Ballistic Imaging: Fantasy, Spin and Simple Solutions

By Bruce Gold

Introduction

One of the newest controversies in the gun control debate is the issue of "ballistic imaging" (sometimes incorrectly referred to as "ballistic fingerprinting"). Ballistic imaging technology has been around for awhile. The U.S. Federal Government has been working on an imaging network (The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network - NIBIN) for about ten years. This system matches crime scene bullets and brass casings against a database of bullet/casing records. Administered by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) this system allows law enforcement to "trace" ballistic evidence linking guns to crimes, and in some cases, individuals. Law enforcement routinely adds to the system when they do ballistic testing of guns and bullets found at crime scenes. As currently established, the system focuses exclusively on data generated by criminal investigations. Congress had barred its use to build a gun registration database.

There is now a campaign being waged to change both the nature and the scope of the Ballistic Imaging Database. Lead by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, proposals are being put forward to make the Ballistic Imaging Database a universal database of all bullets and casings from all guns in the US. This process would start by extending a Maryland law mandating that a fired bullet and shell casing be submitted with each new handgun sold. Carried to its logical conclusion the program would eventually be expanded to all gun sales and ater be made a requirement of gun ownership. These proposals would change NIBIN from a "crime only" database to an "all gun, all gun-owner" registration database. Proponents of this multi-billion dollar expansion of NIBIN have made extensive claims about the ease and utility of the project:

"The [sniper] shootings are a perfect example of how valuable complete ballistic fingerprinting would be", Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

(Ballistic Imaging would have) "solved this crime after the first shooting.": Eric Gorovitz, policy director for the Washington-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

"Doesn't it make sense for us to give law enforcement the tools they need in order to solve such crimes?": Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign.

"It's just a smart, safe, reasonable thing to do": Lesley Heilman of the Brady Campaign. "It's not gun control; it's just a law enforcement tool."

"It's not perfect. It's not DNA. But it's close": Eric Gorovitz, policy director for the Washington-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

"There’s nothing complicated about constructing a national "ballistic fingerprint" bank. Every new gun would be test-fired and its unique fingerprint would be indexed into a computer databank. If the gun were used in a crime, any recovered bullet could be quickly linked to the gun, perhaps to the gun owner or at least to a trail of possession.": Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News.

This article examines Ballistic Imaging and addresses these claims.

Ballistic Imaging Explained

Ballistic Imaging is a relatively new computer facilitated technology used to record information on bullets and their brass casings. The name itself is somewhat misleading since the technology focuses on the spent bullet and empty casing rather than the actual "ballistics" of the bullet. The physical basis of Ballistic Imaging is the marks left on the bullet or casing when a gun is fired. These marks, left on the bullet (projectile) by the rifling of the barrel, and on the brass casing by the chamber, ejector and firing pin, are believed to be unique to each gun. In its crude form, this is as simple as differentiating a 45 cal bullet from a 22 cal bullet or a pistol casing from a rifle casing. This crude level is where the Police get their information about what "type" of firearm has been used in a crime. This sort of crude "profiling" is now routine Police work and is well established as a valuable crime-fighting tool.

At a more sophisticated level, the marks on the bullet and brass casing can be examined microscopically to determine if they match a test bullet and casing fired by the gun in question. It is extremely important to note that this individual matching takes place at the microscopic level. Modern firearm manufacturers routine produce arms that are standardized to 1/1,000 and 1/10,000 of an inch tolerances. It is a standard manufacturing practice to make each gun as nearly identical to all other guns of the same model as possible.

Much of the confusion in the current Ballistic Imaging debate stems from the difference between the crude and sophisticated applications of Ballistic Imaging. Any knowledgeable person can identify common casings and bullets at a glance. Matching a particular bullet or casing to a particular gun requires sophisticated equipment and a high level of training. The normal process of bullet/casing identification starts with a computer search to isolate "likely matches" (cold hits). A highly trained ballistic expert then makes a manual examination using a special microscope.

We can note a few complexities in this task. Some guns, for example revolvers do not "eject" a casing and consequently do not leave a casing at a crime scene unless a criminal manually ejects them. Other guns, such as shotguns and smoothbore muskets, have no rifling and do not leave distinctive marks on the bullet. Unlike fingerprints and DNA the microscopic markings left on bullets and casings can change. Criminals rarely leave their gun at a crime scene.


The National Database

A national ballistic imaging database already exists. In 1997 the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) entered into an agreement creating the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) Board. The NIBIN Board is comprised of a BATF, a FBI and a State/local representative. The Board's goal is to unify Federal efforts to deploy Ballistic Imaging Technology. Currently the Board is working to integrate IBIS and DRUGFIRE, the two agencies separate software systems. The two systems both began in 1993 and contain some 800,000 images. Together these two systems have produced 8,000 "cold hits" (likely matches) in over 16,000 cases. Director Magaw of BATF has stated that "Computer ballistic imaging technology is the most important forensic advancement since the development of the comparison microscope over 70 years ago." Director Freeh of the FBI stated, "This joint effort is a key component in ongoing programs aimed at permanently reducing gun crime."

There is no question that the current "crime only" database has been a successful law enforcement tool. This database, in its current form, is widely supported by both anti- and pro-gun forces. The current controversy is not about the existence or development of this "crime only" database. The controversy is whether this database should be extended and modified to become a "registration" database containing computerized records on all US guns (current proposals focus on new handguns, but the intent of expansion to all guns is clear). Such an expansion would involve huge costs to the government, firearm manufacturers and customers. Such an expansion would also have to address the legal "chain of evidence" issues involved in storage, recording and matching hundreds of millions of records at a level suitable for evidence in a court.

The creation of a ballistic imaging database requires the recording of microscopic information from a bullet or casing as a computer record and the storage of that record on a computer. This is not a simple task and there are a number of serious technical challenges that need to be addressed if evidence quality information is desired. This article will not address these highly technical issues but it should be noted that they exist. There are also significant database indexing and reliability problems that increase as the size of the database increases. The problems involved in creating and maintaining accuracy in a large database are also significant issues but will not be addressed in this article.


The California Report

On October 5, 2001, the Bureau of Forensic Services, California Department of Justice, issued a report examining the feasibility of converting a "crime only" database to a "registration" database. (Technical Evaluation: Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales, currently available at http://www.nssf.org/PDF/CA_study.pdf) Since this is a recent report prepared by firearms experts intimately familiar with ballistic imaging’s use in crime control we will examine its findings in some detail.

The overall conclusion of this report was that "automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results" requiring "potential candidates be manually reviewed". The experts further concluded that a database including all new handguns would grow by about 108,000 entries a year (California only), resulting in a database where "the number of candidate cases would be so large as to be impractical and will likely create logistic complications so great that that they can not be effectively addressed". An enlarged "registration" database (they are only considering including new handguns) would expand to the point were the computers would generate so many "likely matches" that it would swamp the examiners, generating a statistical nightmare.

The report also addressed a number of technical problems associated with ballistic
imaging. Briefly summarized here, these problems demonstrate just how far this
technology is from simplistic got-the-evidence,solved-the-crime rhetoric.

• The system requires highly trained experts for entry, searching and verification "use of technicians typically results in higher numbers of false positives",



• It is "unknown at this time whether or not the algorithm (software) can successfully ID a cartridge case fired after typical break-in and wear have occurred" (note: this point completely negates the usefulness of a "sample at time of sale" database, the current proposal),



• It acknowledges that "firearms generated markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the user. They are not permanently defined". A 600 round test (no details about the type of ammunition) saw "signature degradation", but was inconclusive. They also noted that it was "very common to fire 2 boxes or 100 rounds of ammunition for (a single) practice".
  
  
• "Changing ballistic fingerprint on casing, enough to defeat recognition took less than 5 minutes",



• "Cartridge casings from different manufacturers of ammunition may be marked differently by a single firearm such that they may not correlate",



• "as progressively large numbers of similarly produced firearms (firearms of the same make and model) are entered, images with similar signatures should be expected to make it more difficult to find a link",



• "fired cartridge casings are much easier to correlate than fired bullets"
  (Note: crime scene bullets that hit something normally deform making ballistic
  matching difficult or impossible. Bullets that don’t "hit something" disappear in
  the distance making testing impossible),



• "not all firearms generate markings on cartridge casings that can be identified back to the firearm",



• "rim fires not considered…utility of such imaging for unique individual characteristics has not yet been independently verified",



• "Regulations restricting firearms or firearms ammunition types lead to large numbers of similar casings and bullets (same make, model, ammo) this causes real matches to be lost in a host of "close matches"",

Since the problem of separating "true matches" from "close matches" is one of the basic flaws in a "registration" database, we will examine the results of the "similar weapons" test in detail. The California Highway Patrol lent 792 identical pistols to testers. The pistols were then test-fired under laboratory conditions (note: lab conditions tend to produce results that are clearer than evidence retrieved from the field). Four different cartridge types (all S&W .40 calibre) were used in the test. Over 2000 fired casings were used in the test (note: apparently, there was no bullet testing. Bullets (projectiles) are a far more common form of evidence.)

The results of this test were:

• When identical ammunition was used the system missed 38% of the ballistic matches,



• When ammunition from different manufacturers was used, the system missed 62.5% of the ballistic matches.

From this, and other evidence, the examiners concluded that when examining casings from the same gun but with different ammunition "78% of the evidence cases that should have a counterpart in the proposed database, may not be detected". They also noted that some primers on new cartridges had similar manufacturing marks that could be construed as coming from the breech face of the firearm and generate false matches.

In a footnote, the examiners raised another issue stating that, "many agencies are concerned with good numbers, rather than accuracy. Are agencies funded by the so-called success rate of the automated system going to accurately represent their true cold hit (likely match) statistics?".

California's pro gun-control Attorney General Bill Lockyer responded to these findings by silencing the experts. One panel member said he was gagged by the AG's Office and told not to speak of the study or about ballistic imaging.

An example of how difficult ballistic identification can be is the experience of Shelby County Prosecutor John Campbell. In 1997 he had the Martin Luther King assassination rifle re-examined to determine if James Earl Ray deserved a new trial. Despite eighteen test firings they could not match the rifle to the bullet that killed King. Each of the bullets had different markings. "Every test bullet was different because it was going over plating created by the previous bullet," he said. Campbell informed the court that "the history of this rifle testing and the barrel in this case has shown that it doesn't mark the bullet the same way every time it's fired."

The BATF Report

Some commentators in the controversy have referred to a July 2001 report by the BATF that supports ballistic imaging. The report said the technology could track guns and had provided valuable leads for investigators helping to solve many violent firearm crimes, "which would not have been solved without it". The report credited the current database with producing 8,800 ballistics matches (Note: they are talking about "likely matches" or "cold hits" not actual matches), from 17,600 crime scenes during 2000-2001. A May report by the BATF also praised the system for providing "significant investigative leads" in thousands of crimes over the past decade.

These reports clearly state the value of the current "crime only" database. However, there is no controversy regarding the usefulness of the current database. The controversy is about the expansion of the "crime only" database into a "registration" database. Accordingly, these BATF Reports have no bearing on the current debate and are something of a red herring.

The BATF’s past history with databases is also problematic. On October 18, 1995, Thomas A. Busey, then Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch and the official custodian of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record stated that there were problems with the gun registrations database. He stated that although the Bureau had been testifying that the database was 100% accurate the actual accuracy was between 49% and 50%. Every prosecution and forfeiture action brought by the United States and involving an allegedly unregistered NFA firearm had required testimony under oath that no record of the registration of the firearm in question was found.

When this story leaked in 1996 a U.S. Department of Justice investigation learned that the NFT&TR inaccuracy problems had been the subject of internal BATF discussion since at least 1979. BATF's files contained numerous minutes of meetings, statistical studies, memoranda and correspondence admitting the problem. Consequently, the investigation concluded that the BATF had been committing "institutional perjury and obstruction of justice" since 1979. These seventeen years of "institutional perjury" affected 60,000 cases nationwide.


The Effectiveness of Current "Registration" Databases

Maryland introduced its own ballistic imaging system in 2000. Under its new Registration Law every new handgun sold in the state must be accompanied by a spent shell casings for input into the state ballistic imaging database. Maryland budget figures indicate that approximately $5 million has been spent on the system (note: this is the cost of the central system; it does not include the larger distributed costs incurred by police and the courts.) The database contains over 11,000 imaged cartridges and has been queried 155 times. It has not been responsible for solving any crimes. This works out to $454 per record and $32,000 per query. We can explain part of these figures by attributing much of the cost to start-up costs. However, we can also note that the current system only records very easy to track new handgun sales. Applying the system to guns already in public hands would be much harder and more expensive.

This lack of success has also been repeated in New York where thousands of cartridges have been entered into their database with no criminal prosecutions. These "registration" database results are very similar to the results achieved by gun and gun owner databases. Hawaii, which registers both guns and gun owners, has spent tens of thousands of police man-hours administering these laws without positively identifying a criminal.

This lack of success is typical of "registration" databases and is tied to a "structural" problem. Simply put, it’s a numbers game. The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics note that less than 1% of guns are ever used in a crime. This fact "structures" the problem by ensuring that any "registration" database (guns or bullet/casings) will waste 99% of its resources tracking non-criminal guns. Even this dismal number makes the incorrect assumption that guns used by criminals will be registered. A 1997 U.S. Department of Justice study found that 40% of criminals in state prisons got their gun from an untraceable illegal source.

The California State Sheriff's Association, has come out strongly against ballistic imaging being used to make a "registration" database. They raised concerns about cost effectiveness and warned that the proposed California legislation will spread already undermanned police agencies even thinner.


Comments

The first observation we can make is how dysfunctional it is to have one simplistic answer to complex issues. For example, if we ask the question "how effective and efficient is ballistic imaging as a crime fighting tool?" We would get three very different answers:

If we are talking about its use on a crime scene were police are tracking a particular bullet/casing to a few "suspect" guns, then the answer is very effective and very efficient. Such tests provide timely, accurate results and do so with a very efficient use of resources.

If we are talking about ballistic imaging's use for a "crime only" database to trace guns to other crimes or criminals, the answer is,"somewhat effective, and fairly expensive", per positive link established. However, this process is probably still cost-effective, especially if one considers how often gangs "pass a gun around" (note: data on cost-per-positive ID is not available).

If we are talking about ballistic imaging’s use as a "registration" database, the answer becomes "extremely ineffective and extremely expensive". The system is a failure because of the technical problems discussed above, and because of the structural problem inherent in any "register everybody to catch the criminals" database.

For gun databases, more than 99% of the effort lands on law-abiding citizens, without affecting criminals. This is a problem of "focus". The closer to the crime and the more narrowly focused the effort, the more effective and efficient will be the result. As we disperse the effort to less related activities and to more and more associated activities, the effectiveness and efficiency of our efforts drops dramatically.

This raises the question of why this proposal is getting so much support. Much of this can be answered by looking at incentives (we can note that some of these incentives relate to fighting crime, while others are merely "gaming the issue" in pursuit of other agendas):

1. Technological Utopianism: This is another attempt to solve complex people problems with technology. It appeals to those who want simple, let science do it, solutions. It also appeals to those who don’t know much about science, or how complex the relationship is between science and people.

2. Sound Bite Politics: It wraps rhetoric in the mantle of science. Promotion is simple and simplistic; opposition requires an examination of the details and some thought. Very appealing to those more interested in political grandstanding then in actual results.

3. Funding and Authority: Putting a "registration" database in place will bring billions of dollars in funding and thousands of new employees. The new system will require a whole new set of laws and new criminal offenses, then more laws and criminal offenses to "close the loopholes".

To give some rough idea of how big this motivation is, we might consider Canada’s brand-new (1995) gun owner/gun registration system (far easier than recording microscopic data). The Registration Centre currently contains less than 3 million registrations. The Centre has cost a billion dollars to establish and employs 1900 people. There is a 90% error rate in the 27 page applications and a 42% error rate in firearm description(RCMP data). Somewhere around 20% of all Canadians are now felons for paperwork violations. The registration system has never solved a single crime. If we note that the vast majority of costs are enforcement costs distributed onto police and the courts, we can get some idea of the costs and bureaucracy involved in registering 260 million American guns.

4. Gun Registration: The system would require the registration of every gun and gun owner to work. This makes it very attractive to those who desire gun registration. The fact that it will not work is – strangely enough – a plus for such people. The vast expense and the fact it doesn’t work can be used to "prove" that the only "sensible" policy is gun elimination. The registration database can then be used to track down law abiding gun owners and disarm them. As Britain, Australia, Canada and numerous US jurisdictions have found, this massively expensive project will actually encourage crime. However, for those who want to social engineer an end to this part of the American heritage, it is extremely attractive.

5. Crime Shifting: This is now a well-established trend in the American Criminal Justice System. As agencies are caught between a public demanding an immediate end to crime and the difficulties involved in stopping real criminals committing real crimes they tend to seek bureaucratic solutions. The easiest way to do this is to "shift the crime", by creating an ever wider net of paperwork and regulatory crimes that are associated with the original problem. This disperses resources and effort onto people with no criminal intent or effect, a move that actually reduces the efforts against real criminals.

However, it is far, far easier to convict law-abiding people committing "technicality crimes". The agency's numbers immediately go up with the success rate triumphed as "working" and the increase in "crime numbers" justifying funding. The shift from hard-to-catch violent criminals to easy-to-catch technical/paper violations creates "beautiful statistics". This process is very, very popular with "tough on crime" politicians and agency bureaucrats.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Gold is a professional researcher and analyst with a Master's degree in Intellectual History and a Master's degree in Public Administration. He is the author of InfoWar in Cyberspace: Researcher on the Net. The book is a primer for students, researchers and Internet activists. It can be found at: http://www.booklocker.com/bookpages/brucegold01.html.
Bruce can be reached at: bgold@alumni.uvic.ca

Setback in the Montague case...

Mar20: Court Proceedings Delayed

Dear Supporters:

It's been a long couple of days for us this week. Court was delayed until 2:30pm on Monday because of a bad snow storm. The judge couldn't land in Kenora Sunday night and had to fly in after noon on Monday.

The judge came back with a decision about the standing of our expert witnesses. Gary Mauser is considered an expert witness but one of his papers will not be considered for the purposes of our hearing. Dave Tomlinson will not be considered an expert for the purposes of our case because he was considered too much of an "advocate" (as opposed to being objective). This news wasn't particularly unexpected and shouldn't have a large effect on our case.

At this point we had to deal with a more serious issue that the crown brought up in the factum. The crown stated "The Crown must be given notice of any constitutional challenge, and where notice is lacking, the challenge may be rejected. The Applicants' factum does not precisely state what is being claimed, . . ." We were able to spend several hours reviewing the factum and assessing this real threat of having our charter challenge dismissed. After much debate our case management team decided it was best to ask for a postponement of 4 months so that we could re-draft our arguments. This also meant that we had to discharge our lawyer from the case.

This was a heart wrenching and difficult decision to make, but rest assured we are doing this with the ultimate success of our challenge in mind. I'm sure there may be some questioning the wisdom of this move, but I implore you not to judge our actions too quickly. There are many factors to consider when making a move like this and we spent a couple of sleepless nights debating it before coming to this drastic conclusion. I wish I could tell you more but there is some sensitive information that was part of this decision that cannot be publicized.

Please don't lose hope (as I sometimes felt in the past couple of days) and continue to pray for our success as we search for an energetic and sharp lawyer to pick up this case - we're researching and interviewing several lawyers over the next two weeks so we can make a decision by April 4th.

Yours in Liberty,

Bruce.

And, media reports...

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:28:06 -0400
From: News@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Subject: NW Ont. man fires lawyer, stalling constitutional challenge...

PUBLICATION: The Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal
DATE: 2007.03.23
SECTION: General News
BYLINE: CP wire
WORD COUNT: 265


NW Ont. man fires lawyer, stalling constitutional challenge of Firearms Act

KENORA, Ont. (CP) - A northwestern Ontario man challenging the
constitutionality of the Firearms Act has fired his lawyer - a move that
could delay the case by up to four months.

Bruce Montague dismissed Toronto lawyer Calvin Martin on Tuesday and
asked Justice John Wright for a four-month adjournment in order to
obtain a new lawyer.

Wright reluctantly granted the four-month adjournment, but ordered
Montague to return to court on a monthly basis to provide an update on
his progress in finding new counsel.

The next date, in which Montague will appear before Wright by video
conference, is April 24.

Wright noted the difficulties Montague will have in finding a new lawyer
who is familiar with both criminal and constitutional law.

The judge also said new counsel will have to step in where Martin left
off, since he was in the middle of his submissions on the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms application.=20

"You understand the seriousness of changing horses midstream?" Wright
asked. "If this were a trial, chances are I would simply proceed and
leave you to act for yourself."

Crown attorney Peter Keen told the court the delay will result in
"significant prejudice" to the Crown's case, and also expressed
concerned about the "public safety issue" considering the
firearms-related charges Montague is facing.

"We want this to get to trial as early as possible," Keen said.

Montague, from Dryden, is charged with 53 counts of weapons-related
offences, including the unauthorized possession and careless storage of
non-restricted firearms, explosives and restricted firearms.

His wife, Donna Montague, is facing three charges: unauthorized
possession of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm.


Their charter application is seeking to strike out sections of the
Criminal Code of Canada related to the Firearms Act, to have their
criminal charges dismissed and to have the Firearms Act declared
unconstitutional.

(Kenora Daily Miner and News)

Bruce Montague goes to court....

March 12-16 Court Hearings

The hearings this week begin at 10:00 AM daily at the Superior Court of Ontario, 216 Water Street, Kenora Ontario.

For interviews, media may contact 647 292 9199. If the phone has a busy signal, send a text message with a phone number, organization and contact name to 647 292 9199 or email media@brucemontague.ca so we can call back at the next court recess.

Daily Updates

March 12 - Today's hearing was delayed due to an extended sentencing hearing. By the time everyone was searched and entered the court, it was well after 3:30 PM. The Crown, Mr. Peter Keen challenged our two main expert witnesses on the grounds that their testimony is opinion which is based on unqualified facts. We'll proceed tomorrow at 10:00 AM with evidence to the contrary.

March 13 - Today court started on time at 10:00 AM. As anticipated we spent the whole day dealing with submissions from Mr. Martin and Mr. Keen regarding the admissibility of evidence from Dr. Gary Mauser. Mr. Keen had lots of arguments to show that the judge should not accept Dr. Mauser's evidence, including consideration of the reliability, relevance and expert status of the evidence. Court resumes at 10:00 AM tomorrow.

March 14 - Court resumed at 10:00 AM. First off judge Wright agreed to extend the hearings into next week in order to provide sufficient time to deal with the constitutional issues. We spent the whole morning working through Mr. Keen's further arguments to dismiss the expert evidence of Professor Mauser. This afternoon Calvin Martin made a final submission susbstantiating Professor Mauser's expert status, and we began working through issues of David Tomlinson's admissibility as an expert witness.

Dear Supporters:

As I write this we are sitting in court during a recess. It's been a busy week so far dealing with the crown's objections in accepting our expert witnesses Prof. Mauser and Dave Tomlinson. We expect today that this issue will be finalized. That means that tomorrow we should be able to finally start into our actual arguments.

It looks like this hearing will be extended into next week due to the delays in getting our witnesses accepted as "expert".

Sorry I don't have a lot to report as yet.but rest assured I will report to you as much as I can as we continue thru these hearings.

. . . We're now at the end of the day and the crown has just now started into the attack against our witness Dave Tomlinson. Judging from what I've seen so far I would expect the crown to spend the whole day tomorrow arguing about the admissibility of Dave Tomlinson's testimony.

This is a torturously slow process so far, but at least we are moving forward. Hopefully our expert witnesses will both be accepted by the judge and we can begin the actual arguments in our constitutional challenge. Even if the witnesses are not accepted as "expert" we will still be able to enter our arguments and proceed ahead.

I apologize for the "spotty" style of writing above, but time is at a premium and the priority is to spend it on court work. I hope to have something more substantial to report on tomorrow. Ryan (our webmaster) is also with us and putting in a tremendous amount of work into this hearing. Ryan is also putting updates into our website from his perspective, so you may also want to visit www.BruceMontague.ca for his updates as well (they're probably better than mine anyway).

Our judge appears to be very fair and attentive to the issues, and I'm optimistic that he will be fair. Overall I would have to say that I am pleased with our hearing so far even though it is so slow.



Yours in Liberty, Bruce.

Self Defence: A Pro-Gun Strategy

Self Defence: A Pro-Gun Strategy (and also at www.diarmani.com)

By John Orth, Sporting Clubs of Niagara

Canadian gun owners are slowly digging our own graves with our timid, apologetic approach to gun rights. Most Canadian gun owners, and most Canadian pro-gun organizations, have utilized a sporting purposes only argument in support of civilian gun ownership. Self defence has become a taboo topic. This reticence is a huge blunder. By failing to actively promote handgun ownership for self defence, we leave ourselves tongue-tied at the most critical juncture in the gun control debate: the aftermath of a mass murder.

The march towards civilian disarmament has followed the same pattern in nearly every English speaking nation. Pro-gun and anti-gun forces generally battle to a draw until there is a mass murder involving firearms. After a massacre has taken place, outraged citizens will grasp at any solution, regardless of how limited its chance of success. It is at these times the gun grabbers have scored their greatest victories.

British gun prohibition laws were enacted in 1988 as a response to the Hungerford massacre in 1987, then again last year as a result of Dunblane. In Canada, C-17 and C-68 can both be traced back to Ecole Polytechnique. The impetus for C-51 in 1977 was an incident in which a student ran amok with a rifle in a school. The recent Australian ban on semiautomatic rifles stems from the Port Arthur massacre. Earlier Australian legislation resulted largely from two mass murders which occurred in Melbourne in 1987. The 1992 amendments to the New Zealand Arms Act, which restricted access to military look-alikes, were the government's answer to the Aramoana massacre in 1990.

This pattern has been repeated so many times you would think gun owners would have recognized the pitfalls by now. We have not. Time and time again we are drawn into the same debate. Time and time again we offer the same ineffectual arguments. Time and time again we lose, and the noose is pulled ever tighter around our necks.

Allow me to offer this generalized scenario for a firearm massacre and its aftermath:

1. A psychopath acquires a gun, usually by legal means.
2. Using X type of gun with Y type of magazine, he shoots and kills a large number of people in a crowded location.
3. After a delay of approximately half an hour, the police arrive.
4. The murderer kills himself, or is shot by police.
5. The public is outraged. "How can this happen?" people ask. "What can we do to prevent it from happening again?"
6. Anti-gun groups are quick with answers. We must ban X type of gun and Y type of magazine. Such things, they say "are only good for killing people." We must also register all guns, place restrictions on the sale of ammunition, and increase licensing and testing requirements for prospective gun owners.
7. Pro-gun groups argue that you cannot legislate against insanity. They suggest no amount of gun control would have prevented this tragedy, since anyone who wants a gun can always acquire one illegally. They point out that the use of gun type X or magazine Y was irrelevant. Since the killer had half an hour to rampage before police arrived, he could have killed just as many with a double barrel shotgun. We complain loudly that hunting, collecting, and target shooting are legitimate sports, and the prohibition of certain types of firearms would place unfair restrictions on these activities.
8. The public examines both sides of the debate. They see clearly the pro-gun side offers nothing but selfish excuses and fatalistic platitudes, while the anti-gun side offers a solution which, superficially at least, appears to be workable. Should we really be surprised when most people who do not own firearms side with our opposition?


Pro-gun forces have failed completely to grasp the mechanics of the debate. The public is seeking a method of minimizing the possibility a similar massacre could happen again. Our opponents suggest numerous ways of tightening gun control laws which they say will prevent a comparable tragedy. We then attempt to demonstrate why their plans are not be feasible. But we never offer any viable solutions of our own. When backed into a corner, and pressed to provide some kind of positive suggestion, we will sometimes mutter something about bringing back the death penalty, or increasing penalties for the use of a firearm in a crime. But harsh punishment would be completely ineffective as a strategy to combat mass murder. As I have already stated, in the majority of cases the murderer kills himself, either directly, or by deliberately placing himself in a position where he is shot by police. It is unlikely the threat of a long prison term would be much of a deterrent to someone who has decided to commit suicide in a blaze of gunfire.

There is one very effective method of preventing mass murder which does not involve gun prohibition, but it is one Canadian gun owners have typically been loathe to suggest: concealed carry of handguns. Somehow, our opponents have been able to convince us that anyone who advocates such a thing is a primitive barbarian, guilty of simply beastly behaviour. We are Canadians after all, not violent, uncivilized Americans. Surely no rational human being could endorse arming against his fellow citizens.

To this, we nod our heads in stupefied agreement. "Of course we are Canadians" we say "We only wanted our guns for target shooting and hunting."

Anti-gunners have cleverly duped us into agreeing to debate on terms which will place us permanently on the defensive. We are fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. We might dodge their punches, but we can never score any of our own. It is not surprising gun owners in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain have been fighting losing battles for the past thirty years. Under these conditions, how could one expect anything else?

The only English speaking nation in which anti-gunners have often failed to parlay public outrage over a mass murder into gun prohibition legislation, is the United States. Most people assume this is simply a reflection of the lobbying power of the NRA. To some extent this is true. The US undoubtedly has the world's strongest pro-gun lobby. But this is not the principal reason for their success. The US is also the only country where pro-gun forces do not shy away from advocating the use of firearms for self defence. This is the critical distinction between the US and other English speaking nations.

It may be instructive to examine an American mass murder, and how their pro-self-defence position changes the nature of the subsequent debate.

On October 16, 1991 Suzanna Gratia was having lunch with her parents at Lubby's cafeteria in Killeen Texas. Suddenly, a man drove a truck through the front window and started shooting the customers. When it was over, twenty-two people lay dead, including both Ms. Gratia's parents. Ironically, Suzanna Gratia had a gun that day too - in her car. Texas law at the time did not permit citizens to carry a handgun on their person.


Ms. Gratia immediately became active in the gun rights struggle. She was the prime mover behind a law, passed in 1995, which allows citizens of Texas to carry concealed handguns. As she testified before the Texas House Public Safety Committee: "I'm not saying I could have stopped this guy, but I would have had a chance. The fact is you can't go up against an armed man unless you are armed. Someone legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my loved ones."

American gun control groups understand the importance of the self defence issue. Sarah Brady has stated "To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." On a purely logical basis, this statement makes no sense. If we are not going to allow a farmer to possess a gun to protect the lives of his wife and children, then why should we give him one to shoot coyotes, and protect the lives of a coop full of chickens? From the standpoint of strategy however, the statement makes a great deal of sense. Sarah knows full well, once she restricts the list of acceptable reasons for firearms ownership to sporting uses only, her battle is won. Ultimately, every gun control argument can then be reduced to a contest between one person's life and another person's hobby.

After the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, when Wendy Cukier asked "Why do we allow people to own this type of gun?" the best we could manage was some mumbled excuse about the police not investigating Mr. Lepine's FAC application properly. A superior response would have been: "You should not be asking why a lunatic had a gun, but why no one else did." Of course, she would have described in lurid details how concealed carry would cause gun battles to erupt as people jostled for position at supermarket checkouts. She would have called us neanderthals. She would have accused us of being un-Canadian. But an aggressive response would have placed her on the defensive. The focus of the discussion would be shifted away from the viability of strict gun control, and towards the viability of concealed carry permits.

We must stop being so damned apologetic. It is the gun control activists that have blood on their hands, not us. Every time the do-gooders make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire a gun, they guarantee someone else will be left to stand unarmed before an armed criminal or lunatic. Canadian citizens are dying like lab rats in some insane social engineering experiment, while most gun owners do nothing more than prattle on about the joys of moose hunting. The Ecole Polytechnique massacre should have steeled our resolve as much as it did the gun grabbers. Fourteen young women died needlessly. Fourteen young women died because their government did not trust them to possess a means of self defence. How many more deaths must there be before we find our damned backbones?

I am not suggesting all Canadian citizens should arm themselves. Such a thing is not necessary. Massacres generally occur in crowded locations where dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of people are nearby. If only one or two percent of the population carried handguns, there would be an excellent chance at least one armed citizen would be present at the site of any potential mass murder. Moreover, since the murderer would have no way of knowing which citizens were armed, they would essentially be waiting in ambush.

Canadian pro-gun forces have developed sound, cogent arguments to counter most gun prohibitionist propaganda relating to common criminal misuse of firearms (although even here a self defence argument would improve our position). We can rebut whatever they say about suicides and firearms accidents. However, we have nothing to offer on the topic of mass murder, because virtually the entire thrust of the pro-gun argument in Canada has been based on the sporting use of firearms. Those who claim we need guns to hunt ducks and shoot holes in paper, while the bullet riddled bodies of six year old children lie strewn across the floor of a Scottish public school, are engaged in a debate they cannot win.

At some point, there will be another massacre involving firearms in this country. It might come next week, it might not be for ten years, but it will happen. Unless all gun owners are prepared to promote the right to possess handguns for self defence, we will have nothing but lame excuses to offer the public when it occurs.


Time is running out. We need only look to Great Britain to see our future if we continue down this path. Several years ago, in the midst of the controversy following the Hungerford massacre, the British Shooting Sports Council had this to say about reports people were buying shotguns for self defence: "This, if it is a fact, is an alarming trend, and reflects sadly on our society."

British gun owners now suffer under legislation which completely prohibits all handguns, all semi-automatic and pump action rifles and all semi-automatic shotguns. All guns, and all gun owners, are registered.

Canadian firearm owners must examine what the mealy mouthed, sporting use only, approach to gun rights has done for the British, then ask ourselves if we want the same result.

Montague back in court to resume firearms challenge

Montague back in court to resume firearms challenge

Believes strongly his defiance of the Firearms Act is right and just

By Dan Gauthier
Miner and News
Thursday March 08, 2007

Firearms activist Bruce Montague will back in Kenora Superior Court on Monday to resume his challenge to have Canada’s Firearms Act declared unconstitutional and keep him out of jail.

“By challenging the validity of the firearms law itself, I’m asking the court to acknowledge that the law is criminal, not me,” said Montague.

The gunsmith, who lives in Eton Rugby west of Dryden, said if found guilty on some or all of the charges, he could face a jail sentence ranging from a minimum of one year, up to 18 years or more.

“It depends on how much the judge wants to make an example of me,” said Montague.

Although he believes strongly his defiance of the Firearms Act is right and just, the possibility of going to prison is weighing heavily on him and his family.

“It’s a little unnerving having your neck on the chopping block like that,” said Montague.

“There is a serious consequence to pay if we get found wrong in our supposition that the Firearms Act is unconstitutional. If they uphold that it is constitutional, then I guess I’ll have to pay the price.”


Montague was arrested Sept. 11, 2004 at a Dryden gun show and later charged with 53 counts made up of a variety of weapons-related offences, including the unauthorized possession and careless storage of non-restricted firearms, explosives and restricted firearms.

His wife, Donna Montague, is facing three charges – the unauthorized possession of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm.

A Charter of Rights and Freedoms hearing for Montague began on Oct. 16, 2006 in Kenora Superior Court, but was put over until March 12 after only a few hours.

Justice John Wright ordered that evidence and cross-examination of both of Montague’s witnesses be recorded via affidavits during two days of hearings held in Thunder Bay in January.

The decision was made after the Crown attorney submitted that they were not given ample time to prepare for cross examinations of the witnesses in October. Plus only one of Montague’s two witnesses were not available for the scheduled week-long hearing.

Montague said this time he is confident his Charter hearing will be heard. However, he said Crown attorney Peter Keen said at the January hearings that he would again be asking the judge for more time to contest the admissibility of the evidence to be provided by the witnesses.

In essence, the Charter hearing itself is the crux of Montague’s defence. Montague said he never claimed he didn’t break the law, just that the law is unconstitutional and unjust.

He said they were charged for their “deliberate refusal” to comply with firearms paperwork which they believe to be an unwarranted threat to their freedom, privacy and property.

“As far as I’m concerned, the hearing next week is the trial,” said Montague.

“There’s not a whole lot of argument about whether or not I technically broke what the politicians consider the law of the land.”

With only about 20 supporters at the courthouse in October – all of whom were subject to weapons search and additional courtroom security – Montague said he is hoping to see a little more support this time around.
The hearing will be held in Kenora Superior Court beginning at 2 p.m. on March 12.

Hromatka challenges gun law

Hromatka challenges gun law

By Thom Barker
Mar 06 2007
Smithers (B.C.) Interior News

A Smithers court judge reserved decision on a constitutional challenge to Canada’s Firearms Act on Wednesday.

Walter Hromatka submitted to Judge John Milne that a refusal by the director of firearms to grant him a licence to possess a Walther PPK was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hromatka purchased the then-restricted pistol legally in September 1995 and, following an investigation by the RCMP, was granted a registration on Nov. 27, 2005.

The Firearms Act, which changed the designation of certain types of weapons, including the Walther PPK, from restricted to prohibited, received Royal Assent on Dec. 5, 1995 retroactive to Feb. 14, 1995, when the bill passed first and second readings.

Hromatka said the decision was a “clear violation” of section 11g of the Charter, which states a person charged with an offence has a right: “not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law...”

He argued the back-dated law established retroactive guilt and was therefore illegal.

Furthermore, he told the judge, the grandfathering clauses in the Firearms Act violated section 15 of the Charter — which guarantees every individual is “equal before and under the law” — by creating two classes of prohibited handgun owners.

But Paul Pakenham, Crown counsel, submitted Hromatka simply did not qualify under grandfathering provisions of the new law because he did not possess the firearm or its registration prior to Feb. 14, 1995.

He rejected the constitutional argument under section 11g on the basis the Firearms Act did not establish criminal guilt, but was merely regulatory.

He also disputed the applicability of section 15 saying the grandfathering provisions of the legislation did not constitute discrimination based on the characteristics of an individual or group.

Finally, Pakenham cited case law that establishes possession of any firearm, prohibited, restricted or otherwise, is not a right or freedom in Canada, but a privilege, and, therefore, any Charter argument is moot.

“It’s not that Hromatka is unsuitable to possess firearms,” Pakenham said.

“It’s probably fair to say he is, but the law simply does not permit him to possess [prohibited guns] or obtain a licence.”

Hromatka countered that the case law cited did not qualify as precedent setting because it dealt only with the discrimination issue and not the “arbitrary” back-dating of a law, which he called “equally, if not more important.”

Scripting Anti-Gun: A .50-Caliber Crock

A .50-Caliber Crock
by Matthew Bastian
March 08, 2007 01:00 PM EST

If the anti-gun lobby has a script to follow, it must read something like this:

A) Single out a certain type or category of firearm, even if a little imagination is required to create it; b) demonize said firearm as being useful only to criminals and drooling, inbred rednecks; and c) wait for a sympathetic media to jump on the bait.

After that, soccer moms everywhere will be clamoring for the “(fill in the blank) Gun Control Act.”

The tried and true tactic has been used repeatedly. In the 70’s it was used on “Saturday Night Specials.” In the 80’s, the target was the “plastic gun” that could supposedly avoid airport metal detectors. And in the 90’s, “assault weapons” were the villain.

Cutting through the spin, of course, a “Saturday Night Special” was just a sinister term for an affordable handgun. The polymer firearms with which news programs like 60 Minutes tried to scare us in fact still had plenty of metal parts, including the slide. And “assault weapons,” which are difficult to classify under normal circumstances, were an undefined mess when politicians got hold of the term. When the dust settled, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban covered any rifle with certain cosmetic features, like a folding stock, pistol grip, or bayonet mount. (If your community experienced a precipitous drop in felonious bayonet charges right around 1995, give credit where credit is due.)

Enter the new enemy: the .50-caliber rifle. Already banned in California, the weapon is now under fire (pun intended) in New Jersey, where a push is underway to make its sale illegal. As part of their opening day dog-and-pony show, one of the bill’s sponsors said the rifle could cause major worries if it fell into the hands of criminal street gangs.

This is hardly a revelation. Any gun in the hands of a violent criminal is a reason to worry; but then again so is a souvenir snow globe from Disneyland. The question is: would it happen?

It is highly unlikely. The average .50-caliber rifle weighs 30 pounds, is five feet long, and costs anywhere from $3,000 - $10,000. It strains credulity to think that a drug dealer would opt for such an expensive, heavy, and unwieldy weapon. Are you trying to stiff me? Wait here while I go to my trunk!

Adding to the drama and hyperbole, another proponent, Gregory Paw of the NJ Division of Criminal Justice, offered that, “the only thing that comes out of this weapon is evil.”

Well, no, Mr. Paw: the only thing that comes out of the weapon is a bullet. In most cases that bullet is headed towards either a range target or some shady individual who ran afoul of the US military. Most people would consider the latter scenario to be a good thing. (Evil is what comes out of a stereo playing a Richard Marx record.)

Taking the hysteria a step further, the anti-gun lobby insists that it’s not just street criminals that should be cause for concern. They would have us believe that terrorists, too, could have designs on these rifles…to shoot down airliners.

Now, it is true that the .50-caliber round packs enough punch to disable stationary vehicles, provided the shooter knows where the vital bits are (engine blocks and the like). The key there, though, is stationary.

As ridiculous as it is to suggest that a drug dealer might try to use a 30-pound rifle in his daily trade, it’s even more so to suggest that anyone, including an expert marksman, could take down a moving Airbus or Boeing jet from distance with a few rounds.

That would make David’s “Hail Mary” stone to Goliath’s noggin look like a routine shot by comparison.

Plus, if Al-Qaeda really had a plot in mind using these rifles, would a law limiting their sale down at Bob’s Army/Navy really send the dejected terrorists back to the drawing board? Perhaps they would just huddle outside the store, like a group of kids trying to figure out who looks old enough to buy beer? No, Abdul, your ID looks better. Mine says I’m 72 and named Esther Sorensen.

Unique among the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment has gradually been inverted and put on the defensive. Rather than the burden of proof resting with those who would curtail the freedom, its defenders have now to justify the “need” on a case-by-case basis. One can only imagine the reaction if the New York Times, so fond of piously wrapping itself in the First Amendment, was subject to the same scrutiny.

After all, did they really need to publish the story about the government’s monitoring of SWIFT transactions?
That suggestion, of course, is ludicrous. But so is the notion that civilians must show need or get government approval to drink from the tap of their constitutional rights. Once we start going down that road, the argument becomes completely subjective - and endless. If the gun-banning crowd could somehow convince the media that antique muzzle-loaders were the new favorite among street thugs and terrorists, it wouldn’t be long before we saw the proposal of the “Kentucky Rifle Bill.”

Which would suit the anti-gun lobby and their well-worn playbook just fine. They know that in a game of yards, every inch matters.

D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights

BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

Much more at the link above...

Moore gets taste of own medicine

Moore gets taste of own medicine

* Tony Allen-Mills, New York
* March 05, 2007

THE hunter has become the hunted. Michael Moore, the celebrated left-wing filmmaker, has become the unwilling subject of a new documentary that raises damaging questions about the credibility of his work.
The director and star of successful documentaries such as Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has repeatedly been accused by his right-wing enemies of distorting or manipulating the material in his films. On his website he dismisses his critics as "wacko attackos".

Yet the latest assault on Moore's filmmaking techniques has come from an unexpected quarter. In Manufacturing Dissent, a documentary to be shown for the first time at a Texas film festival on Saturday, a pair of left-wing Canadian filmmakers take Moore to task for what they describe as a disturbing pattern of fact-fudging and misrepresentation.

"When we started this project we hoped to have done a documentary that celebrated Michael Moore. We were admirers and fans," said Debbie Melnyk, who made the film with her husband, Rick Caine. "Then we found out certain facts about his documentaries that we hadn't known before."

When Caine and Melnyk began to follow Moore as part of their own documentary, their efforts to interview him met with the same kind of obstruction, denial and, ultimately, physical ejection that Moore had suffered when he tried to track down Roger Smith, the former chief executive of General Motors, for his first film, Roger & Me. It was in Flint, Michigan, Moore's former home town, that Caine and Melnyk made the first discovery that they say rocked their confidence in his approach. Roger & Me was a hugely successful account of what Moore portrayed as a fruitless task to force Mr Smith to answer questions about GM's policies in closing the car manufacturing plants that had long been Flint's economic lifeline.

Caine and Melnyk claim that Moore interviewed Mr Smith on camera twice. But the scenes were left on the cutting-room floor, apparently for greater dramatic effect.

Manufacturing Dissent includes a long catalogue of alleged exaggerations or distortions in several of Moore's films. In Bowling for Columbine, a scathing indictment of US gun violence, Moore visited Toronto to show parts of the city that were supposedly so free of crime everyone left their front doors unlocked.

"Michael makes it look as though 100 per cent of the doors were unlocked, but his local producer told us it was really only 40 per cent," said Caine.

Caine and Melnyk said they had hoped to interview Moore about his views on how much editing was acceptable before a factual documentary turned into misleading propaganda.

"We had met him at a premiere of the Columbine film in Toronto, and he said, 'Oh yes, talk to my people and they'll set something up'," said Caine. "We then called his people and they said he's not doing any more interviews in Toronto. We had his email, we sent a letter to his lawyers, we had his phone number in New York. But each time he said no."

Then Caine and Melnyk began to run into open hostility. Eventually, in a scene that might have come from Roger & Me, they were bundled out of an event where Moore's sister knocked aside Caine's camera.

But they insist they should not be confused with those who want to damage Moore.

"If you have to sell out your values and principles to get at a greater truth, where does that leave you?" said Melnyk. "If we think it's wrong for the Government to lie and manipulate, how do we think that (left-wingers) doing it is the solution?"

The Sunday Times