(NY) The expected attack on gunowners.

[K80Geoff]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/lo...,749795.column


COMMENTARY



Gun-Law Mystery
Paul Vitello

October 8, 2002

Even as a casual reader of newspapers, your guess is as good as any forensic expert's in "profiling" the unknown sniper now killing people in the Washington, D.C., area.
You have been reading about a guy like this for years:
It is a man. He is a loner. He spends more time with his gun than he does with his family. He was beaten or abused as a child. He has what can be gently referred to as emotional limitations - an inability to communicate, an inability to compromise, an inability to see another person's point of view.
As deadly as his aim is with a gun, he is otherwise aimless in his life, though he considers himself a person who should be taken into account. He has been thwarted by others, he believes. He has been denied his true place in the world, he believes. He feels justified, therefore, in denying others their place in this world. Blah, blah, blah.
He is the very unmysterious mystery member of the family - the Charles Whitman/David Berkowitz/Zodiac Killer cousins of America.
If there is a mystery surrounding him, it is not about his personality.
It is about the gun laws in America that still make him possible.
After all the political assassinations, the Columbines and the mass murders of people eating their lunch in fast-food restaurants, Americans are still guaranteed more privacy in buying a gun than in buying a car.
To get a driver's license is infinitely more complicated than to acquire a high-powered rifle or a semi-automatic weapon capable of mass human destruction.
Even after committing crimes, gun owners are protected by the laws of the country.
For instance, there is technology now available to "fingerprint" every gun before it is sold. This would make it possible to trace a bullet or bullet casing from a crime scene back to the gun from which it was fired. The technique is known as "ballistic fingerprinting."
In the recent shootings in the suburbs of Washington, for example, four of the killings have been linked by ballistic tests showing they were fired from the same rifle. If the rifle had been "fingerprinted," it would now be known, at least, to whom it was initially sold. Maybe that would be the killer. Maybe not. But it would be a lead - a lead not now available to police because for years the American gun lobby has blocked this technology from being employed on a national scale.
(It has only recently - and with results not useful in the current investigation - been adopted in two states, New York and Maryland.)
The National Rifle Association argues that such a law would be the equivalent of national "registration" of firearms. In the recent legislative debates in New York and Maryland, NRA lobbyists criticized the expense of the system, the delay it would entail in the sale of weapons (because every gun would have to be test-fired before being sold), and the possibility that after fingerprinting newly sold guns, the states would begin demanding fingerprinting of old ones, too.
"This so-called 'ballistic fingerprinting' is just another angle on the gun-grabbers efforts to minimize our rights," wrote a gun-owner to one of the NRA's national Web magazines. "Ballistic fingerprinting once started can never be stopped. Eventually it will lead to a requirement that not only will we be required to obtain a license and register our firearms, we will be required to submit our guns for 'ballistic fingerprinting.'"
Blah, blah, blah.
Nancy Hwa, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington gun-control lobby, says the "fingerprinting battle" has been joined in many states for years. "The NRA has fought it every step of the way," she said.
You can draw your own picture of the profile of the gun lobby. It is male. It is fixated on guns. It is paranoid about losing its guns. It is so jealous of its right to own guns that its friends in government, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, were willing to forgo vital information in the post-9/11 terrorism investigation rather than violate the gun owners' sense of privacy.
Ashcroft prohibited FBI agents involved in the terrorism probe from checking on gun purchases more than 90 days old, for instance - because it could have violated gun owners' rights.
This is true. You could look it up.
You could look up almost anything nowadays except for the paper trail of a gun that might kill you.

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.

[Al in Md.]

I live in MD. and have been waiting for the crying and sniveling from the Brady Bunch. I can hardly stand the silence! They must be holding back for some reason. Anyone want to speculate as to why? Are they planning the press confrence from hell? Al in Md.

[Marko Kloos]

He has what can be gently referred to as emotional limitations - an inability to communicate, an inability to compromise, an inability to see another person's point of view.

followed by

"This so-called 'ballistic fingerprinting' is just another angle on the gun-grabbers efforts to minimize our rights," wrote a gun-owner to one of the NRA's national Web magazines. "Ballistic fingerprinting once started can never be stopped. Eventually it will lead to a requirement that not only will we be required to obtain a license and register our firearms, we will be required to submit our guns for 'ballistic fingerprinting.'"
Blah, blah, blah.

'Nuff said.

The beating of clueless and hypocritical sheep.

[qkrthnu]

I'm sure they're going to wait until the shooter is found and it's known what type of gun is being used and how it was obtained. Then they'll focus their campaign in that direction.

[USAFNoDak]

I live in MD. and have been waiting for the crying and sniveling from the Brady Bunch. I can hardly stand the silence! They must be holding back for some reason. Anyone want to speculate as to why? Are they planning the press confrence from hell? Al in Md.

They are waiting to see what type of gun is being used and what the makeup of the shooter is (middle eastern terrorist, angry white militia member male, etc) so that they can then spin their latest gun grab attempt to cover the broadest area.

The VPC and the Brady Campaign, are hoping that the scenario is:

1. an "assault weapon" as this helps them to get this law renewed in 2004.

2. the gun was bought at a gun show so that they can promote their gun show loophole laws.

3. it is either a right wing militia member or a middle eastern terrorist. This will demonstrate how off-kilter, angry, white, males, think the Second Amendment means they can form militias and arm themselves to the teeth with assault weapons, or they can complain about how easy it is for even terrorists to acquire weapons with our lax gun laws.

[jimpeel]

If this turns out to be perpetrated with an "assault rifle" just watch how fast the rifle that has been touted as "cheaply produced, innaccurate and designed to "spray-fire" an area with the intention of killing as many people as possible" turns into a "highly sophisticated, highly accurate weapon designed to efficiently kill people from great distances".

Ya heard it here first.

[vulcan]

If the attacks continue or expand, I can see a moritorium or ban on the sales of .223 ammo or all calibers. I think now is a good time to buy some extras just in case.....

It can't hurt

[Airwolf]

If this turns out to be perpetrated with an "assault rifle" just watch how fast the rifle that has been touted as "cheaply produced, inaccurate and designed to "spray-fire" an area with the intention of killing as many people as possible" turns into a "highly sophisticated, highly accurate weapon designed to efficiently kill people from great distances"

When did the VPC, MMM, HCI, etc, etc, etc EVER let the truth (or their own previous lies) ever stand in the way of a good sound bite to make the sheep start chanting "it's for the children."

[zorba]

Your wait is over, Larry Pratt from GOA and some talking head from the Brady Bunch had a very heated debate tonight on CNN's Crossfire. His son, Erich Pratt was also on a news show over the weekend debating the gun control issue in Maryland. Gun control is attempting to get another round of anti gun laws passed on the back of the Maryland sniper. The attack has begun!

[mjustice]

Vitello fails to report that NY has spent millions on the COBIS program, and it has not solved ANY crimes yet.

I wonder if the Brady Bunch is going to have something to report... the longer this drags on, the more I begin to think this "sniper" is not going to be caught.

MJ

[Fred Hansen]

The beating of clueless and hypocritical sheep.

Freudian slip?

[labgrade]

Wolf Bllissnitz shall have an "expose" on how easy is it to obtain a "sniper rifle" 10/9 5PM EDT - CNN

Any bets?

jimpeel - been thinking the same the from day one ....

[RKCheung]

Here's the transript to tonight's Crossfire.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/08/cf.00.html

I think Larry Pratt did a pretty good job. I would've gone to see the taping if I knew he was going to be on.

[MuzzleBlast]

PRATT: Oh, yes. Well that's where one of the kids was hit. Apparently the murderer forgot that it was a gun-free zone.

NOVAK: Mr. Henigan, I've been talking to people like you on this show for about 20 years. And some of them are very candid with me, and some are not. I'm going to give you the candor test. What you would really like to do is have national registration and severe restrictions on gun ownership, wouldn't you?

HENIGAN: No. What we want is...

NOVAK: You flunked the test.

BOOYAH!

[jimpeel]

HENIGAN " It makes absolutely no sense when we have the technology today, to not only be able to tell that the same gun was used in multiple shootings. We could tell which gun it was. And we could do that before we even confiscate the gun.

AH HA!

[K80Geoff]

Please POST far and wide.

Nassau County... | NCNF
Where POLITICAL hypocrites rule. | Nassau County News Flash
------------------------------------------------

Newsday's columnist Paul Vitello needs to get his head examined or he needs
to learn how to do some research.

Mr. Vitello brings up 'ballistic fingerprinting' for firearms (see article
below; 10/8/2002) as if he knows and understands the idea. The only thing he
got right is that Maryland and New York have instituted this taxpayer $$
wasting, useless concept. If Mr. Vitello had done his homework, he would
have found that even the U.S. government study said that the process does
not work. Currently, the land on 'NO' (California) is researching (study,
titled "Technical Evaluation: Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database
for all New Handgun Sales) the ballistic database idea to see if it works.
Their preliminary report says, are you ready, "ballistic database systems
for new guns are unworkable and pollute the crime gun database with
thousands of non-crime guns."

Now, for Mr. Vitello's edification, I will let the cat-out-of-the-bag, the
NYS ballistic fingerprinting system is a total sham perpetrated on the
Maryland and New York taxpayers. These costly programs will yield few valid
results. This is because, the system can
only locate the last lawful owner. And since most crimes are committed with
illegal, stolen weapons, not by the lawful owners, this information is
worthless.

The CA study's opening paragraph of the study reads:

"Automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results.
Rather, a list of potential candidates are presented that must be manually
reviewed. When applying this technology to the concept of mass sampling of
manufactured firearms, a huge inventory of potential candidates will be
generated for manual review. This study indicates that this number of
candidate cases will be so large as to be impractical and will likely create
complications so great that they cannot be effectively addressed."


And the study further goes on to state that ballistic databases are useless
for revolver, rimfire and shotguns and only marginally effective on
semi-autos.

In addition, the study states, in detail, how easy it is to alter the
signature of a gun and how the signature changes (normally) with use and
that different brands of ammo and different loads will produce different
results (see "IS (Gun DNA) program - A Primer on...." below).
The system is easily bypassed by some very simple, inexpensive and well
known procedures. These procedures are just plain common sense. If the gun
is fired many times and polished in several major places, the shell case
ballistic fingerprint is drastically changed. The "distinct markings" are
permanently altered. If laws are written to stop the alteration, it still
will not work because criminals do not care about the written law, only
law-abiding citizens would follow it. And, the ballistics change just by
firing the gun.

In New York, law was created in the spring of 2000 by the NYS GOP to defuse
the gun issue for the coming election. But it came at a very large cost to
the NYS citizens - the collection and maintenance of useless 'feel-good'
EXPEN$IVE information. UNDERSTAND, in NY, the State Assembly and Senate
either didn't care about the truth or where to stupid to not do a study on
the cost of this wa$teful idea.

Mr. Vitello, please find other work, in another state.

Alan Chwick, Editor
NCNF
10/09/2002



----- IS (Gun DNA) program - A Primer on.... -----

Barrel Twist
Erasing Ballistic Fingerprints
Bill Twist, The PlanetTimes.com
June 28, 2000

As a public service, this weeks column is about some practical matters, and
only tangentially political. With the passage of bill S08234 in the New York
Senate, and recent information about the formation of the Integrate
Ballistic Imaging System (IBIS) being set up by the BATF, I thought some
practical information about defeating these systems would be appropriate at
this time. I would ask that you print this out and send it to your
representatives, state and federal. Tack it up at the local gun shop, and
give it out for free at the next gun show.

The first thing to remember is that they can't image or match what they
don't have. Guns that spew spent casings, like semi-autos, leave more
evidence. This can be overcome, of course, but it requires more work. Also,
guns that don't leave rifling marks on the projectiles (like shotguns) can't
be matched either. All of these systems work with two principles in mind:
rifling leaves identifiable marks on the bullet, and the act of firing
leaves identifiable marks on the cartridge case. Unless you use a smoothbore
muzzleloader, there is a possibility of tracing either the bullet, the
cartridge case, or both.

Let us take rifling marks first. The thing you should understand is that
these marks change with wear, rendering any registration of the rifling
marks eventually useless. If you want to defeat such a registration system,
you must hasten the wear in the barrel. If the gun was entered into a
registration system before you bought it, you have a couple of options.
First, if it is a semi-automatic handgun, you could simply buy another
barrel. Barrels are uncontrolled, and easily swapped in and out of
semi-autos. If you don't want to go to the trouble (or possible paper trail)
of buying a new barrel, or if you can't easily change the barrel in your
gun, you must change the marks the rifling makes.

You can't change the rifling itself, unless you re-bore the barrel. But you
can change the microscopic characteristics of your particular gun. This can
be accomplished by soaking a patch in an abrasive and running it up and down
the barrel vigorously several times. You can also "fire-lap" the barrel,
which is more involved, but just as effective (and more conducive to
accuracy). Both of these methods will change the particular "fingerprint" of
your barrel. If and when a bullet fired from your barrel is scanned, it will
not match any previous sample from your barrel. The most that could be said
at that point is that the two samples (one from before you performed the
operation, one from after) came from the same caliber and type of gun, but
that the two samples don't match.

The other thing you have to worry about is spent cartridge cases. Spentcases
are ejected forcefully from semi-automatic firearms, less so from manually
operated arms like bolt, lever, and pump actions, and they aren't ejected at
all from revolvers. Since we don't have to worry about revolvers, this
mostly applies to other firearms (including rifles and shotguns). The firing
pin, ejector, extractor, breech face, and chamber all leave unique marks on
ammunition cases. All of those parts can be replaced to one degree or
another, or modified to change their characteristic tool marks and
imperfections.

With firing pins, extractors, and ejectors, the simplest method is to simply
buy new ones and replace the old ones. The other method is to take a file to
them, and change the characteristic markings. You needn't over do it, just a
few passes where they actually come in contact with the case is plenty. The
breech face should be polished with some emory cloth, as toolmarks on the
breech face can be impressed into the base of the cartridge. The same thing
happens with the case walls being impressed into the chamber. This also
leaves markings that can be observed and recorded. The chamber can be
polished in the same manner as discussed above for the barrel. Don't go
overboard, you want to change the markings, not the caliber of your firearm.

There are some general principles to remember. First, they can't match what
they don't have. That means not leaving cartridge cases lying around.
Shotguns don't leave identifiable markings on projectiles fired from them.
Revolvers don't leave cartridge cases. Manually operated actions can, with
care, allow one to retain all fired cartridge cases.

Using bullets made of soft lead, or designed to fragment on impact, reduce
the chance that any meaningful comparison can be made, and in some cases may
actually frustrate attempts to determine even basic information such as
caliber or bullet weight.

Firing from an exceptionally dirty barrel will also change the
characteristics, to the point where it is impossible to match bullets fired
consecutively. Cartridge cases loaded with black powder (which is
exceptionally dirty) and using soft lead bullets in a revolver would give
anyone trying to do a ballistic match fits. They won't have cases to work
with, and they probably won't get usable rifling marks on the bullet. Even
if they do get rifling marks they can use, fouling from the black powder
will change the markings from one shot to the next.

So why am I telling you all of this? Well, I have heard IBIS called
"ballistic fingerprinting" and "gun DNA". It is neither. You are born with
your fingerprints, and your DNA. It is not easy to change your fingerprints,
and it is impossible to change your DNA (so far). Changing the marks a
firearm makes on bullets and cases is a trivial exercise. Computer matching
systems may work, for a little while. You will catch the same stupid people
you caught without such a system. You will not catch the people you are
trying to catch, the smart ones.

Even without actively trying to defeat such a system, normal wear and tear
will eventually make any information recorded when the gun was new useless.
Like trigger locks and background checks for private sales, the calls for
"ballistic fingerprinting" are a big lie, to appease those who have an
ingrained fear of firearms. Unfortunately, the only way to make sure they
get the message is to rub their noses in it. Start rubbing.

[12GA]

I was listening to a local talk-radio discussion earlier this week. The host, who was in favor of a federal ballistic fingerprinting system, posed the following question:

Although the ballistic fingerprinting system isn't flawless, in that (A)there will be millions of firearms in circulation that won't have been tested and (B) the fingerprint on the firearms that are tested will change over time either as a result of usage or by intentional alteration, doesn't the same argument apply to the FBI fingerprinting system currently in use? Afterall, there are millions of people who have never been fingerprinted and a person's fingerprints can be altered. Therefore, do those of you opposed to a Federal ballistic fingerprinting system because it won't be 100% effective also believe that the FBI fingerprinting system should be scrapped?

What do you think of this argument? During the hour that I listened to the show, not one person was able to provide a logical argument that the one system was useful, but the other system would not be.

[Don Gwinn]

I thought it might be fun to list the out-and-out lies told by Mr. Henigan. "Wrong" opinions will not be included, just assertions of fact that I know are not true.

But in fact, most of the guns used in crimes are not stolen at all. They're bought from gun dealers, they're bought by traffickers who sell them into the illegal market.

Uh, yeah they're not. Idiot. It's been shown time and time again that most criminals polled say they stole their guns or got them from friends or family (most of whom also probably stole the guns.)

It makes absolutely no sense when we have the technology today, to not only be able to tell that the same gun was used in multiple shootings. We could tell which gun it was. And we could do that before we even confiscate the gun.

OK, that's not a lie, per se, just a Freudian slip. But Jim is SO right that I thought we should all see it one more time.

NOVAK: Mr. Henigan, I've been talking to people like you on this show for about 20 years. And some of them are very candid with me, and some are not. I'm going to give you the candor test. What you would really like to do is have national registration and severe restrictions on gun ownership, wouldn't you?

HENIGAN: No. What we want is...

NOVAK: You flunked the test.

HENIGAN: No, what we want is a system like we have with automobiles. We have record keeping of automobile transfers. We have licenses for automobile owners and drivers. People don't object to that. And yet guns are a product designed to kill.

And all we have is a limited background check on sales from gun dealers. We don't even have universal background checks so that if I sell you a gun as a private citizen, there's no background check.

Again, this has been pointed out before, but I thought the last response by Henigan was a lot of fun. "No, we don't want registration. We want a system of records of all transfers and licenses for owners and shooters, just like with cars. . . . . but not registration!"

HENIGAN: Let me ask a question. You were saying that you don't support banning guns. Well, if so, did you disagree, or do you disagree that handgun control went to court to try to keep the D.C. gun ban?

PRATT: Look, we believe that individual communities ought to have the power to enact whatever gun laws they want.

The attribution seems to have broken down somewhere; I'd say this is actually Novak or Pratt questioning Henigan. Note the newfound belief in the rights of local communities a minute and a half after he told us that a Federal law is necessary because states with weak gun laws ruin life for the rest of us.

Amazing. Larry Pratt was great, very nearly brilliant. It's too bad GOA and the NRA can't get along; Larry Pratt would be a much better choice for interviews and debates than Charlton Heston.

[Pizzagunner]

Well the fingerprinting database is next to useless if you want to capture a really good criminal.

I have never planned or executed any criminal enterprise, but were I to aspire to a career in crime, I have seen enough cop shows to know that perhaps one of the very first steps to success is to leave as little forensic data as possible in my wake. In regard to fingerprints, the first step might be to visit a local hospital or nursing home for charitable visits and swipe latex gloves by the box so there'd be no sales receipt. I'd then always have gloves in my pocket and carry them around with a pocket first aid kit. "Well officer one never knows when he might have to be a good samaritan and with AIDS and Hep C running around it is reasonable that I have these gloves in my pocket/glovebox."

If there were a national firearm database and I was going to commit a high stakes armed robbery with my gloves on and a mask, I think I may go through the trouble of altering the identity of my weapon as carefully as I would disguise myself. These would be pretty basic considerations to any kind of smart and successful criminal because the best ones out there are the ones who commit those pesky unsolved crimes.

[12GA]

Well the fingerprinting database is next to useless if you want to capture a really good criminal.

Okay, but what about the stupid ones? Wouldn't the federal system help catch some of them?

[Pizzagunner]

Well yeah, that is basically what the existing database is for. Fingerprints are useful, primarily because they are largely immutable and unique and many idiots who commit crimes are stupid and leave such evidence behind.

However, with the current model "ballistics fingerprinting" they are neither records of immutable characteristics nor are they sufficiently unique. I could steal your fingerprints, but I might look suspicious running around with your severed hands and you'd certainly be searching for them or the cops would be paying attention to your grevious loss. They'd also know it was unlikely you committed any future crime where your prints appeard since you have no hands. You steal my gun, I'm filing reports, but the owner registration isn't likely to be changed to reflect that status. So what good would the database be then when someone commits a crime with my gun?

Also, many weapons makers pride themselves on engineering to micro measurements. All of them strive for near perfect parts interchangeability. Are you going to tell me that in 35,000 Beretta 92 pistols in a production run, there isn't a good chance that some of those bullets, or casings, or both test fired from each are not going to be so nearly identical as to be confusing that the cops might not felony enter on the wrong owner after a high profile shooting?

Sorry, my faith level ain't that high.

[USAFNoDak]

I can hear two crooks engaged in a transaction to sell a firearm; "This heater has already had it's ballistic fingerprint altered, and I'm going to throw that in for free today".

This would generate a whole new class of gunsmiths, the shady type. They will do alterations for cash. This is so misguided as an effective crime solving tool. And guess where a lot of that cash to alter balistic fingerprints would come from. That's right. Welfare checks, and cash from selling food stamps on the black market. So not only would the program cost a lot of illspent taxpayer money, the crooks would be using taxpayer money to defeat it.

As our ex wrestler governor always says, "Follow the money".

[benewton]

No problem identifying some of the most idiot criminals: they're elected.

We've another 25%, or so, in blue uniforms, so, we're on our way!

As for detecting "criminal" weapons via "fingerprints", they're out of their minds!

And the rest of us out of pocket.

But, don't you feel safer?

[kidcoltoutlaw]

lets send in a sperm sample in case we were to later become a rapist.

[12GA]

So what good would the database be then when someone commits a crime with my gun?

Okay, I'm with you on this one. But what about your run-of-the-mill delusional mental deficient with his/her own firearm? Wouldn't the system enable LEO's to track him/her down more quickly possibly saving some lives?