Time for a Universal Ballistics Database?

The actions of the killers responsible for the recent spate of shootings in the Washington, DC area have been hard to predict, fitting no "normal" pattern of mass murders. One thing, though, has been as predictable as clockwork: gun control advocates were waiting in the wings to take advantage of the fear and panic to further their agenda.

Maryland and national politicians are calling for establishment of a program of universal firearms "fingerprinting." This would involve running ballistics tests on every newly manufactured gun before it can be sold in the US. There would be a national database of ballistics data from firearms, used to match ballistics evidence of crimes with guns in the database. The theory is that ballistics matches would provide clues to the ownership history of a weapon, making it easier for police to find the current possessor of the weapon.

There is little doubt that such a program would provide at least some improvement in the ability of the police to solve crimes committed with guns. Few criminals – and fewer terrorists – would be so stupid as to use weapons that could be traced to them, but there would certainly be some exceptions. In light of this likely benefit, should we implement such a ballistics database?

There are many things that our government could do to improve the chances of catching criminals. We could have national databases of fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA and psychological profiles of everyone. We could track the facial characteristics of every American from birth to adulthood, so they could be recognized by software that analyzes security video data. We could even implant identification transmitters in everyone, and keep a database recording the whereabouts of each person as he passes near tracking receivers.

Surely some Americans would support any or all of these measures, sacrificing liberty in return for improved security against crime. I hope and believe that most of us would consider such a tradeoff to be an unacceptable sellout of our American heritage.

The universal ballistics database would end up being as intrusive as the other examples cited. What could law enforcement officials do with a ballistics database that led only to the initial, law-abiding purchasers of guns? Criminals obtain guns primarily in untraceable ways. Soon we would begin hearing complaints that all of that wonderful data is wasted without a comprehensive database of who owns each weapon. Then we would be confronted with demands for a universal gun registration database, to make the ballistics database effective in identifying weapon users. Once the registration database was complete, the gun control advocates would know exactly whom to target in all of their future efforts to restrict ownership of weapons.

The ballistics database will be presented as a moderate step that represents only a minor compromise of our liberty. We need to recognize that gun control advocates never compromise. Compromise to them is not a process of "give and take". It is a partial move in the direction they want to go: toward complete repudiation of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This one-way form of "compromise" is just a slower path to full realization of that goal.

Americans need to fortify our resistance to such proposals by building an understanding that the Second Amendment is as important as the First, Fourth, Fifth and all of the more popular provisions of the Bill of Rights. An attack on one of those provisions is an attack on all. At times of national danger, we need to redouble our vigilance against calls to compromise liberty.