CCRKBA: MARYLAND REPORT ON BALLISTIC IMAGING SHATTERS GUN TRACKING MYTHS

[skippythwndrdog]

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-Maryland-boon.htm

Keep in mind the source. In a two minute search, I was unable to find anything else on the web. Perhaps you will have better luck and more time. I do happen to agree with the CCRKBA's stance on the failed Maryland scheme.


NEWS RELEASE

Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

CCRKBA SAYS MARYLAND REPORT ON BALLISTIC IMAGING SHATTERS GUN TRACKING MYTHS

For Immediate Release: January 11, 2005

A report by the Maryland State Police that recommends repeal of a law requiring collection of ballistic imaging information "shatters one of the favorite myths of gun control extremists," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

In its progress report on the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS), the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit." So far, Maryland has spent $2.5 million over the past four years, with nothing to show for it. The report admitted, "Guns found to be used in the commission of crime…are not the ones being entered into" the system.

"Our congratulations to Gov. Robert Ehrlich's administration for having released this information," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. "Since the Maryland research also reveals that the same program in New York State has produced not a single trace that has led to the solution of a crime, we think Gov. George Pataki ought to consider scrapping the Empire State's program as well, saving taxpayers there about $4 million dollars annually."

Laws in New York and Maryland require that a fired cartridge case from each handgun sold in the state be provided for entry into the respective state's IBIS database. Extremist gun control groups supported this requirement because it amounts to a de facto gun registry in the guise of a crime-fighting tool.

"By admission of the Maryland State Police, ballistic imaging doesn't work, and appears to be a waste of money," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "Technicians with the California Department of Justice said as much two years ago. The Citizen's Committee and other gun rights groups have been saying all along that ballistic imaging was a fraud as a crime-prevention tool, and now it's also being proven as an ineffective crime-solving tool.

"Taxpayers in every state have a right to know about the Maryland report," Gottlieb stated, "because gun control zealots have pushed similar programs in many state legislatures. Taxpayers expect to have their money wisely spent on genuine anti-crime measures, not some boondoggle that amounts to gun registration by another name."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at [phone], on the internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to [e-mail].

[Redstone]

1. I especially like this part...

"Extremist gun control groups supported this requirement because it amounts to a de facto gun registry in the guise of a crime-fighting tool."

Let's see; the government requires you to register your car. The government can find out who owns a specific car by the registration or serial number (VIN).

And pretty much everybody thinks that's OK (including me).

Cars are pretty innocuous things, only rarely used to kill someone, and not built specifically to do so.

But when it comes to their precious handguns - which, unlike cars, are designed primarily to kill people - these fucking whackjob gun nuts shriek bloody murder at any idea of traceability.

Good God, these people make me sick.

Redstone

[goju]

2. Owning a car is not a right

Thats the difference. The effort here is to register guns. Its the first step toward reducing what and how many you can own, then banning ownership of guns altogether. That is why there is such outrage at the thought of a de facto gun registration scheme like this ballistics db.

Any threat to our rights is a threat to all of them. I hope you at least agree with that notion.

[papau]

3. Seems a silly fear-as evil will be door to door, not via registration list

- if it comes to that.

I wish my NRA monies were not wasted on this.

But I think all - or almost all - agree on never a ban, or even a limit on number.

I just don't see the need for anyone to have rockets in the house.

[iverglas]

9. what???

"Owning a car is not a right"

You mean ... the gummint can just show up in your garage and confiscate your car?? The gummint can pass a law prohibiting you (everybody, or just you, or just people who look like you ...) from owning cars??

What a very strange country you live in, I guess.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You might want to seek the opinion of some of your colleagues on this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=97533&mesg_id=97572&page=

... outlawing the 3-cylinder Geo Metro as a "high-powered race car that out-runs police and runs down children and has no legitimate transportation purpose" would indeed be authoritarian, would it not?

Don't I recall all those 18th century blokes at whose tombs so many of the rkba-heads seem to worship saying things about how property, as the fruit of labour (conveniently leaving aside the resources that property is derived from, and to whom they belong, of course), is sacrosanct?

Jeez, if anybody tried to tell a Canadian that s/he didn't have the right to own a car, s/he would be in court before you could inhale.

(edited to add omitted word)

[goju]

12. Yep

The gov't can show up and confiscate your car, if you absolutely insist on going to the extremes in this debate. And yep, the gov't can pass a law prohibiting me and any others from owning cars. Car ownership is not specifically guaranteed protection under our constitution, but arms are. Imagine that!

Due process of law, and property, well thats another matter. Aint it?

Im quite sure your Canadian fellows would be up in arms (pardon the pun) if they were told they could not own a car. As would we. Nevertheless, we have no constitutional right to own one any more than we have a right to own lawn jarts (sorry luna, whereever you are)

[iverglas]

13. another matter indeed

Due process of law, and property, well thats another matter. Aint it?

And you might want to learn something about it.

Nevertheless, we have no constitutional right to own one any more than we have a right to own lawn jarts (sorry luna, whereever you are)

It always saddens me to see such benighted silliness.

If you had no constitutional right to own lawn jarts, why do you think that laws had to be made to prohibit you from doing so? Why didn't agents of the Bureau of lawn jarts, running-with-scissors and jumping-off-bridges just show up at your door and TAKE THEM?

Like I said, you might want to learn something.

The fact that a right exists does not mean that there can never be justification for interfering in the exercise of that right.

[goju]

14. Help me, please

Point me to where I might find some mention of the right to own cars, automobiles, vehicles, or any other derivation of that word, anywhere in the constitution. Then point me to where I can find a specifically enumerated "right" to own guns, or any other derivation of that word.

You're right, I might learn something.

[iverglas]

15. if you'll help me

Point me to where I might find some mention of the right to own cars, automobiles, vehicles, or any other derivation of that word, anywhere in the constitution.

Point me to where your constitution says that you have a right to life.

I meant to ask ...

Im quite sure your Canadian fellows would be up in arms (pardon the pun) if they were told they could not own a car. As would we.

... would you not, also, be heading to court if a law were passed prohibiting the ownership of cars??

I'd hate to think you'd all just be meekly turning 'em in. But I suppose that would be your only option ...

[goju]

17. Happy to...

The 5th and the 14th speak to that specificallly...

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

... respectively



Yes, Im quite sure there would be an effort in the courts to prevent the prohibition of cars, not unlike the effort to repeal the Volstead act.

[iverglas]

19. uh ... huh

The 5th and the 14th speak to that specificallly...
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
... respectively

Damned if that ain't the same thing *I* quoted. Going back to my emphasis:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

So here you are, telling me that this is a constitutional right to life, but not a constitutional right to property.

I scratch my head.


Yes, Im quite sure there would be an effort in the courts to prevent the prohibition of cars, not unlike the effort to repeal the Volstead act.

Well, that's obscure alien history to me, but as I understand it, the Volstead Act merely provided for the enforcement of the 18th amendment to the US constitution:

Amendment XVIII

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

...

Ya can't argue constitutional rights against a provision of a constitution, doncha see?

That's why some folks are so hot to trot about that constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage in the US, you see. Without it, the constitutional right to equal protection would (well, should) prevail over statutory bans. (With it, of course, the constitution would be a dog's breakfast, but there ya go ...)

[goju]

27. Holy smokes.....

So here you are, telling me that this is a constitutional right to life, but not a constitutional right to property.

Surely you realize that the framers used the term "property" to specifically protect "land ownership"? You dont honestly think the framers meant to protect ownership of every object under the sun, do you? Subsequent interpretations of the term "property" have been on a case by case basis. And banning the possession or sale any one object for whatever reason requires a law. The difference is, you cannot pass a law forbidding something that is "explicity" outlined as a right in our const. You can however, ban something that is NOT explicityl enumerated with a law.

I scratch my head.

I can see why.

Ya can't argue constitutional rights against a provision of a constitution, doncha see

Who did that? Got a mouse in your pocket do ya?

That's why some folks are so hot to trot about that constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage in the US, you see. Without it, the constitutional right to equal protection would (well, should) prevail over statutory bans. (With it, of course, the constitution would be a dog's breakfast, but there ya go ...

That is not why some are "hot to trot" over that amendment. You surprise me on that one. That amendment was concocted to prevent states from adopting their own marriage laws, regardless of the "rights" issue. The religious zealots are much more interested in preventing gay marriage than they are are in the exercise of equal rights, gays or not. The amendment was only a ploy to passify the hardcore religious right. They dont care a damn about whether gays get ss benefits or visiting rights, they just dont want them married. There ya go...

[shleonny]

32. cars are impounded everyday

[shleonny]

31. owning guns is not a right

2nd amendment has never applied to individuals, gun control in America goes back to the first continental congress.

[benEzra]

4. Actually, the government CAN

determine who owns a specific handgun by tracing it. It just requires an agent to get on the phone and make a few calls, which is a deterrent to mass profiling of gun owners.

BTW, you ordinarily don't have to register a car (or get a license) if you are only going to possess it at home or operate it on private property. You only need license and registration if you are going to operate the car in public. (Most race cars aren't registered, for example.)

Likewise, we don't have to register firearms or get a licence to possess them on our own property, BUT nearly all states do require a license (and sometimes registration) in order to carry one on your person for self-defense. So it's actually more similar than you may realize.

[goju]

5. good points

However, if you buy a new car, I dont think you have a choice on the reg. matter. I think the dealer is required to submit the reg forms.

Edit, and there is the matter of the title, or pink slip. Even in a private sale, the former owner usually has to file a form with the DMV reporting the sale and absolving him/her of liability for that vehicle.

[benEzra]

6. Well, it would tell which doors to go to...

Seems a silly fear-as evil will be door to door, not via registration list - if it comes to that.

I wish my NRA monies were not wasted on this.

If only a small subset of firearms were to be banned, rather than all of them, a registration list would tell would-be confiscators which doors to go to. Admittedly quite farfetched in most jurisdictions today (thank goodness), but there have been instances in a couple of gun-phobic states, IIRC.:tinfoilhat:

But I think all - or almost all - agree on never a ban, or even a limit on number.

I just don't see the need for anyone to have rockets in the house.

Rockets?

[iverglas]

10. ah, have you found it for me??

BTW, you ordinarily don't have to register a car (or get a license) if you are only going to possess it at home or operate it on private property. You only need license and registration if you are going to operate the car in public. (Most race cars aren't registered, for example.)

Likewise, we don't have to register firearms or get a licence to possess them on our own property, BUT nearly all states do require a license (and sometimes registration) in order to carry one on your person for self-defense. So it's actually more similar than you may realize.

Yes indeed -- very similar! Once you've acquired Klingon cloaking technology, which I assume you have.

Otherwise, what similarity could you be saying there is between not requiring registration of a little bitty thing that can be carried around in one's pants without anyone ever knowing and not requiring registration of a big honking 12-foot long 2000-pound hunk of glass and metal that can be seen a mile away?

-- Yes sir, I promise on my honour that I will never slip this little pistol into my pants and leave my own property with it, or do anything dangerous or illegal with it. You can trust me. I never lie. So you don't need to know about my pistol, or be able to trace it to me. Cross my heart.

An excellent basis for public policy, I'm sure.

[slackmaster]

8. Redstone, guns are quite traceable under current law

Every gun has a serial number.

Manufacturers have to keep records of the disposition of every gun they make.

The retail seller of every gun has to keep records of who the gun was sold to.

If a gun is subsequently sold to another private individual, the person who initially bought it can tell you were it went. And so on.

[iverglas]

11. uh oh

http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:5Za8YVLyJIcJ:www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf+toronto+council+minutes+police+firearms+serial&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

In order to respond to the Board's request with respect to the use of illegally imported firearms in Toronto crime, a clear definition of what constitutes a crime gun must be attained. For the purposes of this report, a crime gun is defined as any firearm that has been used in a crime, or due to the circumstances surrounding its seizure had the potential to be used in a crime, or for which the serial number has been obliterated.

... The Gang and Gun Task Force have determined that one hundred and thirty-nine (139) of these crime guns fall into the following categories:
- 26 long barrelled firearms
- 11 firearms registered in Canada
- 5 reported as stolen
- 4 firearms were never issued a serial number by manufacturer
- 16 were too old to be traced for ownership
- 32 had their serial numbers obliterated
- 45 are still under investigation

Investigative experience of the Gun and Gang Task Force and the Firearms Enforcement Unit has established that long barrelled firearms are primarily of Canadian origin. Long barrelled weapons are historically stolen from private citizens and converted for use in criminal acts. For this reason, long barrelled crime guns are not automatically submitted for tracing. Firearms with obliterated serial numbers have been historically believed to be of United States origin. A recent Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit (PWEU) investigation has shed light on this historical assumption and it is now believed that these types of firearms may also be of Canadian origin.

Local investigations suggest that many of the 32 crime guns with obliterated serial numbers are of Canadian origin. Investigations have identified that criminals are well aware of the absence of legislation requiring the registering of firearms in the United States. Armed with this knowledge they have developed a sense of confidence that the firearm will not be successfully traced back to them so there is less concern over removing the serial number.

It's assuming quite a bit to imagine that yer average criminal is going to go to the trouble of obliterating the serial number on his/her firearm, of course, but it is a possible method of defeating identification of the owner.

The question would be: how would the firearm come into the possession of someone who wished to defeat this method of being identified?

If a gun is subsequently sold to another private individual, the person who initially bought it can tell you were it went.

Really? If the individual sold it to someone who responded to a classified ad? Gee, officer, he seemed like such a nice guy ...

If the individual left it lying around on his/her bedside table where a lucky burglar found it? But I needed it there for defending me and my woman and my dog and my froot loops! ... even when I wasn't home. (I know you advocate safe storage, but I don't believe you advocate requiring safe storage.)


No one single approach is going to deter people from using firearms to commit crimes or kill people all by itself. But it makes no sense to reject any method simply because it is not, in and of itself, the silver bullet.

Speed limits, and the threat of fines, do not, all by themselves, deter all drivers from speeding. Public education is needed. High insurance rates make a contribution. Suspension of drivers' licences helps. Speed bumps and other physical elements of roadway design are sometimes necesary. No one seriously suggests that any of these should be abandoned simply because it doesn't work 100%.

[left15]

16. No onbe objects to attempting to reducing crime

the problem is most of the methods suggested take firearms away from people who didn't commit crimes with them.

In your post, you compare limiting gun crime to limiting speeding, and list all the approaches used to reduce speeding, state that none of them are 100% effective. In contrast however, none of the approachs you list to curb speeding impact drivers who don't speed.

In regards, to registration, the there has historically been a difference in cars and guns in that no city to my knowledge has ever banned a car, or class of cars.

As some have suggested, registration leads to confiscation or banning. This has been the case in several cities including Chicago, Washington DC and soon to be San Francisco.

[iverglas]

18. yada yada yada

As some have suggested, registration leads to confiscation or banning.

I was just perusing a site about hokey physics, for another discussion in another DU forum.

I wonder whether they've investigated this one yet ...

Indeed, it is an incontrovertible law of physics that registration of X leads to confiscation or banning of X. Why, just look at motor vehicles. Is that yours I see being towed away there? Hark, is that the cat control cops knocking on my door to seize and carry off my tabbies? I knew I shouldn't have bought those cat licences ...


In your post, you compare limiting gun crime to limiting speeding, and list all the approaches used to reduce speeding, state that none of them are 100% effective. In contrast however, none of the approachs you list to curb speeding impact drivers who don't speed.

Well, speed limits just might stop some drivers who would otherwise speed from speeding. As might speed bumps, the prospect of higher insurance rates, etc.

What gobbledygook are you talking here? Of course laws prohibiting X do not affect people who do not do X. Lordy. The very, actual point of the bleeding things is to dissuade people from doing what they prohbit, and to impose consequences for the doing of what they prohibit (or the not doing of what they require to be done) on those who do what they're not supposed to do, not on the world at large. I have no idea what you're on about.

And amazingly, in any event:

- requiring registration of firearms has no impact on firearms owners who register their firearms;
- requiring that firearms owners be licensed for the purpose has no impact on firearms owners who obtain licences;
- requiring safe storage of firearms has no impact on firearms owners who store their firearms safely;

etc. etc. etc.

And no, I did not "compare limiting gun crime to limiting speeding".

I compared placing restrictions on behaviour involving motor vehicles with placing restrictions on behaviour involving firearms.

The aim of both sets of restrictions is to reduce the incidence of harm, whether it be harm resulting from car crashes or harm resulting from gunshots. Speeding (an arbitrary concept in itself) is no more intrinsically harmful than possessing firearms.

The fact is, I "speed" just about every time I drive and I cause no harm whatsoever, just as all the "law-abiding gun owners" in the vicinity cause no harm whatsoever whenever they do something with their firearms.

I am nonetheless prohibited from speeding because some people might cause harm when they speed, or harm might result from my speeding through no fault of my own. I am also prohibited from leaving my keys in my car when it is parked, because of the risk of theft and the elevated risk involved in cars being driven by people who have stolen them. By owning and driving a car, I am engaging in a behaviour -- possessing and driving a big heavy thing that is capable of causing considerable harm -- that carries intrinsic risks, and it is entirely legitimate for the manner in which I do it to be subject to public regulation.

And I see no reason why firearms owners should not be required to abide by similarly risk-reducing rules, since their conduct -- possessing and using a thing that is capable of causing considerable harm -- also involves intrinsic risks.

There is a risk when they transfer their firearms to strangers, or anyone, without public scrutiny, that they are making firearms available to people who will use them to cause harm. There is a risk when they leave their firearms lying around unsecured that they will be taken and used by people to cause harm. That is a risk to other people, and those other people -- us, society -- are entirely entitled to require that the people engaging in the behaviour take steps to reduce those risks.


In regards, to registration, the there has historically been a difference in cars and guns in that no city to my knowledge has ever banned a car, or class of cars.

And your point is ... ?

Oh yeah. Registration of X inevitably leads to confiscation/banning of X. Except that apparently it doesn't.


the problem is most of the methods suggested take firearms away from people who didn't commit crimes with them.

Odd. The methods suggested -- by me, in the post you responded to: registration of all acquisitions and transfers of firearms, and mandatory safe storage -- do that ... how?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

21. hmm, lemme see

The tracking of abortion information.

Now ... what were the considerations I stated to support my opinion that registration of information regarding the ownership and use of motor vehicles and firearms was justified ...

By owning and driving a car, I am engaging in a behaviour -- possessing and driving a big heavy thing that is capable of causing considerable harm -- that carries intrinsic risks, and it is entirely legitimate for the manner in which I do it to be subject to public regulation.

And I see no reason why firearms owners should not be required to abide by similarly risk-reducing rules, since their conduct -- possessing and using a thing that is capable of causing considerable harm -- also involves intrinsic risks.

Yasss ... and the risk to the public that is intrinsic in a woman having an abortion would be ...?

Oh , wait right to an abortion,,, I'm sure its here,,,just above the right to keep and bear arms.

Right you are! Right there in the fifth thingy:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just below the second thingy, but there ya go.


Who gets to decide?
People: The opinion of the majority? Like we just get a vote? Like owning slaves?
The executive branch: just hand down an edict?
The legislative branch? Back to slavery.
The courts? Separate but equal? Or maybe Race cannot be used to give preference into a public law school, in say.. Michigan?

Gosh, I'm sure I just don't know how y'all do these things down there. I guess you just don't have any laws at all that prohibit anyone from doing anything or require anyone to do anything.


Still have to get around the words that are our law 'the RIGHT to keep AND bear arms'.

Aha, maybe you'll be the one to explain this to me! (Maybe I've asked you before? I just loved that abortion stuff you pulled out of your hat.)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And yet ... and yet ... you get in trouble if you go shouting fire in a crowded theatre ... telling fibs in court ... advocating the killing of the head of state ... screaming obscenities in the middle of a religious service ... publishing child pornography ... advertising snakeoil to cure cancer ... whispering state secrets to the enemy in wartime ... ... ...

Doncha? How do they do that?! Quite the magic trick, I must say. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ... and yet ... and yet ... it does. I think it also prohibits broadcasting without a licence. So much for that freedom of the press stuff, eh? And the Patriot Act, and "free speech zones" ... well, we won't go there.

But you must know. How do they get around those words that are your law?

I mean, I know. I often try to explain it, but nobody ever seems to want to learn.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[left15]

23. My point

My point is that firearms can't be confiscated if they are not registered. I never said registration inevitably leads to confiscation/banning, only that registration has lead to
confiscation/banning in the past.

When you said:

"No one single approach is going to deter people from using firearms to commit crimes or kill people all by itself. But it makes no sense to reject any method simply because it is not, in and of itself, the silver bullet."

I assumed you meant more than just registration and safe storage, I thought you might be suggesting banning handgun or something, that would be a much greater impact to those who have not committed a crime with their gun.

Back to the car analogy, that would be like banning a Mustang or Corvette because the could be used to speed, or because they are most often ticketed for speeding.

Continuing with the car theme, different places have different speed limits based on reasonable safety guidelines, shouldn't guns be treated the same way? Someone living on a rural farm should not have the same restrictions as someone in a urban apartment.


You also said:

"I did not "compare limiting gun crime to limiting speeding"."

but that is exactly what you did, you said:

"No one single approach is going to deter people from using firearms to commit crimes or kill people all by itself."

followed by:

"Speed limits, and the threat of fines, do not, all by themselves, deter all drivers from speeding.

But maybe that's not what you meant.

Certainly the purpose of placing restrictions on behavior involving firearms is to reduce gun crime (and there by reducing the incidents of harm as you stated), otherwise what is the point of restrictions and registration?

[slackmaster]

7. One of my guns came with a "Maryland case"

It's a small sealed brown paper envelope with the make, model, and serial number of the gun. Inside is one fired cartridge case.

Sturm, Ruger and Co. have been packaging all of their handguns that way just in case they get sold at retail in Maryland. They must have figured it's simpler to package one with every gun than to implement yet another recordkeeping system for guns they sell.

$2.5 million for zero lives saved, zero injuries prevented, and zero crimes solved over four years in a populous state seems like a piss-poor use of public funds to me. For the sake of Maryland taxpayers I hope they scrap the system rather than trying to make up the loss in volume. :dunce:

[benEzra]

24. I have read that Canada's new registration system...

has dramatically underdelivered on the public safety side, and has become an extraordinarily expensive boondoggle.

But aside from the practical considerations, would registration in the U.S. be so controversial in a more gun-friendly political climate? Of course not. But the fact remains that most of the politicians pushing registration are also pushing lists of guns they wish to ban, and they will never get a very high compliance rate without registration first (as California's experience has shown).

Car registration is noncontroversial not only because owning a car rather obvious (as iverglas has pointed out), but because no one is seriously proposing the banning and/or confiscation of particular makes and styles of cars. That is not true of the gun issue at the moment.

[slackmaster]

26. I'd accept full gun registration IF...

...all restrictions on the types of firearms I can buy are removed:

- No state or federal bans on "assault weapons".

- No state-level restrictions on items controlled under the National Firearms Act.

I think that would be a reasonable exchange. A little loss of privacy in exchange for a little gain of liberty.

[iverglas]

34. I keep offering

Y'all keep covering your eyes and going wah wah.

I have read that Canada's new registration system...
has dramatically underdelivered on the public safety side, and has become an extraordinarily expensive boondoggle.

No need to read anything else then, eh?

The implementation of the Firearms Registry element of the Canadian Firearms Program was arguably a boondoggle. Unforeseen needs arose, and inadequate controls were maintained on expenditures. Gosh, what an unprecedented state of affairs.

If you ever decide to take off the blinkers so you can see and stop making noises so you can hear, you can start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=97431#97687

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=97431#97688

The annual cost of the Firearms Registry is now $33 million. That's a smidgen over one loonie per Canadian. Yikes, my wallet is bleeding!

As for the lack of delivery in public safety terms, you'll find lots of numbers to chew on at the sources linked to. You might also want to look into the dramatic decline in recent figures for armed robberies in Canada, and explain it to yourself however makes you happy.

Or hell, you could just keep on covering your eyes and going wah wah, and spewing nonsense. No skin off my nose.

[aikoaiko]

25. I've got a Maryland gun too.

I didn't realize their were "finger printing" them. I was a little unhappy about seeing that little brown envelope with a case inside.

Although I do like my Titanium Taurus .357 2 inch snubby. I just wish it didn't have porting.

[benEzra]

28. Found a copy of the actual Maryland report...

linked off www.thehighroad.org, but the link is now down. Title page reads

"Maryland State Police
Forensic Sciences Division
MD-IBIS Progress Report #2
Integrated Ballistics Identification System"

The report concludes that the program is an unequivocal failure, a waste of law-enforcement time and resources, and should be terminated. The report's recommendation, from the Executive Summary (p. i):

"It is recommended that this Program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the Program be transferred to the DNA Database Unit."

The detailed analysis of the system is pretty scathing.

[greendeerslayer]

29. This Is All Hogwash

Let's imagine I buy a new handgun that by law is "ballistic imaged," all I have to do is buy a new barrel and firing pin, replace the ones in my new gun and the "ballistic image" will be different. This is what happens when politicos who know nothing about firearms make laws that regulate them.

[slackmaster]

30. Changing barrels on many semiauto pistols is trivial

No gunsmithing required.

I just bought a Dan Wesson revolver .357 Magnum from a private individual BTW. AFAIK it's the only revolver with user-interchangeable barrels.

[MrSandman]

33. We were assured that this was effective...

Ballistic fingerprinting has proven effective in helping catch criminals. On May 13, 2002, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stated that, "For several years, ATF has utilized IBIS automated ballistic comparison equipment in its firearms laboratories, and has deployed into State and local NIBIN partner agencies in order to assist them in their efforts against violent crime... .

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ballistic

Only to learn that...

(CNSNews.com) - Maryland's "ballistics imaging" system isn't working and ought to be scrapped, says a report from the Maryland State Police.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200501%5CCUL20050112b.html

And the RKBA has credibility problems?:crazy:

[DoNotRefill]

35. Here's a Washington Post article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html?sub=AR

Sorry, registration is required.