Printable View
The copyright owner has kindly sent us a copy of this newly released publication on ballistic fingerprinting by David Klatzow.
The file is a 15mb printable .pdf document and is available for download from the below link. Please allow for the file to fully download, which may take a while on some connections.
We would like to thank the author, editor, copyright owners and all who made this publication possible, for making this available to our community.
http://bit.ly/DEFECTIVE-SCIENCE-GS
Thanks Admin, this looks like an interesting read.
I was quite horrified when Ballistic fingerprinting found its way into the FCA amendment Act. Anyone know what the status is currently? Has this been dropped from the amendments?
Nobody knows. The Secretary of Police has kept ALL the stakeholders in the dark about what is included in the Bill which is before Parliament. IMHO this is unconstitutional and unlawful as public consultation and stakeholder involvement is supposed to be a Constitutional imperative, but whadda I know...Quote:
Originally Posted by tobie
By launching this report now, a subsequent release of an Amendment Bill containing the ballistic fingerprinting rubbish will be adding fuel to a well-laid fire.
OTOH we (the firearms community) have been warning Parliament of the lack of scientific credibility of ballistic fingerprinting since the Firearm Summit in March 2015, so this utterly and completely vindicates our position, and if the Bill DOES NOT contain the ballistic fingerprinting junk science it will be a massive victory for the firearms community.
No public consultation, no law...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
I'm fairly certain that they'll try to sneak this past constitutional muster by claiming that they have consulted with us in the past (2015) and taken our comments then into account. That is more than two years ago and should be irrelevant now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoo Keeper
I don't think that will suffice. They should have to start the entire process all over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
It may be necessary to interdict the bill going to parliament?
Because they haven't consulted with us it has already gone to Parliament who will release it for public comment prior to it being assented to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoo Keeper
Our point is that a period for public comment can never be 'sufficient consultation', under the circumstances, and this report will aid us greatly in proving that point.