Federal bullet ballistic database

Originally Posted by Rufus Rhastus J

Duh!!!!

right back at ya !

[NorCalAshnjikov]

Triple duh!!!

[Rave]

Surprize,surprize!

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by Bulletproof

right back at ya !

:insane: I have been preaching my distrust of the evil government. All i got in return to my warnings and rantings was how I'm a nut and need help facing reality and all the other jeers that one could imagine. guess some of you guys are finally wakeing up to the cold hard facts.....the truth, if you will. Big government is slowly stealing our rights. what they can't legislate away they just find sneaky back door ways to accomplish what the politicos will not vote for. They thumb thier collective noses at congress on the very few occasions they try to help us. Congress then just licks thier wounds and slink back to the business of enriching themselves at our expense. The evil government has to answer to no one and, sadly, most of the time no one cares. Except for the few, you folks label as Whack-O's. :nod: So laugh all you want. One day, when it will, no doubt, be too late....you remember Rufus and his warnings. Remember too, how you laughed at and scorned those warnings. :nod:

[Rave]

Still in Saigon.Rumsfeld,McNamara,those are the real agony twins,then and now,no difference,preaching the same B/S,I remember then,I see now,no difference.

Ballistic Fingerprinting


Bullets and shell casings fired from a handgun contain unique markings—like fingerprints—which can be used to link specific handguns with gun crimes. Law enforcement can use these markings to determine if a specific bullet or shell casing was fired from a specific firearm. Ballistics or gun fingerprinting proposals require that handguns be test-fired before they are sold, and that its unique "fingerprints" be entered into a computer database that will be accessible to law enforcement.

Two states, New York and Maryland, have recently enacted legislation that requires newly sold handguns to be test-fired before they are sold in order to permit the collection of spent bullets and/or shell casings. Two firearm manufacturers, Smith & Wesson and Glock, are currently installing a system to produce digital images of ballistic material for all handguns produced. Each company will maintain its own database that will be accessible to law enforcement.



The actual handgun used in a gun crime is rarely left at a crime scene, making gun tracing impossible. However, shell casings and bullets are often found at crime scenes. Ballistic fingerprinting will increase law enforcement's ability to link guns with gun crime events and find and lock up criminals.


Ballistic fingerprinting is a de facto registration system for handguns. Law enforcement will have a register of all handgun owners, which could possibly be the first step to confiscation of all lawfully owned handguns.

Implementing the recordkeeping associated with ballistic fingerprinting would be expensive and wasteful. The state would have to develop and maintain a large database of spent bullets and cartridges, most of which will never be used in crime.

Ballistic markings from bullets and shell casings can be altered easily, thereby rendering the "fingerprints" useless.

Joint Statement On Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

Thursday, October 17, 2002


Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice-President National Rifle Association & Chris W. Cox Executive Director, National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action

In times of exasperation over inexplicable tragedy, it`s reasonable to search for preventative solutions. Yet despite our collective horror, proposals must be evaluated with objectivity, weighing possible benefit against certain costs that must be measured in terms of both financial reality and personal freedom.

The National Rifle Association has always welcomed any technology that obstructs criminal behavior while respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. For that reason, NRA is on record supporting H.R. 3491, The Ballistic Imaging Evaluation and Study Act of 2001, and its Senate counterpart S. 2581, since their introduction more than 6 months ago.

But we cannot support a ballistic "fingerprinting" proposition (H.R. 408 & S. 3096), that even a passing glance reveals is flawed, unworkable and infringes on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans.

Ballistic "fingerprinting" is a misleading phrase, because human fingerprints or DNA or other biometric data can`t be altered. But ballistic abrasion patterns can change for a variety of reasons.

Still, for ballistic "fingerprinting" to work as proposed, all of the following assumptions must materialize:

That the firearm barrel and firing pin have not been modified, replaced, deformed from normal use, or intentionally falsified with new ballistic markings.
That all 200 million firearms lawfully possessed by Americans are brought into labs and fired to gather individual ballistic "fingerprinting."
That all violent criminals, and people who might become one, also bring in their firearms for "fingerprinting."
That all ballistic "fingerprinting" files are stored in a national database.
That an expended bullet or shell casing be recovered from a crime scene.
That the bullet or shell casing conclusively match the ballistic "fingerprinting" of a firearm owned by a person stored in the database.
That the firearm has not been sold, transferred, stolen or gifted to another person.
That the person, now a criminal suspect, still possess that firearm at a current address.
Besides the impossibility of this sequence of events, there`s serious debate within the law enforcement community whether such ballistic "fingerprinting" is reliable. Police criminalists and forensic scientists have studied such a system and called it "impractical." (California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services).


So it defies reason why a criminal or terrorist intent on violence would not avail himself of a firearm never subjected to "fingerprinting," altered into anonymity, or imported from another country.

But for lawful gun owners, this scheme is national gun registration, and certain to produce confusion, misidentification and wrongful suspicion.

That`s why ballistic "fingerprinting" of handguns in Maryland and New York, the only states that require it, hasn`t solved a single gun crime.

Maryland and New York taxpayers might rightfully ask whether the millions of dollars required to create and maintain such a system could be better spent on vital law enforcement needs.

Before squandering billions of dollars to deploy such a system nationwide, American taxpayers - despite national alarm in the wake of tragedy - should ask that question, too.

The NRA welcomes participation in an objective and unemotional evaluation of the entire concept of ballistic imaging, or any other technologies, in search of any reasonable contribution to the process of law enforcement

Ballistic Fingerprinting’s a Dud
Another failed gun-control strategy.

By John R. Lott Jr.

Ballistic fingerprinting was all the rage just a couple of years ago. Maryland and New York were leading the way where a computer database would record the markings made on the bullets from all new guns. The days of criminals using guns were numbered.

Yet, a recent report by the Maryland State Police's forensic-sciences division shows that the systems in both states have been expensive failures. New York is spending $4 million per year. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million, about $60 per gun sold. But in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime. To put it bluntly, the program "does not aid in the mission statement of the Department of State Police."

The systems have drained so many resources from other police activities that ballistic fingerprinting could end up actually increasing crime. In New York, how many crimes could 50 additional police officers help solve?

The police explain the program's inability to reduce crime because criminals have simply not been using the guns that have been entered into the database. In some cases the claim is that the wrong data has been entered into the computers.

The physics of ballistic fingerprinting are straightforward enough. When a bullet travels through the barrel of a gun, the friction creates markings on the bullet. If the gun is new, imperfections in the way the barrel is drilled can produce different markings on the bullet; such imperfections are most noticeable in inexpensive guns. In older guns, the bullet's friction through the barrel can cause more noticeable wear marks that help differentiate between guns. Many other factors influence the particular markings left on the bullets — for instance, how often the gun is cleaned and what brand of cartridge is used.

Precisely because friction causes wear, a gun's ballistic fingerprint changes over time — making it drastically different from such forensic evidence as human fingerprints or DNA. The recording of a child's fingerprints or DNA still allows for identification much later in life; the same is not true of the bullet markings. A ballistic fingerprint is less like a human fingerprint than it is like the tread on a car tire.

Brand-new tires are essentially identical, so new-tire tracks at crime scenes leave investigators with pretty limited information. Unless there happens to be a particular imperfection, only the brand and model of the tire can be identified. Imprints on bullets are similar. When a bullet is fired from a new gun, investigators can typically identify only the type of ammunition and the type of gun. Over time, though, friction causes the tread on tires to wear. It would be easy to take the tire tracks left at a crime scene and match them with a suspected criminal's car; but the more the car is driven after the crime, the harder it is to match the tire tracks left at the scene to the tires when they are eventually found. Similarly, the greatest friction on a gun occurs when the gun is first fired — and that dramatically reduces the usefulness of recording the gun's ballistic fingerprint when it is purchased.

Moreover, ballistic fingerprinting can be thwarted by replacing the gun's barrel — just as criminals can foil tire matching by simply replacing their tires. In general, the markings on bullets can be altered even more quickly and easily than the tread marks on tires: Scratching part of the inside of a barrel with a nail file would alter the bullet's path down the barrel and thus change the markings. So would putting toothpaste on a bullet before firing it.

Ballistic fingerprinting faces other difficulties. For example, even if the gun was not used much between the time the ballistic fingerprint was originally recorded and the time the crime occurred, police still have to be able to trace the gun from the original owner to the criminal — but only 12 percent of guns used in crimes are obtained by the criminal through retail stores or pawn shops. The rest are virtually impossible to trace.

A recent study by the State of California points to further practical difficulties with ballistic fingerprinting. The study tested 790 pistols firing a total of 2,000 rounds. When the cartridges used with a particular gun came from the same manufacturer, computer matching failed 38 percent of the time. When the cartridges came from different manufacturers, the failure rate rose to 62 percent. And this study does not even begin to address problems caused by wear, so the real-world failure rate can be expected to be much higher. The California report warned that "firearms that generate markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the users." Further, it warned that the problems of matching would soar dramatically if more guns were included in the sample. The study's verdict: "Computer-matching systems do not provide conclusive results...potential candidates [for a match must] be manually reviewed."

While registering guns by their ballistic fingerprints is a relatively new concept, we have had plenty of experience using gun registration in general, and it has come up woefully short. A few years ago, I testified before the Hawaii state legislature on a bill to change registration requirements. Hawaii has had both registration and licensing of guns for several decades.

In theory, if a gun is left at the crime scene, licensing and registration will allow the gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have probably spent hundreds of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii. But despite this massive effort, there has not been a single case in which police claimed that licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying a criminal.

The reason is simple. First, criminals very rarely leave their guns at a crime scene, and when they do, it is because the criminals have been killed or seriously wounded. Second — and more important for ballistic fingerprinting — would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. The guns that are recovered at the scene are not registered.

Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws actually work, and end up saving lives. On that measure, ballistic fingerprinting is just another failure in a long line of gun-control measures.

— John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime.

Under The Microscope
Even the 'experts' are realizing that ballistic fingerprinting isn't all it's cracked up to be.
By John Hay Rabb

For many years, forensic ballistics has been the gold standard used for matching bullets and shell casings to crime scenes. Without a doubt, ballistic evidence has been instrumental in the conviction of many individuals who used firearms in the commission of crimes. But now the gold standard has become tarnished by expanding courtroom requirements for more precise matching of evidence to crime scenes.

Defense attorneys have dramatically increased the introduction of DNA evidence in courtrooms in order to help exonerate their clients. The extreme precision of DNA evidence casts an unfavorable light on the credibility of ballistic evidence. This is because the validity of ballistic evidence relies primarily on the testimony of experts.

Because there are no uniform standards for forensic bullet matching, it is a relatively simple matter for defense attorneys to call their own ballistics experts to dispute the prosecution experts. A Federal judge in Baltimore recently agreed to examine the scientific basis for ballistic evidence before accepting an expert's opinion of a bullet match in an upcoming murder trial.

The science of forensic ballistics has two major components. The first involves chemical analysis of the lead contained in bullets recovered from crime scenes or victims' bodies. It has long been accepted that each batch of lead used to manufacture bullets has its own unique chemical signature. This signature is used to facilitate the matching of recovered bullets with firearms used to commit crimes. However, there is now sufficient doubt about the validity of lead analysis that the National Academy of Sciences is conducting a study.

The second major component of forensic ballistics concerns the shell casing or cartridge. The theory behind "ballistic fingerprinting" is that the firing pin creates unique markings on the base of the shell casing when a gun is fired. But because the casing does not actually travel down the gun barrel, it picks up far fewer markings than a lead projectile. Some guns do not leave any markings on the shell casings.

Several anti-gun states--most notably California, Maryland and New York--have jumped on the ballistic-fingerprinting bandwagon. The gun-banners in these states contend that assembling a ballistic-fingerprint database of all new guns sold will greatly assist in solving gun crimes. Major gun manufacturers who ship firearms for sale in these states must now test-fire each new gun and then include the test-fired shell and casing in the shipping package with the gun.

The idea behind ballistic-fingerprinting theory makes elementary sense until one starts delving into the details. Ideally, shells and shell casings would be recovered from every gun-crime scene. These shells and casings would be compared to the ballistic-fingerprinting database. If there was a either a shell or casing match, law enforcement would know exactly which gun was used at the crime scene. Because ballistically fingerprinted guns are effectively registered with the state, it should be a relatively simple matter to track down the gun owner and determine how and why a specific gun was associated with a particular crime.

Anyway, that's the ballistic-fingerprinting theory. But as Yogi Berra said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

The practical problems with ballistic fingerprinting are relatively straightforward. A loaded cartridge is composed of a projectile, a shell casing with primer and propellant (powder). Ballistic-fingerprinting programs may only record the markings that the firing mechanism makes on the bottom of the shell casing. These markings are notoriously difficult to interpret. Other such programs may also record markings associated with the projectile.

The projectile travels through the gun barrel and out the muzzle. In the process, the projectile picks up markings from the barrel. Unfortunately, the bullet is often so extensively deformed on impact that no markings from the barrel can be detected.

The barrel is also changed by the bullets that are fired through it. These changes to the barrel may occur after as few as 500 to 1,000 shots. Gun barrels are also easily replaced on many firearms. These factors can greatly complicate efforts to match bullets to specific guns.

In October 2002 the White House went on record in opposition to ballistic fingerprinting. "There is an issue about [ballistic] fingerprints as a very effective way to catch people who are engaged in robbery or theft," said then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. "Is that to say that every citizen in the U.S. should be fingerprinted in order to catch robbers and thieves? The president does believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons."

The California ballistic-fingerprinting program was dealt a blow in 2001 when the California Department Of Justice issued a report that described ballistic fingerprinting as "impractical." The report went on to point out that "Firearms that generate markings on [casings and projectiles] can change with use and can also be readily altered by the users."

Dr. Jan De Kinder, a Belgian ballistics expert, conducted an independent review of the California report. He examined the results of tests that involved the firing of 792 new California Highway Patrol Smith & Wesson handguns and the use of specialized computer software designed to match casings to specific guns.

Of the 792 bullets fired, the computer failed to match 63 percent of their shell casings to the proper guns. De Kinder concluded, "No technology designed specifically for ballistic fingerprinting exists at the moment."

Unfortunately, even such !!!!ing evidence failed to sway the gun-banners in New York. Approximately $4.5 million was spent to start a ballistic-fingerprinting program. The New York State Police collected some 29,000 ballistic fingerprints. In spite of all this money and effort, State Police sources say that not one gun-crime conviction has been obtained through the use of ballistic fingerprinting.

Maryland started assembling a ballistic-fingerprinting database in 2000. More than $2 million was spent to create the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS). Approximately 17,000 ballistic fingerprints have been entered into the IBIS database. By the way, IBIS has not led to the conviction of a single gun-crime suspect in Maryland.

The Maryland State Police were asked to study whether IBIS should be expanded, at a projected cost of $2 million. In November 2003 the State Police recommended against expanding the IBIS. Maryland Governor Bob Erhlich, a gun-rights supporter, has said that he wants to study ballistic fingerprinting before making a decision about the future of the Maryland program.

All of the mounting evidence has failed to deter the gun-banners from pursuing their ultimate goal of a national ballistic-fingerprinting database, which would, of course, amount to universal gun registration. Before the Handgun Control organization changed its name to the Brady Campaign, it posted on its website a most extraordinary and illuminating issue paper on ballistic fingerprinting.

The issue paper consists mostly of specific instructions on how to argue in favor of a national ballistic-fingerprinting system:

"There are always a few subjects to avoid (at all costs!) when debating for 'common-sense gun control'." the paper warns. "Do not get into specific arguments."

The debaters are told that some of these "specific arguments" might raise such issues as modified or deformed guns, the 200 million guns that Americans already own, criminal noncompliance with ballistic-fingerprinting requirements, conclusive matching of ballistically fingerprinted shells and casings with crime scenes, the transfer or theft of guns or the California report that casts doubt on ballistic fingerprinting.

"Of course," the paper concludes, "one can't always control what issues are discussed when one is embroiled in a heated debate. If all else fails, accuse your opponent of being a militant homophobic, and refuse to continue a discussion based on scientific facts."

"Scientific facts" can certainly be pesky and inconvenient, particularly when they do not support one's extreme anti-gun ideology. But here's one scientific fact that you can take to the bank. Ballistic fingerprinting is nothing more than junk science at its most insidious. Ultimately, this is the most compelling argument against spending taxpayer money on a costly system that does not catch criminals but instead wantonly violates the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

Originally Posted by Rufus Rhastus J

Duh!!!!

have you ever noticed how stupid posters like this Dufus never have any constructive or informative input ?

[Shaun]

what they are looking at is that in some states the case in that envelope is sent into the state when the gun is purchased. The case is then stored and scanned so that if a case is ever recovered after a crime is committed they can easily pin the gun to the owner based on the firing pin. Barrel rifling only tells people the possible make of the gun based on twist. Nice things about barrels a rasp can change a barrel quickly

How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?

Friday, October 18, 2002

By Steven Milloy



The sniper spree in the Washington, D.C., area has spawned calls for "ballistic fingerprinting" of firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., announced he would introduce legislation for a national program. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told The Washington Post that ballistic fingerprinting would have "solved this crime after the first shooting."

But an October 2001 report by California state ballistics experts -- hushed up by the California attorney general's office -- concludes that ballistic fingerprinting isn't feasible right now.

Ballistic fingerprinting involves sending a fired bullet and empty cartridge casing from a gun to a government agency before that gun can be sold. The idea is to match -- preferably by automated computer analysis -- pre-sale ballistics data with crime scene data.

Maryland and New York already require ballistic fingerprinting. So far it hasn't helped convict a single criminal in Maryland despite "fingerprinting" 17,000 guns sold since January 2000. New York hasn't had success either.

And there isn't likely to be success any time soon, according to the study.

The report included the test firing of more than 2,000 rounds from 790 pistols.

When cartridges from the same manufacturer were test-fired and compared, computer matching failed 38 percent of the time. With cartridges from different manufacturers, computer matching failed 62 percent of the time.

"Automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results" requiring that "potential candidates be manually reviewed," said the experts.

But the experts estimated a California database would grow by about 108,000 entries every year for pistols alone. "This study indicates that this number of candidate cases will be so large as to be impractical and will likely create logistic complications so great that they cannot be effectively addressed," they said.

The test-firing results only scratch the surface of ballistic fingerprinting's problems.

The experts concluded it's unknown whether cartridges fired after typical firearm break-in and wear can at all be matched to the cartridge fired when the gun was new.

"Firearms that generate markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the users," said the experts. "They are not permanently defined like fingerprints or DNA."

A file may be used to make scratch marks in a barrel or a breech face, and various parts may be replaced to give a firearm a completely new ballistic identity. Bullets may be treated to alter the machining marks in a barrel.

Not all guns even generate markings on cartridge casings.

Further, "fired cartridge casings are much easier to correlate than fired bullets," noted the experts. Because bullets are severely damaged on impact, they can only be examined manually.

Moreover, Americans already own more than 200 million guns; those won't be included in any ballistics database.

Hiding behind the sniper shootings and calling for ballistic fingerprinting -- is the gun control lobby.

"The [sniper] shootings are a perfect example of how valuable complete ballistic fingerprinting would be," said a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

"Doesn't it make sense for us to give law enforcement the tools they need in order to solve such crimes?" asked Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign.

Perhaps -- if ballistic fingerprinting worked. What gun control advocates really want is the proven result of ballistic fingerprinting -- reduced gun sales.

The Maryland law reduced 2001 handgun sales to their lowest level in 10 years. Handgun sales have continued to drop in 2002, according to the Maryland State Police.

Gun control advocates are fogging debate by claiming a July 2001 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found computerized ballistic fingerprints currently available to federal law enforcement officials produced 8,800 ballistics matches with 17,600 crime scenes during 2000-2001.

But the ATF report only involved standard matching of crime scene evidence with post-crime ballistic testing. This is quite different from comparing crime scene with pre-sale ballistics.

Shockingly, the California experts were silenced by California's pro-gun control Attorney General Bill Lockyer. One panel member said he was gagged by the AG's office, not only about the study, but about the entire topic.

The AG's office acknowledged in an interview it favored a ballistics fingerprinting system and denigrated its study as "preliminary" pending a review by a lone European expert. No explanation was offered for not having FBI, ATF or other U.S. ballistic experts review the report.

The Bush administration has opposed ballistics fingerprinting on a national level, but this week committed to more study of the idea -- the same sensible recommendation made by the California experts.

As it stands now, ballistic fingerprinting only promotes the agenda of gun control activists, not the agenda more in the public interest, that of law enforcement.

By Any Other Acronym
The BATF's got a new name, but its intrusive methods still amount to de facto registration.
By John Hay Rabb

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has a new name and a new home in the federal bureaucracy. The agency is now the BATFE ("E" is for explosives). It is no longer housed in the Treasury Department but has been moved to the Justice Department. The Bureau is still doing what it has always done: smashing up moonshine stills, chasing illegal cigarette runners and, unfortunately, making life difficult for law-abiding gun owners.

It even has a new, lemon-scented mission statement, touting its "unique responsibilities" for "reducing violent crime and protecting the public." I do not mean to impugn the BATFE as a whole, for it is certainly an important part of the post-9/11 antiterrorism team. The problem is that it seems to have an enthrenched anti-gun culture. Exhibit A would have to be its enormous gun-purchaser database, which amounts to de facto gun registration.

If you thought gun registration was illegal in the U.S., you would be right. But the law does not prevent the BATFE from forcing gun dealers to maintain comprehensive records on gun purchasers. These records are not part of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The law governing NICS is quite clear. It states that NICS "shall (A) assign a unique identification number to [each firearm] transfer, (B) provide the [federal firearms dealer] with the number, and (C) destroy all records of the [NICS] with respect to the call [other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned] and all records of the [NICS] relating to the [gun purchaser] or the [gun] transfer."
The BATFE is able to retain access to extensive records on law-abiding gun purchasers through a provision in federal law that requires gun dealers to keep the completed BATFE gun-purchase application forms indefinitely. The yellow BATFE Form 4473 is familiar to everyone who has purchased a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer. It contains a great deal of personal information that links a specific individual to a specific gun purchase, right down to the gun model and serial number. If that doesn't constitute gun registration, then I don't know what does.

A BATFE spokesman in Washington said that "the BATFE encourages all dealers to maintain records indefinitely, and most dealers do continue to maintain records past the 20-year mark."

The spokesman added, "The majority of licensees [federal firearms dealers] are conscientious citizens who want to do all they can to assist law enforcement. The last thing they would want is to throw away a record that could have been used someday by law enforcement in solving a horrific crime."

No reasonable person objects to the prudent use of Form 4473 records in solving gun crimes. The problem is that only about 8 percent of criminals purchase their guns from legal gun dealers. The overwhelming majority of gun purchasers are law-abiding citizens. Consider the potential size of the BATFE database. There have been approximately 36 million gun-purchase checks conducted using Form 4473 since 1998. Even allowing for multiple gun purchases by individuals, this database still contains millions of 4473s.

I wanted to ask the BATFE some additional questions about the use of Form 4473 information. The people at the BATFE insisted that I write down all my additional questions in a letter and mail it to them. We all know how long the government takes to answer a letter, if it answers it at all. So instead I put my additional questions to a respected Virginia gun dealer, who asked to remain anonymous.

As an example, I asked the dealer if the BATFE places any restrictions on the distribution of the completed Form 4473s. He said that there are no federal restrictions, so it is up to the individual dealer to decide how he wants to safeguard the information. Because this dealer is known for his integrity, he said that he would give me a copy of one of my Form 4473s, but he would not show it to anyone else, nor could I see anyone else's completed form.

I then asked about law enforcement access to the completed forms, which each gun dealer must keep bound in book form. I wanted to know what the dealer would do if a law enforcement officer asked to see the Form 4473 book or any specific form in the book. The dealer said that he would ask the officer to justify his request, but he would end up allowing the officer to see any of the records, even if he was not investigating a particular crime.

During the horrific Washington-area sniper attacks of 2002, law enforcement officers had effective carte blanche to examine any gun- or ammunition-purchase records in the possession of gun dealers. This practice was reasonable and justifiable (up to a point) given the severity of the sniper threat to the general public. My gun-dealer source said that during the sniper investigation several federal, state and local law enforcement agencies examined his Form 4473 files.

Some ammunition dealers went a bit too far in their efforts to cooperate with law enforcement during the sniper investigation. A major national sporting goods chain that sells ammunition directed its Washington-area sales staff to write down the names of all ammunition purchasers and the type and amount of ammunition that they had purchased. Bear in mind that the caliber of the alleged sniper weapon was known to law enforcement fairly early in the investigation. The caliber was not .38 Special, 9mm or .380 FMJ, but those purchases where still dutifully recorded by the sales staff.

I called the corporate headquarters of this sporting goods chain to inquire about the reason for the intrusive ammunition-purchase record-keeping. The corporate spokesman said that the BATFE had asked the sporting goods chain to keep a record of ammunition purchases made during the sniper investigation. However, my gun dealer source said that the BATFE never made such a request to him, so more likely it was a corporate decision by this sporting goods chain to invade the privacy of its paying customers.

For some inexplicable reason, Congressional gun supporters have focused their attention on reforming the NICS process. But there is no credible information that NICS has been systematically used to record and store information on gun purchasers. Congress should instead focus on the Form 4473 database.

The BATFE does not deny that the Form 4473 database exists, nor is it apologetic about it. The BATFE firmly believes that the Form 4473 database makes a significant contribution to preventing and solving gun crimes. But if only 8 percent of gun criminals obtain their firearms from gun dealers, is there sufficient justification to maintain an Orwellian repository of personal information on millions of law-abiding gun buyers? If you decide to put that question to the BATFE, make sure you put it on a postcard.

But don't hold your breath waiting for a response.

[Rave]

The BATFE is not apologetic about anything it ever does,because that would be an admission that the mighty elite might have erred,gasp,they are always right,bastids!

[BattleRifleG3]

Federal? No. I believe the spent case is related to state laws.

[Joey l mur]

First they would keep the spent case. Micro grouves in the bolt face and marks from the action such as the extractor can trace the cartrige to the gun. The case you get from the maker is to demonstrate the gun was test fired. Most bulletes fired from a highpowered rifle are useless to identify to a rifle as they rearly survive a bullet trap let alone a crime seen. Full metal jacket bullets fare better.:gangster:

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

I may be wrong on this assumption, but if you change out the bbl will the new bullet markings differ from the original bbl bullet markings?

If this is true then just simply change out the bbl. That way if the gun is ever stolen it will not come back to you.

And yes running a metral rod or rasp inside a bbl will change the markings but I can't bring myself to do it.

Or you could just buy Older Pistols.

[Rave]

All these programs are just more grist for the mill,absolute BS!
Keep all those sorry bastids employed and us under their thumbs,grrrrr!

[Joey l mur]

Originally Posted by SPOCAHP ANAR

I may be wrong on this assumption, but if you change out the bbl will the new bullet markings differ from the original bbl bullet markings?
If this is true then just simply change out the bbl. That way if the gun is ever stolen it will not come back to you.
And yes running a metral rod or rasp inside a bbl will change the markings but I can't bring myself to do it.
Or you could just buy Older Pistols.

You can buy sabots 22/30, 30/36, 36/45, 40/45, 40/50, 45/50 and so on.
then there is no rifling on the bullet for them to trace.