Grant County to Implement $10 Charge for Non-Criminal Fingerprinting Services

The Grant County Quorum Court unanimously approved an ordinance allowing the sheriff's office to collect a $10 fee for non-criminal electronic fingerprinting services.

The service is often required for employment opportunities including teachers, healthcare and others. Recently the county has seen an increase in fingerprint requests for concealed carry permits. Grant  County Sheriff Ray Vance estimates his office has received six to eight recent requests for fingerprints related to concealed weapon permits.

Vance's office can waive the fee and does not plan to charge the fee for employment requirements but will implement the fee for requests that are not "necessary."

"Concealed weapon's I don't feel is quite a necessity," Vance said to the quorum court.

Arkansas House Bill 1227, passed in 2015, allows local law enforcement agencies to "charge a reasonable fee for noncriminal fingerprinting services to offset the cost of expenses associated with offering a noncriminal fingerprinting service." Vance said this is the same amount the Arkansas State Police charge for fingerprinting services.

Justice Alex White of Sheridan voted "no" on the first two readings of the ordinance which allowed for discussion. White proposed allowing the community to attend a future meeting for discussion. The ordinance unanimously passed after the third reading and takes effect after 30 days.

The quorum court also approved hiring Roof Connect to fix a five-layer flat roof and four skylights for an estimated 19,515.

The meeting was adjourned after Vance updated the justices about meetings with the state highway department after more than 20 accidents have occurred on the U.S. 167 bypass since it opened in March 2015. Vance said half of those accidents involved large trucks on both the south end and north end of the bypass. The state has about $330,000 to widen the south end of the ramp. Vance also noted the possibility of extending the time lights are red or yellow to allow additional time for cars to stop. He said a flashing yellow light was discussed but related expenses would be the responsibility of the county.

Politics

Usually there's nothing really going on that affects me enough to care to write a senator or representative. Little did I know one of those issues would be arising while I was over seas. Yesterday I was able to write Representative Ross along with encouraging other friends on Facebook to write their senator and/or representatives, especially those in the Little Rock area whose representative was a co-sponsor of the SOPA act.

It was nice to be involved. But even more, I saw a lot of people on Facebook getting involved, writing their congressmen/women, and raising awareness. It was nice to see so many people being involved in the political process. I have seen that both Boozman and Griffin have removed their names from the respective bills and said they will vote against them. Hopefully we see that through, and hopefully with all of the letters nationwide the bill/resolution will not pass.

Speaking out while you can

It is all over the news. It is all over the social media. Although, from Spain I see very little of the "protesting," that has been reported such as the Wikipedia blackout (this links to Wiki's explanation of the blackout and some more info about the whole idea.)  and Google's photo of the day. However, I have read some articles and seen videos explaining the intent of a new bill/resolution introduced to the U.S. Congress. In the house it is commonly referred to as SOPA, or Stop Online Piracy Act; and in the senate the name is so long I will only refer to it by acronym, PROTECT IP.

I am going to try to keep this blog fairly short so if you want a lot of details I would encourage you to look at some of it yourself. Some of what is reported that the bill would do is require all websites such as YouTube, facebook, etc to remove any material that might infringe on any copyrighted material. Those that don't would suffer from fines and penalties. Search engines and advertisements would have to remove all links to infringing websites. And the government would be able to block access to the websites. That sounds like a very dangerous precedent to allow to be set to me--the government being able to block access to any website deemed to be in violation.

I was glad to see an announcement stating that the white house does not support this bill. For once I can agree with them. I know in countries such as China many websites are filtered through the government. For instance, without a special way around their filters Facebook is not available in China. Now, this bill may not exactly let the government pick and choose what sites to filter but it is still a dangerous precedent. What might be next?

At the same time I can somewhat sympathize with the entertainment industry. They spend thousands or millions of dollars to make a movie or an album, only to have it end up on the internet where anyone can download for free. But, if I am a true fan of an artist I am going to want to buy their products to show I am a fan and to support them. Without the sales they may not be around for long. As far as music goes, being able to listen to songs on Youtube or other websites doesn't mean I won't buy a CD, in fact, if it is often why I buy a product. If someone sends me a link to listen to a group and I like it, I might buy a CD. Without Youtube I would probably never have heard of the group. So banning all of this could actually hurt the industry even more. If I can't preview music I won't buy music. I have enough in my collection already and there is always the radio.