Volume CXXXII, Number 5 October 18, 2002 f

D.C. sniper has America up in arms, spurs debate
GIL BARNDOLLAR
COLUMNIST

At the time of this writing, the D.C. sniper has killed nine and wounded two, terrorizing our nation's capital in the process. By choosing completely random victims, the sniper has driven people in the D.C. suburbs indoors and created a climate of fear as roadblocks and police helicopters have become common sights. It has been two weeks since the killings began, and the police have no suspect. Yet in spite of the failure of the authorities to stop this deranged killer, the response of many in America, particularly those on the left, is to call in the government.

At a time when America has far more pressing issues to deal with, the D.C. sniper has unfortunately re-ignited the national debate on gun control. The usual suspects are all here: Sarah Brady, formerly of Handgun Control Inc., quickly wrote that "As police try to track down and stop this killer, we do know this: sensible gun laws can help law enforcement solve crimes as well as prevent gun violence." The Brady Bill's "sensible" waiting periods could do nothing to prevent this kind of crime, a point even the most ardent anti-gun activist would have to concede. New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy took the questions from the ridiculous to the sublime, asking, "Did he buy his gun at a gun show? Did he go through one of the loopholes that we have been trying to close?" Does that matter in any way?

For the opponents of the Second Amendment, facts are irrelevant. Never mind that the D.C. sniper is using a rifle, not the "cheap, deadly handguns" that are supposedly the bane of American society. Never mind that waiting periods or even probably background checks would do nothing to stop a murderer like this. And never mind that Maryland, where several of the shootings took place, has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. For the well-intentioned idiots who brought you the Brady Bill and the Million Mom March, the only solution is more gun control.

To stop future "snipers," the new gun control proposal is a federal law requiring ballistic fingerprinting of guns, giving each bullet fired by a particular gun a distinctive mark. Forensics experts could then examine bullets found at a crime scene to find a match in a computer database. Predictably, Maryland Governor Parris Glendening is already pushing to expand his state's ballistic fingerprinting laws, and is urging the adoption of a nationwide program. There's only one problem with this new system: it probably won't work. Kevin Watson, legislative director for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), an organization of current and former law enforcement officers, had this to say about ballistic fingerprinting: "It sounds really neat when you hear just the basic description of it, but when you go into the description of how it would actually work it kind of falls apart." In most guns, it is relatively easy for criminals to change the ballistic fingerprint, or damage it enough to make it unrecognizable. Watson even says the name "ballistic fingerprinting" is a misnomer. "Imagine a fingerprint database where people can switch their fingerprints and their own fingerprints wear down over time after use," he says. "It makes it not that useful of a system." And, of course, there are at least 200 million firearms in this country that don't have ballistic fingerprints. Any attempt to order the fingerprinting of lawfully owned firearms would be justifiably resisted; fingerprinting of all old guns would create a central registry of gun owners, which should terrify anyone who noticed what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco just a few years ago.

Luckily for Americans and for the Constitution, we have a president in office who is firmly wedded to the defense of the right to bear arms. For the first time, the Justice Department defined the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to private gun ownership. But with an election just a couple of weeks away and renewed hysteria about guns, the possibility of further unconstitutional restrictions on firearm ownership remains. That these new laws will not reduce crime is more than a possibility; it is a virtual certainty. Virginia Governor Mark Warner probably put it best: "Let's face it ... this individual-clearly no law is going to stop him."