Apparently, thje Feds are not "Doing everything we can do" as Bush put it yesterday. It's also interesting that Ari argues that the sniper doesn't follow the law as a justification for opposing tools that would help law enforcement. _______________________ Bush Resistant to Firearms 'Fingerprinting' Reuters Tuesday, October 15, 2002; 2:50 PM The Bush administration on Tuesday brushed aside calls for "fingerprinting" firearms in response to string of sniper attacks in the Washington area, saying it may not be reliable in identifying shooters and could undermine the rights of law abiding gun owners. "New laws don't stop people like this," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said of the sniper, who has killed nine people in two weeks. "What we must do is ... enforce the laws we have so that people who commit crimes, especially crimes with guns, will be fully prosecuted and serve time." Gun control groups say the case of the sniper has underscored the need for a national "ballistic fingerprinting" law, which would require that firearms be test-fired before they are sold and their unique "fingerprints" entered into a computer database accessible to law enforcement agencies. Two states, New York and Maryland, already require a record to be kept of ballistic fingerprints, but gun control groups say a national law is needed to give police the tools they need to track shooters like the Washington-area sniper. "If you ask any of the hundreds of investigators working to find the sniper, they would very much like to know where the gun first was sold and who first bought it. If we had a national ballistics fingerprinting system in place, they probably would have that information," said Matt Bennett, director of public affairs at Americans for Gun Safety. While Fleischer said Bush would consider all his options, he challenged the reliability of ballistic fingerprinting -- a system of using markings from bullets and shell casings like fingerprints to link specific handguns with gun crimes. "Questions have been raised about its accuracy and reliability on a national level," he told reporters. Fleischer said ballistic markings can be easily altered, rendering the "fingerprints" useless. He also suggested a mandatory national system of ballistics monitoring could undercut the rights of gun owners. "It's like saying, do you want to fingerprint every single American, or do you want to just have fingerprints for people who you believed were involved in a crime," Fleischer said. "The president does believe that law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms." Gun control groups contend ballistic fingerprinting is reliable and have suggested the White House is bowing to pressure from the National Rifle Association, which opposes tighter regulations on firearms. Fleischer countered that Bush "makes up his own mind about what he thinks is right and proceeds from there" and is committed to providing law enforcement officials with the resources they need to prosecute criminals who use guns. "How many laws can we really have to stop crime if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say. Obviously, the person who's doing this is a murderer and is not deterred by law," Fleischer said of the sniper.
I should have rephrased that from Feds to "the Administration." The Feds--FBI, ATF, etc. are doing everything they can. The problem is they don't have all the tools necessary. The fingerprinting issue has been around for awhile and the administration has squashed it everytime because the NRA thinks it's tantamount to a national gun registry. How cool would it be to compare the first bullet to a database, figure out who bought the gun and then start the investigation from there instead of waiting for the guy to make a mistake in the last 9 shootings?
Even if ballistic "fingerprinting" isn't 100% accurate (BTW, is there anything that's 100% accurate?), how would implementing such a system infringe on the rights of gun owners? It's not like this would prevent anyone from buying a gun or using it in a legal manner. I can understand resistance to background checks and waiting periods, but I don't see the logic here at all. Fleischer' reaction seems knee-jerk and catering to gun lobby interests.
We could institute martial law. would that be enough? I don't know who in the hell came up with this idea of gun "fingerprinting," but it's the most patently ridiculous idea I've ever heard of. the lands and grooves within a certain barrel do mark the various bullets in a particular way. Of course, different barrels from the same manufacturer can be very similar. What happens when a different bullet from the one fingerprinted is fired? What happens when a barrel is mechanically altered AFTER fingerprinting (very easy to do)? What happens after a few hundred rounds when the simple act of firing the weapon has somewhat altered the barrel. The bullets will look considerably different. In fact, they may look quite a bit more like another gun's fingerprint. Talk about infringement. "Mr. Smith, I don't care if your family claims you were out of the country when the murder was commited. Our database says your gun is GUILTY!" I don't know who came up with this idea, but it's about as stupid as can be. In fact, I don't see why Bush doesn't just "reluctantly" give in and let the anti-gunners run with it. They'll look like morons later. Other than the fact that it's just another instance of throwing a bunch of money at an issue and hoping some of it sticks. Of course, some moron might buy a gun and go and shoot someone a few days later with the same type of bullet that was fingerprinted and without having altered the gun. Proponents will be able to point to that one success completely disregarding how many times the system will fail. "OUR system got a killer off the streets. It saves lives." Oh well......
When confronted with questions about new gun laws, the pavlovian response of the gun lobby usually mirrors what Bush said: "We don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the ones that are on the books". The necessary implication from this is that gun laws are routinely violated with no legal recourse or otherwise unenforced. Generally, when giving this canned quote, the speaker doesn't cite any source for the implication that gun laws are not being enforced. Furthermore, it puzzles me why this is an acceptable response for guns, but not for drugs, terrorism, domestic violence, and/or other problems that we try to regulate.
Whoa, sorry, Madmax, but the Bill of Rights is no longer sacred ground, unless I've been badly misled by my reading and interpretation of the "Patriot" rolleyes: ) Act.
I knew somebody was going to say this. Exactly as B-Bob said. The bill of rights doesn't stop after the Second Amendment. You should go back and reread it and then we can talk about how the War on Terrorism and the USA PATRIOT Act doesn't affect anything in it.
It would effectively act as a gun registry. How wouldn't it? It would tie an individual to a specific gun at the time of purchase. Let's just have one big gun registry. Can you tell me the first leader to have a gun registry? Adolf Hitler, in 1938. It's a great way for a government to know which of its citizens have the means to defend themselves. The only thing more gun laws will do is to harm people who abide by the law. Concealed carry didn't cause Texas to become a bloodbath like people hysterically claimed in 1996.
yeah...i'll go back and re-read it so we can discuss it! come on...your take on whether or not the war on terrorism or the patriot act affects the bill of rights is about as significant as mine...which is worthless. the whole thing has been turned on its head so many times...
I see...so we should do it wrong at every turn. Is that really your argument? Why isn't the left screaming about civil liberties now? Oh yeah...only "evil" people have guns, right?
I don't know how you came up with this response because . . . .okay, I won't go there. Obviously, there are going to be inconsistencies in this method. But if you are willing to admit eyewitness accounts (which have been shown in study after study to be inaccurate) as evidence, I don't see why a ballistics fingerprint is any less reliable. Furthermore, I would venture to say that a bullet fired from an oft-used gun will indicate that the gun isn't new. That evidence alone will give law enforcement officers an better idea of where to look for evidence (i.e. check on used gun sales rather than new gun sales). The same goes for altered guns - when the markings don't match exactly, the police know they're dealing with someone that would know how to alter the gun. One thing to keep in mind is that none of this evidence would be enough to convict anyone. Despite what you've seen on TV, most cases are not built on (excuse the pun) smoking guns. Like any means of collecting evidence, this would be only part of the puzzle. If someone can prove he/she was out of the country at the time of the crime, then the person is in no danger of being falsely convicted because of ballistic fingerprinting. In fact, I would argue that ballistic fingerprinting would help exonerate more people than it would convict them. And I still see no infringement on any person's right to bear arms. You can still buy a gun and you can still use it.
Patently not true. The markings from one gun slightly altered may look like it is from a totally different gun. For instance a round from a slightly altered S&W 39 may look like a 9mm fired from a Ruger. I don't know...but I'll tell you that the markings are not intended by the gun manufacturer and do not vary so dramatically from gun to gun to make this impossible. BTW...not all used gun sales are registered. the vast majority in fact aren't. It isn't a right to bear arms issue. Personally I believe that felons shoudn't own guns, etc. This is a right to privacy issue. You shouldn't have to turn over info to the government simply because you own a gun. This is the same right to privacy that the Supreme Court found to exist via a conundrum of rights in Roe v. Wade.
You're a master at distorting what people say to fit your own pre-fab platitudes and generalizations. I didn't say that every single sacrifice of civil liberties regarding the war on terrorism was inexcusable or wrong. My suggestion is that gun "liberties" should be subject to the same trade-offs of security vs. liberty, and that the arguments of the gun lobby regarding gun laws not being enforce is pure bullsh!t. But you can color me as somebody on the left screaming about "evil" people having guns in your own mind if you want, it's your right after all.
Tell me then...what laws would you like passed that are not currently on the books? Keep in mind that the laws have to be Constitutionally permissible. Gun control is a topic that just irks me. Because people thought it would make our country safer, I can no longer buy a high capacity (15 round) clip for my gun. Yeah...that'll make things safer. I can only have 9 rounds instead of 15. If I got transferred to California I'd have to get rid of my East German Makarov (9mm) because it is banned. Forget about the fact that it has the potential to increase in value because the East German guns are finite in number, seeing how there is no longer an East Germany. These laws were well intentioned (I guess) but they make no logical sense in furthering the governmental ends of gun control. Then again...my idea of gun control is remembering where I left my ammo.
Let's see...... If I wanted to go out and shoot people, and I knew the gun would be traced back to me, and I didn't want to get caught, and I could steal a gun instead, or buy one on the black market..... Criminals will get away with crimes, and legal gunowners will have their name in a database if this idea is implemented. That is gun registration- plain and simple.
I find it ironic that, when it comes to SOME search and seizure issues surrounding things like drugs or child p*rnography or bombs or links to terrorism, there seems to be an attitude from some conservatives that, "If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be worried." But, when it comes to GUNS, that's a WHOLE other story. How is it ANY different? Search and seizure is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the right to bear arms as is the right to a trial of your peers as is having to be charged with a crime to be held. In the case of jury trials, being held without charges and search and seizure, the Bill of Rights seems to be immaterial when it comes to our new Patriot laws. Some might call the circumvention of those laws reactionary, others necessary. There has even been the suggestion that parts of the Patriot Act may be subject to constitutional challenge. How is it that it is ok to ignore THESE parts of the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting the citizens of the US, but NOT even consider the gun issue, particularly when it comes to high-powered assault rifles or a means by which we might actually track guns in circulation? I don't follow the logic.
maybe because the right to bear arms is in the bill of rights and those other things aren't. How does a gun registry or gun fingerprinting infringe on your right to bear arms? Requiring car registration certainly hasn't stopped me from owning a car. What happens when a different bullet from the one fingerprinted is fired? What happens when a barrel is mechanically altered AFTER fingerprinting (very easy to do)? What happens after a few hundred rounds when the simple act of firing the weapon has somewhat altered the barrel. Well, hell. I guess if it doesn't help solve every single criminal case, it's completely worthless and, as you said, a patently ridiculous idea. Never mind that in MANY cases, it would give the cops a starting place to look. We need to make sure we have the right to fire a gun, AND do it anonymously.
Pretty much any law that is/may be effective will be constitutional short of an absolute ban on all firearms, and even that may be constitutional to some degree. Tell me which case forbids gun -fingerprinting? The only significant gun case I remember is Lopez which wasn't even a second amendment case. I don't ever recall a significant law being overturned because of the second amendment, because courts give it very little protection as they actually read the whole sentence.
