can talk about the rest. Voter fraud is arguably far more damaging!

Comment by Beak Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:37 pm
You need a fingerprint to open your I-phone, but not to get a gun.

You have to get fingerprinted to work in a daycare, but not to get a gun.

I think i will stop there.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:37 pm
I voted no. I agree with the notion of fingerprinting for CC. I accept the premise that FOID card or no, if you really want a weapon, you’ll find a way to get one. I think that’s obvious.

Comment by New Slang Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:38 pm
Voted yes. Personally I think it should be more difficult to purchase/own firearms than to do most other things.

To those saying it should be the same level of scrutiny for voting/government benefits/etc: I don’t know of anyone committing murder with a SNAP card or ballot. Access to lethal weapons should meet much more stringent requirements than access to basic human services.

Comment by Indeterminate Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:39 pm
I love to watch the NRA phone bank in action. This question started out about 75/25 For/Against, but as the calls go out at NRA central those percentages begin to quickly drop.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:40 pm
Yes, of course, why would they not?

Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:41 pm
You know you’re wrong when you can’t defend your position without bringing up straw men. Who is talking about Voter ID’s? Let’s try and limit the discussion to the question posed. Voted yes.

Felons’ fingerprints are recorded. Felons can’t own guns. We don’t want felons to own guns. If we could prevent felons from owning guns, we should take steps to do so, assuming those measures are constitutional. These measures are. Voted yes.

Comment by AlfondoGonz Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:41 pm
Last Bull Moose - “I would like to see the nation go to a National Identity Card that would include fingerprints and a DNA sample.”

In every country with a National ID Card, including NATO allies, law enforcement can walk up to you and say “Papers please!”

Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:41 pm
YES! and I have a foid card. BTW…
You need a fingerprint to obtain Medical cannabis.

Comment by flea Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:43 pm
==In every country with a National ID Card, including NATO allies, law enforcement can walk up to you and say “Papers please!”==

That’s pretty much the perfect world for Trump supporters, no?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:44 pm
Honestly, I did not realize they were not

Comment by Downstate GOP Faithless Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:47 pm
Is this an isolated incident or a common occurence and a knee jerk reaction. How many arrests in this state of CCW licensees have happened where a name change was discovered upon arrest.Require all FOID holders to be fingerprinted because a felon circumvented the law to obtain a weapon.I think not.

Comment by Gus Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:49 pm
Voted no for various reasons, which I probably won’t explain all that well. And for the record, I had to give the State and Feds my fingerprints years ago for security clearances.

The classic slippery slope argument is one reason.

My mostly Libertarian leanings are against intrusive government regulation.

Plus America was always a place where you could re-invent yourself and succeed if you were capable of doing so.

While I find it disturbing that this person slipped through the cracks, likely by lying on various forms, I’m still inclined to the “better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted” philosophy.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:49 pm
==To be clear: The FIOD check does not include a fingerprint; therefore it only checks for ILLINOIS State Police Criminal History Information (CHI). Not out-of-state crimes. How do you like that?==

That’s not correct. The State Police has access to the FBI national database

True, provided you get an FBI number when you run a CQH through Illinois. Once you get a “hit” on a criminal history then you can run the person’s FBI number and get their arrests from other states and
any Federal arrests.

I did a lot of “historic warrants” looking for fugitives who went underground for years prior to retiring from the State Police. Women by far are the easiest to slip through the system. They get married, change their name and will NEVER be arrested on the warrant. You run, name, sex, dob, new name no warrant hit.

The only way to catch them was to hope whoever entered the warrant put in their social security number. Then when looking for the fugitive run the social along with the name, sex, dob.

Prior to retiring, I suggested that maiden or previous legal names should be put somewhere on a driver’s license so an officer on a traffic stop can run all previous names to search for warrants.

I voted no on fingerprints.

Comment by Tsavo Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:53 pm
You do have to show an ID to vote, when you register. Have any of the voter fraud conspiracy theorists ever worked as an election judge or a poll watcher? Maybe that should be a first step toward a rational discussion about voter fraud.

Comment by 100 miles west Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:55 pm
Not NO, but heck No. Why do we even subject our own residents , when an out of state gun owner doesn’t need one. The whole FOID card thing does nothing to protect us.

Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:59 pm
We have different laws than other countries. Even when the law required carrying a draft card, people were not randomly stopped.

Requiring proof of identity when voting, applying for work, or appldon’t for government benefits seems reasonable to me. I know some think answering any questions is an imposition and an affront. I don’t.

When I hunt, I want Game Wardens to check me and the guy a mile away. I feel safer knowing the other hunter is not crazy, a felon, or using a rifle on deer.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:01 pm
Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty self explanatory to me

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:03 pm
LBM. I assume you are also an advocate of stop and frisk?

Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:03 pm
NO. If the government had ran the simple check to which we are already subjected they would have discovered both the name change and the conviction. They don’t get to collect fingerprints which may or may not be used for this process but certainly aren’t required to discover this type of information regarding a FOID applicant.

Comment by Watchdog Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:05 pm
while I voted no on fingerprinting, fingerprinting someone is not
“….you have to get processed as if your a criminal.” lots of people get fingerprinted, for jobs, for example. in this case, he should have been fingerprinted for his job.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:09 pm
==NO. If the government had ran the simple check to which we are already subjected they would have discovered both the name change and the conviction. ==

Based on what information? The name he was incarcerated under was never his legal name. The article States he had two other legal names, and this one he just used when he was arrested. I’m not even sure law enforcement gets notice of a name change, either.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:11 pm
==in this case, he should have been fingerprinted for his job.==

Not required for an EMT, apparently

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:12 pm
There will always be a way to circumvent a system, no matter how many layers or obstacles placed to prevent fraud. The man was a criminal that violated and broke the law. Quit making lawful gun owners pay the price for law breakers.

Comment by Mike Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:13 pm
Voted no, but I could be persuaded to agree if there were no cost (or minimal fee like $10-15) and provided by every police station or sheriffs office. Obviously this would be an unfounded mandate but if you are going to throw up barriers to exercising a fundamental right, I believe the courts have ruled that you cannot create a “poll tax” situation.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:13 pm
Why not be consistent? Finger prints are already required for concealed carry permits.

Comment by Bang bang, shoot shoot Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:13 pm
Voted yes — it is a godd start.

Comment by kimocat Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:16 pm
By the way it is illegal for a felon to change his name in Illinois unless it is at least ten years after he has been released from custody. seems like there is a loop hole in the name change department too.

Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:16 pm
Voted No because of the time unlimited privacy waiver that Brandon Phelps let the police unions put in his 2013 concealed carry bill. You can apply for a carry license and give IL State Police access to medical records, move out of state and your license expires, but they keep the access forever.

“So how is this going affect minorities? With all the anti-cop stuff going on I’m sure everyone is going to just want to line right up at CPD, so they can get their mug shot finger prints and interview so they can keep a Glock at home.”

If NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde and Brandon Phelps cared about minorities in Chicago, they would be trying to remove the restriction for carrying on CTA buses and trains. Those two allowed that in their carry bill in the first place.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:17 pm
==Why not be consistent? Finger prints are already required for concealed carry permits.==

No, they’re not. It’s clear in the article.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:18 pm
I voted NO, as I was reading the comments about this article, so you want citizens to be fingerprinted to exercise a constitutional right, but yet it’s discrimination to have an election worker to ask for ID. And by the way the FOID card would go up from $10 to about $45 to for fingerprinting.

Comment by the driver Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:18 pm
Foid cards do nothing to deter criminals. They are just a hoop to discourage law abiding citizens from owning firearms. Even when there was a handgun ban in Chicago, I knew many people who just ignored the law and kept handguns anyway, even without foid cards. I also knew many who carried concealed before there were permits. The laws in place are a joke. They only serve to disarm the citizens, and make them victims of the criminals. New Jersey is the only other state that has foid cards, and it doesn’t work for them either.

Comment by Kevin Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:25 pm
Voted no, we shouldn’t even need a foid card, the background check when purchasing the gun should be enough. Very few states require a special license for gun ownership.

AND, why does OW hide when issues like this arise ???

Comment by DGD Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:27 pm
I voted no. Fingerprints shouldn’t be required for the FOID. They should be, and are required, for concealed carry. When I got my CCL they were required. Electronic fingerprints expedite the process vs. the ink ones, but either way, they’re required so not sure what the heck happened in this case.

Comment by Zoe Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:34 pm
==They should be, and are required, for concealed carry. When I got my CCL they were required. ==

No, they’re not. They’re optional. Your application process goes quicker if you provide them, but they are NOT required

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:39 pm
BDD. I do not support stop and frisk when it refers to random stops. I’m not really happy with random sobriety roadblocks, though I think they have been found to be legal.

On the fingerprint for FOID cards question, the fingerprints would only be taken for the initial submission. No need to retake every 10 years.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:39 pm
The FOID card itself is impeding your right. What part of “Shall not be impeded” do you people that answered yes not understand? It is not up to me to “prove” that I am innocent!

Comment by GLN Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:42 pm
No, FOID cards are nonsense.

Comment by GOP Extremist Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:52 pm
Those voting NO predominate in the most recent comments, while they did not among the earlier comments. It’s almost as if a highly organized campaign is underway to rig the poll.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:53 pm
No, The FOID should be Abolished Completely.

Comment by Dr_elusive Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:02 pm
Yes. Unless you have something to hide?

Comment by Belle Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:04 pm
No

Ridiculous overreaction to an outlier.

Oh, “a highly organized campaign” — bite me.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:06 pm
Why do we need a FOID card nowadays? With todays technology , it doesn’t take long to find your records. After nearly 50 years of it, what need does it have other than discouraging new gun owners? Paramedics should be fingerprinted for the job.

Comment by Down State Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:11 pm
If you would like to make a law preventing FELONS from changing or hiding their identities, then do so. BUT leave law abiding citizens alone. THEY do not need law enforcement to have their law abding finger prints.

Comment by Regina Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:16 pm
I voted no but would change my mind if the state paid for the finger printing (or at least no charge)and the 1 or 3 day waiting period would be removed. If you go through the 16 hr Conceal Carry training, and a background check, and get finger printed, why should you have to wait? An FFL doesn’t have to wait with almost the same background check criteria. Make it consistent and not look like you are trying to penalize legal firearm owners.

Comment by DrMe Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:16 pm
Voted no, FOID is unconstitutional anyway.

Comment by Freedom isn't free Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:23 pm
==If you would like to make a law preventing FELONS from changing or hiding their identities, then do so. BUT leave law abiding citizens alone. THEY do not need law enforcement to have their law abding finger prints.==

So how is the State to know the difference between the two without the ability to check? In this case, one identity was a “law abiding citizen” and another, that the person created in a way that the only link would be fingerprints or his admission, was not law abiding. If you could explain a way to link the two without fingerprints, inquiring minds would love to know.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:24 pm
Voted no, cause Im opposed to foid cards

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:24 pm
YES - State requires fingerprints for watching children in your home to weed out any persons who could cause harm to said children…should fingerprint to own anything that could purposefully harm the lives of others. No brainer.

Comment by Grimm Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:26 pm
Voted, NO! It’s sad, to see how many people are willing to give,for the false sense of security.

Comment by b Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:27 pm
“No. You do it for FOID cards, it’s just a matter of time before other interests will want to add fingerprints for Medicaid, driver’s licenses, welfare and/or SNAP benefits, etc.”

It is known that all of the listed programs are filled with fraud. Estimates are that fraud last year some $60 billion of Medicare and Medicaid was another $140 billion across the 50 states. This past April the Governor Rauner created a Health Care Fraud Elimination Task Force using Executive Order 16-05 to help root out waste, fraud and abuse in taxpayer-funded health in Illinois. One method of doing this would be by way of fingerprints.

Comment by Small town taxpayer Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:27 pm
NO! Unless it is merely an applicant check against a criminal database of prints AND a record of the applicant print is NOT kept in any database.

Comment by Fiscal Sense Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:28 pm
This one brought ‘em outta the woodwork.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:29 pm
== It’s almost as if a highly organized campaign is underway to rig the poll. ==

Nobody called me. I was just expressing my personal opinion.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:32 pm
For what possible valid reason would anyone say no to this question? Of course the applicant fingerprint’s should be checked…otherwise the State does not know for a fact he or she is who they say they are.

Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:36 pm
Let me see IL gun buyers DON’T need to be finger printed but MedMar users do? What Century are we in? How crazy in this State? This question is as easy to answer as… “Do you think the sun will rise tomorrow?”

Comment by qualified someone nobody sent Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:37 pm
I voted yes. I have supplied law enforcement with prints for being a Scoutmaster and for CCW, and see nothing wrong with print ID’s.

Comment by Touré's Latte Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:47 pm
** otherwise the State does not know for a fact he or she is who they say they are **

That should also apply to voting then, should it not ?

Comment by DGD Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:56 pm
I voted yes. I’m guessing there is more than one Michael Arquero out there.

Comment by Flynn's mom Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 2:59 pm
I bet most of the people voting yes think there is actually a gun show and online loophole. Spoiler… there isn’t

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:14 pm
NO, no and no again why don’t we just barcode or microchip everyone, problem solved. Then the government would know our every move. Except for the criminals, they always figure ways around everything anyways,

Comment by Digity Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:21 pm
Most other states only require proof of age, aka drivers license. This is insane IL even has a FOID card.

Comment by The Realist Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:21 pm
Voted No. It’s common sense.

Comment by Retired FF Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:21 pm
Providing Fingerprints for my Concealed Carry License costs $160.00 Is the state willing to pay that for me to exercise a right? What about the poor who can barely afford food, they aren’t allowed to protect themselves because they can’t afford finger prints?

Comment by The Realist Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:23 pm
==I bet most of the people voting yes think there is actually a gun show and online loophole. Spoiler… there isn’t==

For the record, I know there is not…at least in Illinois…and I voted yes. That has absolutely zero to do with conversation.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:50 pm
Yes. I think it is reasonable since criminals can change their identities but not their fingerprints.

Comment by Decatur gal Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:54 pm
Heck No! Unless the lefties want to fingerprint all voters too?

After all, voting is far more important and potentially dangerous than gun ownership, ruight?

Comment by DonP Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:59 pm
FOID is inherently unconstitutional. You cannot freeze a right until government approval(at least the other amendments are not frozen) which is why the lack of a FOID card is rarely prosecuted. If pushed it would topple the whole requirement. So No unless you want to see the whole FOID system come down, then yes, yes all the way, bring it down!!

Comment by hook Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:08 pm
Absolutely not. Are fingerprints on file required to exercise any other Constitutional right? I also believe that felons should only have their Constitutional rights stripped for the duration that they are in prison or on parole. After that if they are safe enough to be released into society then they should be treated as anyone else.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:12 pm
==You cannot freeze a right until government approval(at least the other amendments are not frozen) ==

Yeah, you can. It happens every day. And there’s nothing unconstitutional about it.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:27 pm
They should get rid of FOID card. The only state in the U.S. that has one. Must work well, no gun problems in Chicago

Comment by Strobby Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:40 pm
====You cannot freeze a right until government approval(at least the other amendments are not frozen) ==

Tell that to people and groups that need to get a permit to speak in certain areas

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:41 pm
No, because further checks on any group that is overwhelmingly law abiding is counter intuitive, and further burdens a system already overloaded with unnecessary checks. Instead, those who have committed felonies should be identified better, so that none can slip through the cracks. Imagine instead of 3 million FOID’s to track, we only had to track convicted felons? Sounds much more logical to me…

Comment by Central Illinois Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:48 pm
- Strobby - Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:40 pm:

They should get rid of FOID card. The only state in the U.S. that has one. Must work well, no gun problems in Chicago -

My thoughts exactly. The FOID is just a revenue grab and has nothing to do with protecting anyone.

Comment by downstater Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 5:00 pm
Criminals will continue to get firearms. How many of the shooters that have shoot over 3,000 Chicagoans had a FOID card? (Well, yes, you have to catch them first). Since a criminal gone good, then bad, shot somebody, now all law-abiding citizens have to jump through MORE loops? Read the federal form 4473 that is filled out when you legally purchase a firearm and compare it to the form that criminals fill out.

Comment by Dispatch Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 5:02 pm
===It is known that all of the listed programs are filled with fraud. Estimates are that fraud last year some $60 billion of Medicare and Medicaid was another $140 billion across the 50 states. This past April the Governor Rauner created a Health Care Fraud Elimination Task Force using Executive Order 16-05 to help root out waste, fraud and abuse in taxpayer-funded health in Illinois. One method of doing this would be by way of fingerprints.===

Yes? How so? I get a press release digest from HHS every week and the fraudsters are almost 100% providers, as in companies and individual doctors and pharmacists. NOT patients. Are these professional people not already vetted in some way?

To the question, I vote “yes.” Many people ignore the “well-regulated” portion of this Constitutional right, but I don’t.

Comment by yinn Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 5:24 pm
Yes.

Giving a fingerprint is not an undue burden or regulation in exchange for being able to legally use something whose primary purpose is to end a human life at will.

Which, btw, none of the other Constitutional “Rights” entail.

Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 5:57 pm
Voted yes. A person could have a criminal history under an alias.

Comment by Paceman Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 6:13 pm
Criminals kill people so law-abiding gun owners must pay penance. Makes sense.

Comment by Petey Pal Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 7:39 pm
It’s a close call for me, but basically yes–firearms are something for which the stakes are too high to risk a fake or stolen ID situation. I’m open to debate on this, though.

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 8:01 pm
My wife was driving my truck a while back. Got pulled over for missing liscence plate light. Now old Mrs Blue is 72. Seems i left a box of shells from opening day of duck season on back seat floor. Mrs Blue doesnt have a FOID card…i will let you all finish the story.

Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 8:11 pm
I voted no for the simple fact how many times do I need to pay for fingerprinting? I was printed when I enlisted, If I want a ccw permit in a reasonable time I have to pay to be finger printed, I have to be printed every time I renew my drivers license at almost $100 a pop. So when is enough enough?

Comment by USMC vet Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 8:42 pm
No, not until the National NICS check requires it. Otherwise loopholes for criminals exist between different jurisdictions - it’s only common sense and quite reasonable…

Comment by markthesignguy Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 8:46 pm
Do you feel safer knowing martha Stewart won’t have a gun in Illinois?

Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 9:12 pm
Get fingerprints for driving a vehicle/state ID. Then implement for voting ID/fingerprint card. After those two have been met, we can talk about FOID card requirements.

We could just repeal the FOID act as I am under the assumption we are one of only two states that use them. How the rest of America functions/survives can really boggle the mind.

We could try something new and just hold felons responsible for multiple infractions with penalties.

Comment by Jaybird Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 9:40 pm
So….in other words, that’s what? A 0.00001% of Conceal Carry Permits that slip through the crack? How about changing the law, where one cannot not simply change their name and start a complete new identity?

Instead, we want to spend lots of money to initiate a fingerprint check? C’mon!

Comment by Shanks Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:52 pm
No - The sorts of restrictions spoken of in the article are just feel good restrictions because, as the article says, the “bad” guys will get a gun anyway. Reminds me of the feel good TSA searches at the airport in that neither accomplishes much.

Comment by Late to the Party Thursday, Oct 27, 16 @ 6:53 am
“Criminals kill people so law-abiding gun owners must pay penance. Makes sense.”

Ugh. It’s obliviousness like this that keeps allowing guns into the hands of folks that don’t need them. We even got to the point where schoolchildren were killed by the dozen and you’d be more worried about having to show you’re competent to wield such a weapon. What a joke.

Comment by Stark Thursday, Oct 27, 16 @ 8:19 am
I voted NO because all these identiy issues will be addressed in new legislation that will require EVERYONE to show their Federal ID on demand…..

Comment by Mr Wonderful Friday, Oct 28, 16 @ 10:22 am
If it’s reasonable enough for gun owners to get fingerprinted and not have a Constitutional issue, then it’s reasonable enough to ask for fingerprinting as part of positive identification for an ID card to vote.

It’s all about common sense and being reasonable, right Rich?

Comment by Downstate John Friday, Oct 28, 16 @ 11:20 am