[snip] Legislators and others say it's time for a serious look at state laws governing criminal records. A task force report released earlier this month called for a host of changes....

Their recommendations included:

• Creating four levels of state-mandated background checks, with the toughest checks for law enforcement personnel and those who want to buy or carry guns.

• Increasing use of fingerprints for criminal background checks.

• Consolidating about 40 requirements for background checks into a single statute. [snip]

how about a source?

The full article?

Two things I don't like....

Someone who is against something who does not provide the full story or source.


Someone who is for something who doesn't provide the full story or source.

So I forgot to put it in. It is in the LOCAL newspaper and it is Christmas (and I just finished a transatlantic flight).

Took just seconds to find it. http://www.startribune.com/587/story/894553.html

Thanks for the link.



This will bother me much more though.

I was expecting something about "those we trust our kids with" included in that. That would guarantee passage

I don't know if fingerprints add much to a check. If a check comes back on me as being clear, odds are fingerprints will come back clear as well. I also have a fairly uncommon name, so the odds of there being 2 of me with the same name are low as well.

I've give my prints to afew agencies in the past and know I'm clear, but it doesn't mean I liked doing it..

I have mixed feelings on this. I'd like there to be some standards, but I also like there to be an option for an agency or a specific law to have a different way of doing a check if they feel its enough.

I also don't like something like this being codified into a law, as it could be changed if emotions flare up right before passage, or someone adds a "for the children" clause that will make it nearly impossible for anyone to qualify for some of the checks.

Sounds like State laws to "fight crime" coming, with a couple of gun control twists in the package.

We need to find a way to complain at every committee hearing, because at the end everyone will vote for the Omnibus Crime bill with the "harmless and reasonable" gun control provisions.

By the time it comes up for house/senate vote it will be too late. Gov will have to sign it.

"Finger Prints" for gun owners will never solve a crime but it sounds good, and will set the stage for more stuff. Why not collect our DNA as well?

Let's see if I'm understanding this. They want to make it easier for criminals (the bad guys) to hide their past and they want to make it harder for LEOs and law abiding citizens (the good guys) who want to purchase and or carry. Must be a Democratic legislature.

gunflint sums it up well...

Hey, Joe? I think gunflint just wrote some very good Republican talking points.

Good point! +1 It just blows my mind!

Already in there, just needs to be refined:


As for Law Enforcement having to be thoroughly checked, they certainly should be, and I speak as a cop. Gun owners? We go through enough hoops already, and I don't really see what else they could add on that we don't do anyway. From that article it looks to me more as though they are wanting to relax some standards on checks, but keep some more stringent ones (i.e. CCW checks and LE background checks) in place. At the moment there's a real mixture of requirements for different jobs which make it pretty complicated to ensure the right check has been done for the right position.

We need to know more about what they are proposing and looking into before having a stroke over it, otherwise this has a lot of chances for gun owners to show themselves in a bad light by rushing to judgement too soon.

Found by Alfred Fingulin of GOCRA/CCRN:

> Here's where to find out more about the study group:
>
> http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/GovOrg/B ... gement.htm
>
> The .pdf files:
>
> ...on the participants:
> http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/GovOrg/D ... ipants.pdf
>
> ...on the final report:
> http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/GovOrg/D ... Report.pdf
>

I looked through the final report.

Why would you exsponge convictions ever? What is the problem they are trying to solve?

I understand why you might exsponge arrests that never turned into anything but convictions does not make since.

Thanks for the links!

Do a Google search on an Alfred Plea.

How about the Lautenberg Amendment.


How many LEO and military service members lost their jobs because an estranged spouse had a witch for a lawyer.

How many people were railroaded by Child Protective Services?

Expungement was their only recourse. And even then it was often times to little, to late.

The reason you couldn't find the origin of the term "Alfred plea" is
because the term is actually "Alford plea." It is derived from the
Supreme Court's 1970 decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.
25............from Google, not me.....

Before taking the Alfred Plea, you turn to your attorney and ask, "If I take it, will I meet Batman?"

.