1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lockyer Covering Up Second Ballistic Imaging Report

Discussion in 'Legal' started by gun-fucious, Jan 1, 2003.

  1. gun-fucious

    gun-fucious Participating Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    centre of the PA

    California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.

    271 East Imperial Highway, Suite 620 Fullerton, California 92835
    (714) 992-CRPA . FAX (714) 992-2996

    For Immediate Release: December 27, 2002
    For Additional Information Contact: Chuck Michel, CRPA Spokesman
    Tel: (310) 548-3703 Cell: (310)722-1324



    A gun ban lobby proposal to establish a ballistics imaging computer database
    was introduced this legislative session by state Senator Jack Scott (D-Altadena).
    State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who apparently supports the proposal, has
    recently tried to dispute a research report by his own DOJ ballistics experts,
    and reportedly has gagged those experts from expressing their professional opinions
    publicly. The report is posted at http://www.nssf.org/PDF/CA_study.pdf.

    Now, Lockyer is refusing to release a new study, recently written by expert Jan
    De Kinder in Belgium especially for Lockyer, to address the earlier DOJ report.
    The De Kinder study was commissioned by DOJ in response to the controversy that
    the first DOJ report generated. The new report apparently confirms the earlier
    conclusion that the technology is unreliable and the database infeasible. A
    CRPA public records act request has been denied, as have requests from several
    media outlets.

    In the initial DOJ scientific study, computer bullet sample database matching
    failed 38 -
    62 percent of the time, depending on the type of gun tested. And the DOJ study
    does not address problems caused by normal wear, so the real-world failure rate
    can be expected to be much higher. Further, the report warned that problems
    of matching would soar dramatically if more guns were tested. The study's verdict:
    "Computer-matching systems do not provide conclusive results... potential candidates
    [for the match] must be manually reviewed." In California, annual firearm sales
    exceed 250,000. It is estimated that, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
    it would take approximately nine years to completely process the information
    from just one year's sales using a single imaging system. A single ballistic
    imaging system costs about $600,000, not including the operational funding required
    for personnel and maintenance.

    The California report also warned that "firearms that generate markings on cartridge
    casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the users." A
    ballistic "fingerprint" is actually 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 limited information.
    Unless there happens to be a particular imperfection, only the brand and model
    of the tire can be identified. Moreover, barrels can be easily changed. And
    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 serious difficulties
    as well.

    By draining resources away from other law enforcement needs and making it costly
    for law-abiding citizens to own guns, ballistic fingerprinting could end up actually
    increasing crime. The DOJ report, prepared at the instructions of the state
    Legislature, reveals that a statewide system would be unwieldy and impractical.
    In an apparent politically motivated move, Lockyer refused to make the report
    public, and failed to give it to the Legislature by the December 2001 deadline.
    But some copies of the October 2001 draft report were made available before
    the issue gained national prominence. In it the California Bureau of Forensic
    Services concluded that, among other things, attempting to apply the technology
    to a "mass sampling of manufactured firearms" would cause so many possible matches
    to be generated that the system would be "impractical," and it would "likely
    create logistic complications so great that the can not be effectively addressed."
    According to FOX news, the authors of the report have been forbidden to talk
    with the press.
  2. wQuay

    wQuay New Member

    Dec 31, 2002
    O, the horror! The "experts" are full of lies! Being evil and illogical can be so difficult at times.
  3. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean the People's Republic of California won't pour millions of dollars into it. How do you think that socialist cesspool ended up $35,000,000,000 in the red?
  4. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Dec 19, 2002
    We're looking at a 20 billion plus deficit and Lockyer wants to waste more $ on this? This is the type of stuff the media should be looking into.
  5. redhead

    redhead Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Pleasant Hill, CA
    The media won't be looking into it, because they are as anti-gun as the politicians. The media also was complicit in covering up the size of the budget deficit until after the election. It now stands, at last report, at $34.8 billion. At least, that is what Gov. Grayout is admitting to.
  6. Waitone

    Waitone Mentor

    Dec 25, 2002
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Some one out there needs to jar the second report loose from the AG. Lemmee see here. State gov't using state taxpayer money commissions a study for the benefit of the state policy deliberations. . . . . .

    Looks like a reasonable FOI request to me.
  7. alan

    alan Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    sowest pa.
    It appears that if he wasn't one originally, that he, Calif. AG Lockyer has become what is plainly an anti-gun apparachnkck.

    Keep this fact in mind, and questions of what it might be that drives his actions become self answering.
  8. Kharn

    Kharn Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    A report paid for with public money, seems it would make excellent FOIA bait.


Share This Page