Chairman CELLER. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Casey, for coming here and giving us this testimony. Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like to compliment Mr. Casey. It was a very interesting presentation. Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. McCulloch, very much. Chairman CELLER. We shall next hear from our friend and colleague, the Honorable John M. Murphy, from my own great State of New York. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of H.R. 1007, a bill I introduced on January 10 of this year which would prohibit the use, in the commission of certain crimes, of firearms transported in interstate commerce. There can be no doubt of the need for legislation in this field; the extent and seriousness of crime in this country demands that action be taken. But in the heat of public debate the issue has become distorted and confused. This is understandable; crime is an emotional issue. As lawmakers, however, we must not be swayed by the emotions of the moment; we must direct our efforts to solving the real problem. And that problem, Mr. Chairman, is crime. It is not firearms per se, as many claim, but the criminal use of firearms; it is not the hundreds of thousands of hunters, trapshooters, target shooters, and other sportsmen, but the small minority who use firearms to commit crimes. What is needed is not a firearms bill, but a crime bill. There are two ways to approach the problem of the criminal use of firearms. One would be to restrict the mail order sale of firearms to those with criminal records, the mentally incompetent, juveniles, and others prohibited from possessing firearms by State law; the second would be to crack down on the criminal misuse of firearms that moved in interstate commerce. Most people would agree that some kind of restriction on the sale of firearms to certain people is needed. There are already many local, State, and Federal laws aimed at this problem, and I am sure this committee will examine the existing laws before recommending new legislation. But the unfortunate truth is that no legislation can successfully keep criminals from obtaining firearms. Legislation can, however, make it in the interest of the criminal not to use that firearm, and can impose stiff penalties on those who do use them. This is the aim of my bill. It will provide, and I quote:..., That whoever, during the commission of any robbery, assault, murder, rape, burglary, kidnaping, or homicide (other than involuntary manslaughter), uses or carries any firearm which has been transported across the boundary of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States shall be imprisoned for twenty-five years. The central purpose of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is to deal with a very simple but often overlooked fact: any crime committed with a firearm is a potential murder. Some statistics in the latest Uniform Crime Reports published by the FBI provide excellent documenta tion in support of this argument. The following are the numbers of certain types of crimes committed with a firearm last year: Murder, 5,600; aggravated assault, 34,700; armed robbery, 68,400 (7,600 involving injury). Of the 5,600 murders, nearly 20 percent were felony murders-murders resulting from other felonious acts such as robbery or assault. Often the difference between murder and robbery or assault is a matter of inches. For instance, how many of the 34,700 aggravated assaults with a gun came within inches of being murders? How many of the 7,600 armed robberies involving injury came within inches of being murders? These examples all point to the same conclusion stated above; any crime committed with a firearm is a potential murder. The Uniform Crime Reports provide additional evidence in support of this conclusion. Of the 278 law enforcement officers killed in the Nation between 1960-65, 96 percent were killed with firearms. But the significant fact is that most were killed while investigating crimes other than murder. The figures follow: Type of activity when killed: 1. Responding to "disturbance" calls__. 2. Burglaries in progress or pursuing burglary suspects.... 4. Investigating suspicious persons or circumstances.. Total Number 58 33 55 31 84 17 278 Because of a firearm, many disturbances, robberies, or burglaries became murders. It is in recognition of the seriousness of crimes committed with a firearm that the bill imposes a strong mandatory minimum sentence. This is not a unique concept. There are a number of statutes providing for a mandatory minimum sentence. For example: 1. Robbery of mail, money, or property of the United States is punishable by imprisonment for 25 years. (18 U.S. Code 2114.) 2. Bank robbery is punishable by not less than 10 years' imprisonment. (18 U.S. Code 2113[e].) 3. Most narcotics violations are punishable by mandatory mini mum sentences. The reason for a mandatory minimum sentence in each of these examples is to discourage people from violating the law. The same deterrence principle applies to this bill; it will discourage those who would use firearms in the commission of certain crimes. Why the need for a mandatory minimum sentence? The answer is obvious. At present, many laws provide only a maximum sentence to insure that punishment is not too harsh; the minimum is left to the discretion of the court. The result is often a short sentence not reflecting the seriousness of the crime. If it could be demonstrated that leniency significantly reduced crime there would be no reason to demand stricter penalties, but statistics in the recent Uniform Crime Reports show that leniency often does not fulfill its purpose. In an intensive study of 134,938 criminal records, the FBI found the following: 1. Three of four were repeaters. 2. The average had a criminal career of more than 10 years. 3. During that criminal career, there were five arrests, 2.4 convictions, and 1.5 imprisonments. With regard to leniency, such as probation, suspended sentence, or parole, the FBI found the following: 1. 51 percent had some kind of leniency. 2. After the leniency, this group average more than three new arrests. 3. The group granted leniency had, on the average, a 12-year criminal career and seven arrests-more than the average for the study group as a whole. Maybe the time has come for us to worry less about being too harsh on criminals and more about being harsh enough. Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that there is more to the problem of combating crime than severe punishment. The real answer, of course, is to correct those conditions which produce crime in the first place. I have supported and will continue to support legislation in this area. But until crime has been prevented at its source, we must protect our citizens against the real menace of crime that exists today. This bill would be a positive step in that direction, and I urge this committee to give it careful consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Your testimony will greatly assist the committee in its deliberations on this legislation. Our next witness is the Honorable James V. Bennett, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Bennett is not a stranger to this committee. We have often had him testify, and we always welcome his judgment. We are glad to have you here this morning. STATEMENT OF JAMES V. BENNETT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY, ALSO REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall take not more than 10 minutes of your time. I appreciate your calling me and as a matter of fact, I am one of these iniquitous bureaucrats that has been trying to carry out the will of the Congress and help it in some of its ways to find some of the answers to crime. And that is what I am here for this morning, sir; not because I have any desire to put any restrictions on anyone. I am here also, Mr. Chairman, as president of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. This is a group made up of various people in all walks of life, whom we respect; whose names we expect to place in the record. Among others, it includes Mayor Lindsay and Mr. Charles P. Taft, and quite a group of citizens who are as concerned as we are about the firearms policy. I also appear here as a representative of the American Bar Association which, after full debate on this bill, approved the bill by a ratio of 7 to 1 (184 to 26) and I should like to file a letter with the committee of the American Bar Association president, Orison S. Marden, urging approval of this legislation. Chairman CELLER. That will be accepted in the record. (The letter of Orison S. Marden is as follows:) AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Washington, DC, April 5, 1967. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CELLER: At our Annual Meeting in 1965, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution supporting legislation to amend the Federal Firearms Act. The legislation at that time was in the form of S. 1592. At our Annual Meeting last August, the House of Delegates reaffirmed its position in support of this legislation. The position taken by the American Bar Association was based on a study made by its Section of Criminal Law. A past chairman of that section. James V. Bennett, is scheduled to testify before your committee, and I am sure that he would be glad to explain the position of the Association. Since Mr. Bennett is a former official of the American Bar Association, we felt that in the interest of the time of your committee, we would not send another witness. Respectfully yours, ORISON S. MARDEN. RESOLUTION NO. 58 OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AUGUST 1965 Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the Congress of the United States to enact S. 1592, 89th Congress, or similar legislation which would amend the Federal Firearms Act to prohibit the shipment of firearms in interstate commerce except between federally licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers; to prohibit sales by federally licensed dealers of shotguns and rifles to persons under 18 years of age, and of all other types of firearms to persons under 21 years of age; to prohibit felons, fugitives and persons under indictment of felonies from shipping or receiving firearms in interstate commerce, and to control commerce in large caliber weapons; to restrict the sale of handguns to residents of the state where purchased; and to limit the unrestricted volume of imported weapons; Be it further Resolved, That the Section of Criminal Law be authorized to present the views of the American Bar Association to the appropriate committees of Congress on such proposed legislation. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, my principal point here this morning is to try and help the committee to understand the contentions of the opponents of this legislation to which you have listened this morning. The time-honored argument that this legislation is unconstitutional has, as you know, been laid to rest by various decisions of the courts and by the brief filed with this committee. The one argument that we hear repeatedly, time after time, to alarm hunters, sportsmen, citizens and-who own a gun for their own use and protection-is that this bill will outlaw possession or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Now, there is absolutely nothing in this bill which would affect the ownership, the possession or the use of firearms by responsible citizens. Whatever restrictions are put upon the possession or use of firearms is left for local communities. If there are restrictions against that, or against the use of firearms, let those who object go to the local law makers. All the Federal bill does in this area, as elsewhere, is to prevent the frustration of local laws by outlawing indiscriminate sales-indiscriminate mail-order sales-by unlicensed dealers." The bill also would, of course, help to keep guns out of the hands of felons, narcotic addicts, and juveniles. It would not outlaw interstate sales of rifles, shotguns and pistols so long as the purchase is made from licensed dealers, and the dealer complies with the laws of his home State, and those, of course, of the purchaser's State.. Moreover, guns could still be ordered out of catalogs, subject only to the requirement that if ordered from outside one's home State, the gun would have to be delivered through a licensed dealer. 1 Certainly, these are not unreasonable restrictions, or so onerous that they would put any legitimate dealer out of business or disarm anyone. Moreover, there are absolutely no restrictions in the bill with respect to an individual, other than the felon or fugitive traveling interstate, on carrying ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns for lawful purposes, and if lawfully acquired. The legislation does not require or contemplate Federal registration of firearms. There is nothing in the bill which either directly or indirectly would constitute or require registration of firearms by private citizens. Ammunition, except ammunition for destructive devices, is specifically excluded from the coverage of the legislation. A dealer in ammunition who does not deal in guns would not be required to hold a Federal license; and the purchase or transfer of antique firearms, which is another argument frequently brought against the bill, is specifically excluded from the coverage of the legislation. This legislation, therefore, would have no effect on collectors of antique firearms. Let me say that this legislation has been gone over and gone over and arguments, legitimate arguments of everyone, have been considered and exemptions are made where they are reasonable and proper. The bill would not force small dealers out of business because of high license fees. In one of the bills pending before the Ways and Means Committee last year, the license fee was $100-in some cases $1,000 but this bill is much milder, so to speak. This bill provides that the annual licence fee will be $10 except for the first year, when the dealer is first qualified, when it will be $25. The legislation does not prohibit the importation of sporting weapons, including handguns which are not military surplus. It does not prohibit importation of military surplus rifles and shotguns suitable for sporting purposes only. Another thing that is debated at long extent is that the law will not reduce crime. It is a timeworn argument against all attempts to control the sale of firearms-that it will not reduce crime because criminals will always somehow be able to get a gun. As you point out, Mr. Chairman, if one follows this sort of defeatist philosophy we would have no law against any dangerous drugs, fraud, antitrust, bank robbery, or any other type of crime. Unwillingness to face up to facts about the menace of guns, and trying to do something about it, is a head-in-the-sand attitude. If we acquiesce in the present crime picture, particularly bank robbery, which is on the increase and we do nothing there will be mounting armed robberies. I heard some talk about crime in Michigan. Let me say that bank robberies in the city of Detroit, where there are no restrictions at all, are the highest in the Nation and every bank robbery, practically, requires a gun, and always it is a gun acquired outside of the usual laws. The other overworked and misleading argument is that the law must be directed at the criminal, not at the gun. Several proposals to Con |