Lockyer punts gun fingerprinting issue to Federal Level

SACRAMENTO (AP) 10.23.02, 1:05p - - Gun control advocates hope to make California the first to require ballistic "fingerprinting" of every firearm, using the nation's most populous state to spur nationwide changes as it did with assault weapons restrictions. As states and Congress rush to consider such programs in response to the East Coast sniper shootings, however, opponents are citing an unpublished California study as proof such systems could be flawed.

California's Department of Justice report found the sheer volume of logging every firearm made and sold in the state may make such systems impractical. Federal officials dispute the preliminary evaluation, but California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the report illustrates the massive technological and logistical problems with tracking more than 100,000 firearms sold annually in California, and more than 1 million nationwide.

Moreover, "it won't do a lot of good to do it for just a few states, because people can purchase weapons in one of the states who don't use ballistic fingerprinting," said Lockyer, who has generally favored restrictions and is joining calls for a national database. Nor would ballistic fingerprints include guns already in private hands.

A state-by-state approach holds appeal for gun control advocates after the Bush administration sent conflicting signals on whether it would support a national database. National legislation has been proposed in both the U.S. House and Senate.

Maryland and New York are the only states currently collecting ballistics information, but only for handguns. Maryland's database has been of no use in solving the series of shootings there, Virginia and the District of Columbia, because the sniper is using a rifle.

As a result, expansions of the Maryland and New York laws are being proposed, and gun opponents are trying to spur other states to begin collecting the unique markings for every firearm. California state Sen. Jack Scott, D-Altadena, who has successfully shepherded other gun control measures into law, said he will seek creation of such a program when lawmakers reconvene in December.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are setting up a national system, but only for a relatively limited number of guns used in crimes.

The proposed California law would encompass far more weapons, which in turn would be eclipsed by a potential national database that Lockyer said "would be unprecedented in size and scope."

Though he disputed national gun groups' assertion that the California study represents a rejection of such ballistics systems, Lockyer said it illustrates both the sophistication and the large amount of money such a system would require.

The evaluation by Lockyer's Justice Department found the number of potential computer matches "will be so large as to be impractical;" that "a large proportion" weapons couldn't be recorded; and that each gun's markings change with routine use and can be easily altered. The report completed a year ago also questioned the cost-effectiveness of creating an expensive system for what it predicted would be limited results.

However, the federal ATF disputed many of the California report's suppositions and conclusions. With systems such as the crime-gun database currently being built, "large-scale ballistic comparison goes from an impossibility to a valuable investigative tool," the ATF concluded.

A California law required the final report be to legislators in June 2001, but Lockyer said it won't be completed for another six months.

"They had a deadline, and the blew it off because the results weren't what they wanted," asserted Chuck Michel, who represents National Rifle Association-California Grassroots.

But Lockyer merely wanted the in-house report reviewed by experts including the ATF - - and sent it to the NRA itself, which promptly used it for its own purposes, said Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin.

Lockyer said the report shows questions remain, particularly over how easily guns' unique markings can be altered.

But given the practical, technological and financial limitations on a state-by-state system, and the potential for saving lives and solving crimes, Lockyer said it should be "a top national priority" for the federal government to develop and fully fund a national database, despite the massive hurdles.

To my knowledge, tuning your gun is not illegal.

That said, if there was a law aginst what I normally do, well of course, I would support it.

Firearms often come from the factory "less than perfect."

We look at many things. If it sometimes fails to fire, often filing the firing pin a bit makes it more reliable. As in, more safe for you. Try to make it dead-center, and smooth. We all strive for perfect ingnition.

If it does not seeem to shoot straight, sometimes running 1000 grit sandpaper (sometimes 600, then 1000) up and down the barell inside will remove burrs or other things which might affect accuracy. Rifle rods made of aluminum can help.

Often, with finicky guns, you might have to do this more than once.

Sometimes, even after tuning, you just can't seem to hit the target. I've had some like that. In that case, I would suggest you sell it privately, and but another more suited to you, privately. From the paper. Please make sure it is not a fed licensed guy, who has to do NICS. Too much waiting time. Private owners can sell you it on the spot.

Or perhaps you bought it recently from a private owner. In that case, sell it anyway. In all cases, be sure you comply with Federal law.

Keep your receipt for the transaction. As an aside, I once bought something from a gal who provided an ID, but it turned out later to be false. Her crime, not mine, though I am irritated. She mislead me.

Just my experience.

The evaluation by Lockyer's Justice Department found the number of potential computer matches "will be so large as to be impractical;" that "a large proportion" weapons couldn't be recorded; and that each gun's markings change with routine use and can be easily altered.
But given the practical, technological and financial limitations on a state-by-state system, and the potential for saving lives and solving crimes, Lockyer said it should be "a top national priority" for the federal government to develop and fully fund a national database, despite the massive hurdles.

By far, the biggest hurdle to overcome will be how to hide the irrationality and rationalization.

I heard Lockyer and Ackerman debate on the Roger Hedgecock show. Lockyer said he wasn't convinced that a Florida-style concealed carry law would reduce crime, and he supported more gun control. Ackerman noted that states with concealed weapons laws (I assume he meant the shall-issue states) observed reductions in crime; although he supports more liberal CCW laws, he will uphold the law, as his office requires.

Ackerman is the best choice for California Attorney General. Vote on Nov 5th.

Prop 52 will allow election-day voter registration and real voting. No citizenship requirement, no age threshold, no proof of ID or actual residency, no waiting period. That's pretty dangerous. State income tax liability requires several months of residence. Yet, we have a 5-day waiting period for our constitutional right to keep and bear arms (buy guns). Vote no on 52.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.