TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:When you are arrested the police can photograph you and fingerprint you right now. Is that acceptable? I believe it is. So, you can be identified. This is not stopping people on the street forcing a specimen. These are people arrested. If we can accept that people that are arrested can have their fingerprints taken for id purposes why not accept that it is ok to have something more than the genetics of the swirls of their fingers to the genetics of the dna that made those swirls assuming that it is not invasive and a buccal swab is not invasive. Now if you don't think fingerprinting is acceptable, turn in your chl and give your guns to someone else as you have already agreed to that form of id.

There are an awful lot of people in jails right now that have been released because of these dna tests. I think there needs to be controls on how the info is used but I don't think that a definitive id of someone by a buccal swab taken from someone that has been arrested and will be photographed and fingerprinted is an unconstitutional thing. Can the info be used the wrong way by our government. No doubt, look at the IRS. If you want to make sure that Bin Laden is dead though and not a look alike you need positive id and I don't know anything better than dna. If the LA police had done things right OJ would be in jail in California (or executed) instead of being in jail in Nevada. We all want the police arresting the right person and not putting the wrong person in jail. DNA makes that possible. Fingerprints are just not that good. Uncle has multiple sets on me from TSA passes and my time in the service yet my CHL set had to be repeated several times.

Ready for the flames.