Gov. Blagojevich’s Aug. 10 shoot down of legislation that would allow teenagers to get tattoos at the age of 18 has caused a stir among some local tattoo artists. Posters prominently displaying an image of Uncle Sam and a simple question asking, “Who is taking your rights away?” has recently begun to appear along Green Street.

The veto of the proposed House Bill 0029 keeps the legal age to get a tattoo at 21 years old. Although the governor struck down the provision that would lower the legal age, he does support other parts of the bill. This includes increased penalties for tattooing or body piercing a minor. Violations are now considered a class A misdemeanor rather than a class C misdemeanor. Shop owners and tattoo artists can be charged if anyone younger than 18 is unaccompanied by a legal guardian on the premises.

Employees and customers of at least three tattoo and piercing shops on campus have taken varying degrees of action to oppose the governor’s veto of the bill, which many believe will heavily impact the tattooing and piercing industry.

Efforts against the governor’s veto have been championed by several local tattoo artists and piercers, including Matt Bavougian, a piercer for New Life Tattoo and Body Piercing, located at 404 E. Green St.

New Life employees drafted and circulated petitions protesting the veto, as well as literature on how people can register to vote and contact their state senator and representative.

“Finances is by no means the only reason we are pushing for this,” Bavougian said. “We want to tell people about the House Bill and push them to register.”

Jason Dunavan, co-owner, tattoo artist and piercer for Altered Egos Tattoo and Body Piercing at 630 S. Fifth St., supports his competitors efforts, yet is more reserved about the issue.

“I understand why (lawmakers) are doing it, but I don’t agree with it,” Dunavan said.

Dunavan was among several artists who expressed slight frustration over the continuing repercussions of a higher age for legally receiving a tattoo. He said that he did not believe the existing laws stop minors from getting tattoos.

The bill was originally proposed by State representative, Jerry Mitchell. Mitchell said that a consistent age limit for both tattooing and body piercing was essential so that shop owners and police could easily ensure that the age restrictions were being enforced. Local business owners are arguing that nothing was remedied by the amendments made to the bill as minors can still enter piercing and tattoo shops.

“Regulated industry is a safe industry,” Bavougian said. “An unregulated industry causes injury and defamation of the industry itself.”

Although these artists are trying to gain exposure for their cause, other local business owners, such as Nick Wiggins of Mark of Cain Tattoos at 202 E. Green St., do not want to draw public attention to the bill.

“We were hoping it would get by with a whisper,” Wiggins said. “But, we just need to bite our tongues.”

Wiggins, who did not contribute to the petitions against the legislation, said that if too much emphasis is put on a protest against the governor’s action, then the industry will receive so much political attention that the existing state regulations could be revoked in favor of stricter legislation.

“If they scream too loud, he could pull out all the state regulation, and then they’ll be sorry,” Wiggins said.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures, 39 states currently regulate tattooing. Illinois remains one of two states where the minimum age to get a tattoo is 21. The minimum age in the other 37 states is 18. The legal age in Illinois for body piercing will remain 18.

“As a parent, I don’t want my daughters to rush to get tattoos on their 18th birthdays,” Blagojevich said. “At that age, most kids are still in high school and don’t have the judgment or perspective to decide on something as permanent as tattooing your skin.”

Each local tattoo artist or piercer who commented on Blagojevich’s statement expressed skepticism towards the governor’s reasons for vetoing the bill.

“It would appear that the governor is not looking at the state as a whole,” Bavougian said. “He is looking at his family.”

The governor’s amendments to the bill will become effective Jan. 1, 2006 pending approval by the General Assembly during the Fall Veto Session.