Caution when handling other people's firearms & ammunition?

[The Tennessean]

I'm just curious if anyone else shares a similar line of thinking to my own. The "wipe down" thread prompted me to think about this again after forgetting it for a time. I have, as most of us probably do, a fair amount of friends and family that like me, own various firearms.

It had occurred to me though that however much I like, trust or love these people, ultimately I can't control their actions but unfortunately if I allow myself, could potentially be held responsible for them under certain circumstances.

That leads into the idea that you don't truly know anyone, what they are capable of and that handling their firearms or ammunition and leaving your finger prints or other identifying residue on them may not be the best idea. I initially thought of this a few years ago. I had a friend, not a close friend but also not an acquaintance that I used to go shooting with. He had a nice gun collection and I've handled/fired/loaded most of them at some point. Now, a few years ago (we don't speak much anymore, drifted apart) he lost his job and his wife on the same day. Suppose he does something drastic and at the scene of the crime there are brass and weapons with my identifying marks on them. Now the evidence points to me, or possibly both of us.

Or, even another scenario, consider a firearm is stolen from a friend or family member and you were the last to handle it, a crime is committed and again the evidence points to you.

These are just some thoughts I have, I hope it doesn't sound like paranoia! Hah! I think it's just another good reason to wipe down any firearm you handle when you're finished with it.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, that could be a big problem.

Especially if you happened to be (witnessed) at the crime scene when someone did something bad with a weapon you had recently handled, and there were no witnesses (left) to indicate that you weren't the shooter, and you did actually have means, motive, and opportunity to commit that crime, including access at that exact moment to the weapon used, that you'd previously handled, and, and, and...

If the stars conspire to align against you, I suppose you could be charged with just about anything, but it would seem a long shot. Seems like any situation wherein you would meet all of those criteria, you'd have some 'splainin' do to anyway.

Now, as for handling someone's gun at the range and then they go hold up a Stop-N-Rob next week? It's not like the authorities can convict you of the crime based off your prints left on the gun if there's no other evidence that you were guilty.

Of course, you could always wipe your greasy prints off any gun you handle, just 'cause that's the right thing to do...

-Sam

 

[kingpin008]

The chances of being charged/convicted of a crime based solely on fingerprints is virtually zero.

Personally, I don't worry about it - by your logic, I should be freaking out about every single gun in the gunshop I handled the other day - I mean, what if they're stolen and used to murder a family of innocent babies and puppies!

If youe prints are on a weapon used in a crime, you might be investigated. But if you weren't there, you weren't there and all it takes is one person (or a receipt, or a security camera) to back you up.

 

[The Tennessean]

Good points all around, it would indeed be difficult to convict a person simply on fingerprint evidence most likely although once law enforcement has a bad taste in it's mouth regarding you it's hard to get yourself out so to speak, I think I would rather not be investigated. =)

 

[hso]

I don't think there's any realistic concern unless there's much more than fingerprints to it.

 

[CCWB]

I'd lean more to the side of paranoia on this one. I understand the logic, but do you ever wipe down a rental gun if you rent it. Besides, you can't wipe them off anyway, there is going to be ridge detail left on every surface your finger touches. I'd really suggest you not handle them if you're that concerned.

"hey gunsmith, can you wipe your paw prints off after you finish my trigger job?"

 

[NG VI]

No realistic chance of you getting in trouble for handling a firearm that someone else uses to commit a crime later. I had a friend who had just bought a S&W .40VE, brought it over to compare and check it out vs my USP .40, and had the pretty insulting habit of handling my pistol like it was a snake, and taking care to wipe down the entire thing before handing it back.

I'm not friends with him anymore btw.

 

[Fremmer]

Rust is the issue to worry about with fingerprints.

 

[ny32182]

Yep... definitely paranoia.

Proof is required to convict you of a crime. Your fingerprints on a gun are not proof of anything other than that you handled that gun at some point. If you know the owner and are both into guns especially, it is very reasonable to think you could have handled that gun at some point. FAR more than that would be needed to ever get you charged in the first place, much less convicted...

 

[rmfnla]

Rust is the issue to worry about with fingerprints.

Exactly.

I think the others have been watching too many crime shows on TV.

 

[Claude Clay]

it is good to think of possibilities. but this one, IMHO, is a dead end

 

[zombieoutfitters]

The chances of being charged/convicted of a crime based solely on fingerprints is virtually zero.

Personally, I don't worry about it - by your logic, I should be freaking out about every single gun in the gunshop I handled the other day - I mean, what if they're stolen and used to murder a family of innocent babies and puppies!

If youe prints are on a weapon used in a crime, you might be investigated. But if you weren't there, you weren't there and all it takes is one person (or a receipt, or a security camera) to back you up.

Which is exactly why oft-proposed "case head stamping" is hogwash. Same with gun-control suggested ammo registration.

One piece of evidence is not enough to build a case (hahah). Might be a good place to start, but it's not a conviction waiting to happen.

 

[Hatterasguy]

If the FBI is already looking for you this may be a concern.

 

[JohnBT]

Wiping down the gun is the easy part, it's finding every single empty on the floor at the range and wiping my fingerprints off that's wearing me down. Too much stooping and crawling.

Somebody might take my empties and scatter them at a crime scene.

That just occured to me, after 50+ years of shooting.

John

 

[Dokkalfar]

well I usually collect empty brass anyway for when I finally get around to getting a reloading set

But the biggest worry you really have about fingerprints is like Fremmer said, gotta watch out for rust. I wipe mine down after the range when I clean them, and I would hope the other guy does too, cause not taking care of your equipment is not good

 

[Elvishead]

I once let a guy shoot my gun as he handed it back to me, I used a range to retrieve it and set it in a baggy. He never caught on, but I thought it was rather funny.

 

[CajunBass]

This would not be very far up on my list of "things to worry about."

 

[BADUNAME37]

Just wear mittens whenever you shoot and you will be just fine.

Don't worry, everything will be just fine............

 

[Sav .250]

A couple of things come to mind. One being, the gun must have ben cleaned at some point. Plus, your where abouts at the time of the "crime",verified by others, eliminates you as a person of interest. You do have an alibi......

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If one is that worried about fingerprints on guns and ammo, then one should be worried about fingerprints at locations where a crime might occur. So wear latex gloves all the time. Heck, wear a full cover environmental suit so that you don't leave any other biological evidence as well such as dead skin or hairs. Also wear shoes that aren't your size so that they can't tie you in to the location with your shoe size.

While you are at it, be sure to wear latex gloves when loading ammo and shooting. That way somebody can't come along and pick up some of your spent cases with your fingerprints and use them to salt a crime scene.

 

[Dravur]

I just burned off my fingerprints with acid... It saves time.

 

[Grey_Mana]

Serious rock climbers paint their fingers and thumbs with superglue (you probably know it as Loctite), to avoid getting cuts. A thin layer that reduces your sense of touch (obviously) but not to the extent a glove will.

A side-effect is that the superglue obliterates your fingerprints temporarily.

 

[Habeed]

All I can say is, people have been sent to prison for decades on much slimmer evidence than this. Numerous false convictions have been made on 'lineups', where the witness to the crime doesn't remember what the person who did it looks like, and is given a set of photos of different people including someone the police 'like' as the culprit. I've read that the false convictions happen when the first line-up is contaminated in some way by the police. After the victim gets to know the face of the person the cops are trying to nail, the victim will insist that person committed the crime at trial. This happens because human memory is very flexible, and can evidently overwrite itself later, replacing true recollections with false ones.

And yes, these false convictions have happened even when the falsely accused had an alibi and a witness saying he wasn't at the crime scene.

So yeah, if you even vaguely resembled the real shooter, and they found your fingerprints on the gun, there's an excellent chance you could be convicted and sentenced to death. It's happened before. They'll process the gun, and if your prints were ever taken for any reason, they'll find a match. Take your photo and mix it with people who look nothing like you, and present it to the victim. Maybe your photo will be a much larger size or otherwise different in some way than the other photos in the lineup. Evidence excluding you will be ignored in the race to convict. If you were at home with your wife when the shooting happened, the DA will say she was covering for you. And once you're convicted, the appeals court will ignore your pleas (in Texas at least) and send you to the death chamber. Better hope there was DNA evidence at the crime scene.

By the way, ever single thing I've mentioned in this post has happened to a real person somewhere, who was later found innocent by DNA evidence. Given the fact that DNA is usually not collected in most crimes, I'm sure there are far more innocent people who are never released.