Fingerprinting law.

For example, fingerprints on a gun, if it is not illegal to carry a gun, then why would our fingerprints on a gun matter?

Wouldn’t until that gun was linked to a murder or armed robbery. Then the police can come to you and ask why your fingerprints are on that weapon.

No to national database except criminals. Amblessed, I have nothing to hide either, and we BOTH are already in a fingerprint database, you because of clearance for your former job (or at least I’m assuming so), and me for military clearance. I just think that it is intrusive.

There are a lot of good reasons to have both fingerprint and DNA databases.

Opponents will argue that it is an invasion of privacy.

I personally have no issue with it. It would make identifying victims of disasters much easier, as well as identifying criminals when either is found at a crime scene.

No. “Having nothing to hide” only applies if:

a) You don’t mind your legal but sensitive activities being available to others (possibly criminal) via the freedom of information act

b) You are naive enough to believe that criminals never work for the government

Distrust of the government is not only prudent, but necessary for a healthy republic.

Here in NZ we dont have eiter law for dna or fingerprints.

I believe though, that it is more an invasion of privacy more than anything else. Despite the crimes… There are other ways of gathering evidence, and often things like fingerprints or dna is not as concrete evidence as it forst appears. For example, fingerprints on a gun, if it is not illegal to carry a gun, then why would our fingerprints on a gun matter?

If that made any sense whatsoever then WHOOOHOOO!!!

Fingerprints AND a blood sample.