Why Is Ballistic Fingerprinting A Bad Thing?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

My state just passed a law repealing ballistic fingerprinting.

The law required gun manufacturers to send a shell casing to police. Shell markings get entered into a database. The idea being that a shell associated with a crime might be traceable back to the gun, and thence to the owner.

Seems reasonable enough to me and (as far as I can tell) in no way infringes anyone's 2nd amendment rights.

The only argument against it that I've seen is that it has produced so little help to law enforcement that some think it isn't worth the cost.

Now that might be a good argument to bean counters, but it isn't the bean counters who sought the repeal. It was the NRA and it's affilates.

Can someone explain to me why ballistic fingerprinting is such a bad idea?

 

[*33*]

I don't have a great answer either...but I'd guess it doesn't really prove a gun was used in a shooting just that the shell casings are there. Could frame someone pretty easy.

 

[FranklinHawk]

My state just passed a law repealing ballistic fingerprinting.

The law required gun manufacturers to send a shell casing to police. Shell markings get entered into a database. The idea being that a shell associated with a crime might be traceable back to the gun, and thence to the owner.

Seems reasonable enough to me and (as far as I can tell) in no way infringes anyone's 2nd amendment rights.

The only argument against it that I've seen is that it has produced so little help to law enforcement that some think it isn't worth the cost.

Now that might be a good argument to bean counters, but it isn't the bean counters who sought the repeal. It was the NRA and it's affilates.

Can someone explain to me why ballistic fingerprinting is such a bad idea?

While I really wouldn't have an issue one way or the other, I'm not sure it does enough to justify the cost unless minimally you have much more strict gun registration / tracking processes. If you assume casing = gun used in crime, that may only identify the original purchaser of the gun and it may have changed hands several times since.

 

[coffhawk]

Here is one link that lists some objections. In MD it cost 2 million and didn't solve any crimes. Also, it is easy for criminals to avoid it.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/marylands-ballistic-fingerprinting-system-proves-cumbersome

 

[coffhawk]

Here is a more comprehensive piece discussing the logistical, technical and other problems with ballistic fingerprinting.

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-ballistic-fingerprinting-doesnt.html

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Here is one link that lists some objections. In MD it cost 2 million and didn't solve any crimes. Also, it is easy for criminals to avoid it.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/marylands-ballistic-fingerprinting-system-proves-cumbersome

The arguments that the characteristics change with use or can be changed with little work seem to have merit. But that would seem to apply mainly to career crooks. The average person probably doesn't fire that many rounds, and probably doesn't run their gun parts through steel wool to change the characteristics intentionally - or at least not until after using the gun for something bad.

 

[coffhawk]

The arguments that the characteristics change with use or can be changed with little work seem to have merit. But that would seem to apply mainly to career crooks. The average person probably doesn't fire that many rounds, and probably doesn't run their gun parts through steel wool to change the characteristics intentionally - or at least not until after using the gun for something bad.

Yeah, and in the second article it discusses the problem with use, wear and tear, and age on the fingerprint. But, the last point is the most important: Once this system is widely known, EVERYONE who uses a gun for a crime will intentionally alter the fingerprint.