From 1998:
The Clinton Administration, in antiterrorism proposals stemming from the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the fatal pipe bomb explosion at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, campaigned for wide use of chemical markers in common explosives.
Congress rejected these proposals and called for more study after the National Rifle Association and other groups opposed putting markers into black or smokeless powder, questioning the effectiveness of tagging such widely used products and expressing concern that foreign chemicals might affect the gunpowder's performance.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 authorized the Treasury Department to study tagging explosives either for early detection or to help trace explosives after bombings. The department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asked the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, to examine the issues and it convened two committees to conduct studies.
In a report released in March, the first committee looking at commercial high-grade explosives, like dynamite and military plastic explosives and chemical fertilizer used to make explosives, concluded that it was impractical to put markers into this material. It called for more research into cost, safety and effectiveness questions before considering such additives for wide use.
SOURCE:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/09/us/gunpowder-markers-not-feasible-panel-says.html
OTOH Research seems to continue in this:
http://t.co/rXHyJ08MEb
Is Lawrence citing old info, or is NRA still opposed today? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were, since they love and seem hellbent on protecting criminals who want to use guns and bombs.
= new reply since forum marked as read
