If NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, DC, SF, Las Vegas, and other major cities across the country didn't require fingerprinting then it was unreasonable and according to my view, "onerous" in terms of the implications.
There is no reason except restraint of trade that Austin would need this fingerprinting when other larger and far more dangerous cities have done fine without it.
I would like to direct your attention to the "principle of charity" suggestion that @dang recommends commenters use when evaluating discussion.
By asserting facially false facts (NYC does indeed require fingerprinting[1]), and then attributing malice ("no reason except trade restraint") to Austin's referendum results your reply violates that principle in my opinion.
There is no reason except restraint of trade that Austin would need this fingerprinting when other larger and far more dangerous cities have done fine without it.