It’s not as simple and foolproof as it sounds, and it isn’t the panacea some might believe
I witnessed demonstrations of the computerized ballistic technology the governor wants to require when I visited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) laboratory in Rockville, MD, in April 1998 (See Gun Week, May 10, 1998).
At that time, the facility was one of three hub stations for the Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS) that ATF had acquired for about $12 million. The other two were in Georgia and California. The system created by a Canadian firm was also then in use in several foreign countries.
During the past two years, ATF has spent a lot more money to extend the IBIS system nationwide by installing hundreds of remote IBIS units in field offices across the country. The technology in those ATF offices is also accessible to state and local law enforcement.
Computer Ballistics
The digital imaging technology for IBIS, and competitive systems that may exist, takes advantage of known ballistic forensic science to speed up the process of matching like cartridge or bullet samples. While the preliminary image sort is computer assisted, a ballistics technician need only compare relatively finite batches of images rather than wade through thousands, or even millions, of samples. And testimony of those ballistics experts will still be needed at trials, if the investigation gets that far.
Most people are aware from mystery stories, movies and television shows that crimes can be solved through ballistic matches of bullets, or bullet fragments. The lands and grooves inside a revolver or pistol barrel leave unique markings on their projectiles.
Not as many people know that the bolt face, firing pin and ejection mechanisms of autoloading pistols also leave unique signatures on spent cartridges, "fingerprints" that the IBIS system can first capture as digital images and then categorize. Such spent cases are frequently the most significant evidence available after a shooting—especially in drug crime and gang drive-by shootings.
But public policy linked to this technology starts to run into problems when Gov. Pataki, and Gov. Parris Glendening in Maryland, propose to build such ballistic "fingerprint" libraries with factory samples. In real life, the certainty of this system for catching criminals has about as many holes as a pasta strainer.
Not all crimes are committed with autoloading pistols and, even if they were, crafty criminals could easily deface the bolt faces, barrels and other key parts of their crime tools.
Substitutions
And then there is the even larger problem of criminals substituting other types of firearms. This would have a serious downside as did the so-called Saturday night special ban in Maryland that encouraged criminals to use more expensive, larger caliber guns with greater lethality.
One problem is that criminals who use revolvers seldom leave spent cartridges around, and even if they did, such spent casings do not have the same kind of unique signature as those from the auto pistols. It would be harder, if not impossible, to link just a case fired from a revolver to a specific gun with a high enough percentage of certainty.
Other criminals might substitute shotguns, either sawed-off or of legal length. Shotguns don’t leave much of an individual ballistic trail. Usually the most a competent forensic expert can do is determine the make and model of shotgun used—not an individual gun.
There is also another problem with manufacturers supplying the test samples. While gunmakers usually test every firearm for function and accuracy with a few shots, retrieving all the fired bullets and empty cases with guaranteed linkage to a specific handgun presents significant changes in the testing process and would add greatly to the cost of each handgun. Take several handguns to the range some day, then try to retrieve the bullets which have been fired and match them with the cases and the guns. The only way it would be possible would be to retrieve the bullets immediately after that particular gun is fired. It would really slow down productivity in a factory.
National Scope
If the sampling problems and related expense could be solved, a state-by-state system would still not make sense. A far better solution would be a national system in which manufacturers would give the samples to the ATF. That would then eliminate the problem of every manufacturer having to provide samples for every US state and territory. Actually, Glock Inc. has been providing spent cases to the ATF in a test program since November 1999. But only cases. Now it appears that their program will become a permanent one.
The NRA has been dubious of this technology-based handgun DNA scheme because it would involve a sort of national registration system. The make, model and serial numbers would have to be linked to the samples on the digital files, and it wouldn’t take long to link any serial number through other trace techniques. Pataki and Glendening would say that shouldn’t bother anyone who is law-abiding; they have nothing to worry about.
Just as there isn’t any problem with trigger locks for storage, if an individual gunowner decides that he or she wants to lock up unloaded and unused guns. But mandating locks, particularly on handguns intended for defense—which means that they are always in use, is tantamount to a burglar or rapist protection system.
Still Other Problems
As a crime-fighting tool, the computerized file of ballistic "fingerprints" would be of dubious value. That’s because the really big problem comes when we consider that the Pataki and Glendening proposals deal with newly-manufactured guns only. They haven’t explained what they would do about the 60 to 80 million handguns already in private possession. They might seek to force law-abiding owners to provide ballistic samples, probably using a ruse like New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir’s plan to have licensed handgun owners bring in their guns once a year for "inspection."
Safir claims that this will give the police assurance that licensed gunowners are not selling their pistols and revolvers to criminals, or are not forgetting to report stolen guns. I suspect that Safir must think people who jump through New York City hoops to even get a handgun license must be pretty dumb. In either case, Safir could test such guns for "safety" and keep the ballistic samples for Pataki.
Finally, there is the problem of the thousands of criminals who already have handguns. Not even Pataki, or Safir, would believe that people who break murder, robbery, rape, and drug laws would comply with any law that requires them to have their guns test fired for ballistic sampling.
A ballistic fingerprint registry at the federal level, not at the state level, might be of limited use for law enforcement in some investigations, but it will be extremely expensive and can never be complete. Most of all, it sure wouldn’t be foolproof.
And if Pataki and Glendening think their ballistic "DNA" will stand up in court every time, they apparently haven’t been following court cases in which even "foolproof" evidence like human DNA has failed to convince a jury.