From the Journal-News (Rockland County, NY), 11/10/02.

                   'Ballistic Fingerprinting' off Target

Paul Gallant

Would you pay $1,000 for a watch that didn't work? How about $100? Or $10?

Most people wouldn't be that foolish, but apparently the Journal News
editorial board would. Judging from the paper's enthusiastic support for
what has become the latest buzzword of the firearm-prohibitionists, as long
as it grabs the fancy of the public, price and the ability to work as
advertised are irrelevant.

Even the catch-phrase "ballistic fingerprinting" is intentionally
misleading. The term "fingerprint" implies an immutable  biometric
identifier with a positive track record of solid  forensic value. "Ballistic
fingerprinting," however, is a  perverse play on words intended to impart a
degree of certainty  where little exists.

Ballistic imaging technology is premised on the fact that guns leave unique
markings on their projectiles and spent shell casings. But unlike human
fingerprints or DNA, "ballistic DNA," as it is sometimes referred to,
changes over time because of normal wear and tear, or by the deliberate and
easily accomplished alteration of key parts of a gun.

Because bullet identifiers are often destroyed, shell casings are the main
focus of attention. Semi-automatic firearms automatically eject their spent
cases after firing (revolvers don't), but there's no guarantee that these
will be left at the scene of the crime. (Perhaps we could pass a law
requiring criminals to leave spent cases after the fact.)

What shall we do about the more than 200 million privately owned firearms
already in circulation in the U.S. - implement a nationwide used-gun spent
casing recall and hope that the criminals (and terrorists) among us will
readily comply? Maybe we should simply assume these guns will not be used in
a crime.

How will the criminal user of a stolen gun be identified from just a
ballistic image, if there is no paper trail leading to the original
purchaser or successive owners? Will we be told we need to close that
loophole by the registration of all firearms and their subsequent transfers?
And will that work?  What about totally untraceable black market firearms
that are often used as crime guns? The black market is the ultimate loophole
that trumps even the most well-intentioned and well-crafted firearm law.

A 1995 Cato Institute report noted that "any federal computer registry will
be contaminated with large amounts of faulty data that will render the
system unreliable. Even the best government databases have error rates of
10, 20, and 30 percent."  Would a computerized ballistic registry be just as
"reliable?" What level of accuracy can we expect from data entry personnel
in handling the information ultimately provided to them? Can we assume that
such a computer system would be immune to hacking, or viruses that destroy
the data?

A recent study by the Bureau of Forensic Services at the California
Department of Justice on spent bullet casings left at crime scenes found
that "automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive
results." It also concluded that the number of shell casings obtained
through mass sampling of new firearms sold in the state "would be so large
as to be impractical and will likely create logistic complications so great
that they can not be effectively addressed."  Now, extrapolate that to the
national level.

Why have ardent proponents of ballistic imaging not told us exactly how many
crimes have been solved by such programs, to date? How many violent
criminals are now in jail as a result? Why have we not heard about
statistics from other countries, like the Philippines where a form of
imaging has been in effect for years?
If any such program were successful in solving gun crimes, would we not be
deluged with rave reviews from today's proponents?

How much manpower and money are taxpayers willing to divert from sound and
proven police practices to a system that, by all indications, is unworkable,
is capable of generating little or no forensic value for law enforcement,
and is easily circumvented via multiple loopholes? In Maryland, one of the
two states requiring ballistic imaging of all new handguns sold, it has been
estimated that the cost of the program averages out to $5,000 per shell
casing.

The Journal News characterized opposition to ballistic imaging as
"political," and gun-owners were portrayed as standing in the way of an
effective crime-fighting tool. Shame on you if you really believe we value
our guns over the lives and safety of your children, and ours.

                    The writer is chairman, Gun-Owners for a Safe
				Society. He lives in Wesley Hills.