Ballistic/Firearm "Fingerprinting"

Introduction

The Danger and Hypocrisy

First of all, let's examine some of the motives and hypocrisy exhibited by the people promoting such a plan, and firearm restrictions in general.

William Clinton: the President of the United States. Sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That includes the Bill of Rights, whose Second Amendment explicitly guarantees that the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear arms (defend themselves, their families, their communities, their country) shall not be infringed (hindered in any way). Here's a quote from our 'freedom-loving' president:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."

-- President William J. Clinton, 11 March 1993 - USA Today

Here's another:

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."

-- President William J. Clinton, 22 March 1994 – MTV's "Enough is Enough"

Here's what a famous framer of our Constitution said about freedom:

"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759).

I don't know about you, but I trust the likes of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison a whole lot more than a man who has, after proclaiming that his administration would be 'the most ethical administration in history', was impeached (leaving a 'stain' on the office of the Presidency), has been investigated for scandals including the Whitewater land deals, FBI files, transfer of vital technology to Communist China, 'Travelgate', campaign finance illegalities, sexual harassment charges, .... , was found guilty of PERJURY, ...

Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc., makes some pretty big money on her speaking engagements. She has been speaking about restricting and banning handguns as 'good first steps' to banning firearms completely.

Rosie O'Donnell: here's a celebrity who thinks that NOBODY but the police and military should have guns. She even said on national television that since guns are so danfgerous, that if you own a gun, you belong in jail. Oh yeah, that is, of course, excepting Rosie's family bodyguard. He should have one, too - so he can protect ROSIE'S family. To hell with YOURS and MINE. Then, in a lame attempt to put some justification on it all, she said 'but the guns never come in the house'.

Barbara Boxer: a Senator from California. Also sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. She wants to ban firearms - but has a concealed carry license for HERSELF. This means that she should have taken a course on the safe handling of firearms, yet is shown in at least one photograph standing at a pulpit holding an AK-47 (or variant), with the rifle leveled with her finger on the trigger and a magazine in the action. The condition of the hammer, safety, or chamber is unknown to me. I bet it was also unknown to Senator Boxer. Here is somebody who apparently does not have a clue when it comes to firearms and their safe handling, yet has a concealed carry license, carries a .38 Special revolver, and doesn't want others to be able to exercise the same right of self-defense that she does.

Dianne Feinstein: a Senator from California. Also sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

"The votes weren't there. If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, hand them over', I would have done it."

-- Senator Dianne Fienstien (D, CA) on 60 Minutes in 1995 when asked why her 1994 "assualt weapon" ban did not demand the confiscation of listed guns.

Registration leads to Confiscation

This is not merely some slogan. It's the truth. This has happened time and again in other countries - and we cannot allow it to happen any more here in the USA. Any more? Yes, it has started.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850.

New York City, which passed 'laws' requiring the registration of ALL (legal) firearms and their owners - with the promise that they would never be used to enforce a ban or confiscation. New York City then (ca. 1989) banned certain autoloading rifles - giving the owners (they knew who they were - the legal ones, anyway) 3 options: (1) turn it in, (2) have it rendered inoperable (destroy it, in essence), or (3) transfer it out of the city. All 3 options deprive ownership of the firearm, or ownership of a working firearm.

Parts of California have enacted autoloading firearm bans, and now they're going so far as to try to ban the transfer and manufacture of ammunition. This means your firearms become worthless. This also means if you move, technically, you can't even take your firearms, ammunition, reloading equipment, or reloading components with you, and you also cannot leave them behind! WHAT OPTIONS DO YOU HAVE? NONE, as far as I can see. This means you are not even allowed to move for fear of breaking the law!

"...the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair."

-- ANDRES V. STATE, 50 TENN. (3 Heisk) 165, 178; (1871)

Need more proof that gun 'control' (registration and confiscation) is illegal, immoral, and evil? Here are some Quotations from the Founding Fathers and Other Notable Personalities. Here are more quotations.

The Fallacy

There are a number of major moral and legal problems with this scheme:

1. It violates our right to privacy, protected under the Fourth Amendment.
2. It violates our right to self-defense, protected under the Second Amendment.
3. It will lead to confiscation, which violates our right to self-defense which protected under the Second Amendment, and our right to property which is protected under the Fifth Amendment. What price do YOU place on your life, the lives of your family, which compensates you for your loss of the ability of self-defense? I consider it priceless.
4. It can only apply to new legal transfers of firearms or firearms that are already registered. This means that it can only apply to honest, law-abiding citizens. These are NOT the people that commit crimes. Did you know that criminals are NOT legally obligated to register their firearms?!

Additionally, there are a number of practical problems with this scheme:

1. The barrels of firearms can be scratched, polished, firelapped, and otherwise altered to so alter the "fingerprint" at the time of transfer to render it useless for traceability purposes.
2. Firing pins, extractors, and ejectors can similarly be scratched, filed, polished, and otherwise altered -- even replaced with new or used ones, with the same results.
3. All of these mechanical components are subject to normal wear and tear, which will change their surfaces.

Therefore, this sort of "fingerprinting" is not only useless, but (1) will cost a lot of money to implement, (2) will distract the police from their important duties, and (3) is Unconstitutional.