Be sure to read the next to last paragraph.
It will get your attention.

GUNS&AMMO June 2004
Second Amendment
Page 32

Under The Microscope
John Hay Rabb

Even the ‘experts’ are realizing that ballistic
fingerprinting isn?t all it?s cracked up to be.

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 finger printed 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 An 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 damning 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 gunrights
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.