from a Federal agency which is best qualified to exercise it and place it in the Treasury Department which would not have information, of sometimes a classified nature, available to it.

In the matter of the issuing of dealers licenses under the proposed legislation (H.R. 5384) it appears that applicants for dealers license may be issued one, if certain nebulous requirements not yet fully known are met. Under existing Federal firearms law a license shall be issued if certain conditions are met. The placing of so much arbitrary authority in the hands of the Treasury Department seems wholly unjustified.

In recent testimony before this subcommittee the U.S. Attorney General quoted some figures indicating the number of convictions obtained by Federal authority under the National and/or the Federal Firearms Act.

However, these statistics were only for 1965. We would urge this subcommittee to seek information showing the number of convictions. obtained under these two Federal statutes for the years 1938 to 1965. It is our belief that comparatively few convictions have been obtained under these two potentially effective, but all too seldom enforced, laws. Continued vigorous enforcement and prosecution of these laws might well lessen the need for the legislation under consideration here today.

That we in this country do have a crime problem there can be no doubt; there are abundant statistics to indicate we do not have a gun problem. Many causes and cures for crime are touched upon by the report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. It is our belief that a greater improvement in the overall crime picture will be achieved by passing legislation directed more at the criminal rather than upon legislation with which only the law abiding will comply and the criminal ignore.

The present legislative proposal (H.R. 5384) appears to us to be capable of generating much more needless and undesirable harassment of the law-abiding sportsman and citizen than it does of having a deterrent effect on the criminal.

Congressman Bob Casey, of Texas, has often quoted from New York Judge Alfred J. Talley the following, which we think is most appropriate here. I will read it, although the Congressman has given it earlier in the day. It is worth repeating:

The demand of the hour in America is for jurors with conscience, judges with courage, and prisons which are neither country clubs nor health resorts. It is not the criminals, actual or potential, that need a neuropathic hospital. It is the people who slobber over them in an effort to find excuses for their crime **

It is the home of the Texas State Rifle Association and the Houston Gun Collectors Association that, in the wisdom of this subcommittee, there will be indicated a recognition of the desires of your constituents, and of the fact that more law similar to law already proven ineffective for apparent lack of vigorous enforcement and prosecution, is not the answer to our growing crime problem.

In our judgment, proposals which place severe penalties for first and successive violations of law when committed with a firearm have more merit, and a better chance of being effective in reducing armed crime, than H.R. 5384 which you are presently considering.

Gentlemen, this concludes my statement. I thank you for the opportunity of presenting it here today.

Chairman CELLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sargent. Sorry to have to make you wait all this time.

MR. SARGENT. Might I still make an observation concerning the second amendment to the Constitution?

Chairman CELLER. I hope you can be very brief.

Mr. SARGENT. Yes, sir.

We have heard the man who preceded me here to the table mention that the basis for the second amendment was founded at the time the original rights were guaranteed in the Magna Carta.

We did indeed have it repeated numerous times down through history. I don't think there is any question but this basic "right of the free man to weapons of his own defense" was uppermost in the minds of the writers of our Constitution when they prepared it. I think it is significant that after the Constitution was prepared, that the delegates returned quite soon with the first 10 amendements to this, fearful-as indicated in Mr. James Madison's writings and he was the Father of the Constitution, we are told-that these first 10 amendments were guarantees to the people; they were limitations on the power of the Federal Government; limitations imposed because of the fear of the writers of the Constitution that they might have created the means for the creation of a tyrannical government. These were limitations on the power of the Federal Government.

This does not "square," in my opinion, when we say that the second amendment pertains only to militia-whatever the militia meantunder the original or today's considerations.

Certainly it was the intention at the time the second amendment was adopted to provide to the States means for their own defense.

How do we reconcile this now, where, at the stroke of a 10-cent ballpoint pen, the President of the United States can strip from any State their means of self-defense by nationalizing or federalizing their State Guard, thus rendering a State and its people completely defenseless, We have seen this happen in Mississippi and in Arkansas and Alabama. This is why, in my opinion, the second amendment does indeed mean that the people should have preserved to them the "right for their own defense," whether it be in the case of an individual or their organized militia. If they are not guaranteed, under yours or other interpretations heard here today, to maintain personal arms. and the State may have its organized militia taken away at Presidential decision, how then, are the people or the State to defend themselves?

I leave this as a question before the committee.
I thank you for the opportunity of leaving it.
(Mr. Sargent's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. SARGENT, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, TEXAS STATE RIFLE
ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Raymond L. Sargent, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Texas State Rifle Association. I reside at Sugar Land, Fort Bend County, Texas. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee in opposition to the proposed firearms legislation (H.R. 5384) now under consideration. I am also speaking in behalf of the Houston Gun Collectors Association and many of the 514.000 hunting license holders in Texas.

The worthy objectives of the Texas State Rifle Association have earned for it much widespread respect, which we think is both wholesome and justified. The Association is mindful of its obligations to all citizens, especially when fire

arms legislation under consideration is not, in its opinion, in the best public interest. The enactment into law of H.R. 5384, as presently written, and under consideration by this committee, will not in our opinion, be in the best public interest.

The citizens of our country have been told, and often, in a most dramatic manner by television, radio and most all other components of the mass news media, that we have a most alarming and tragic crime situation in this country, and indeed we do. Crime generally has been, we are told, rising at a rate 6 times faster than the rate of our population increase, and there are some who by employing these dramatic television and news editorial techniques have succeeded (however properly or improperly) in misinforming a significant number of our fellow Americans that guns are the cause of much, if not most, of our rising crime rate. However, we think it important and appropriate to again remind the members of this subcommittee of the recent testimony of the Attorney General of the United States before this subcommittee wherein he did not deny that, according to the U. S. Justice Department's own percentages, over 96% of the total crime in our country is committed without the use of firearms and less than 4% involved the use of firearms.

It is to be expected that, when problems arise involving the criminal use of firearms, legislation, which will, hopefully, cure the ill, will be introduced. To expect, in view of the failure of legislation attempting to limit the ownership of firearms in the past, that such legislation as is now under consideration will be successful, is in our opinion not justified.

The infamous "Sullivan Law" of New York State has not prevented the acquisition, by criminals, of firearms-as evidenced by the fact, recorded in the New York State Police Report to the Governor, that the New York State Police confiscate well over 10,000 "illegally'-owned guns per year, and it is doubtful that they find all illegally-owned guns in the State. The "Sullivan Law," or that part of the criminal code of New York State pertaining to firearms has, in one form or another, been "on the books" for over 50 years, and the fee required for a pistol permit has advanced from $.50 to $20.00 during the life of this criminalaiding law, a 2,000% increase. How much higher will the permit fee go? How high must it go to discourage all good citizens from owning a pistol for their self-defense and sport and recreation? New York authorities have recently been reported in the press as having reduced by 1⁄2 the number of existing pistol permits in only 5 years; however, there was no figure given for any reduction of the number of pistols in criminal hands, only for the law-abiding citizens. Half a century should, we think, be long enough to establish the futility of trying to pass still more laws, with which the criminal appears to have not complied and which have the net effect of making the criminal's actions safer and easier for him.

In our opinion, the legislation now under consideration by this committee will not deter the criminal in his unlawful use of firearms, and that surely must be among the purposes of the proposed legislation. If the proposed legislation does not deter the criminal use of firearms-and there is abundant evidence that it will not-then what will this proposed legislation do?

It will do several things. It will, by requiring all firearms purchases to be made within the state of the purchaser's residence, create local lists of lawabiding, patriotic citizens-but not criminals. Does this reduce crime?-we think not.

It will, because of what some small merchants consider to be excessive fees required for dealers in firearms, discourage many merchants who might otherwise find it profitable to sell firearms, especially those located near state borders, where part of their "trade territory" is beyond their state line.

While the legislation under consideration, the "State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967," is not a true firearms registration bill, it does nevertheless "pave the way" and is, in our judgment, a step towards, and an aid to, those who would seek the enactment of "Sullivan-type" firearms law for each of our fifty states within five years, as recommended by the "President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice” in its recent (February 1967) report. This has not been denied by any administrative spokesman to our knowledge. The proposed legislation, should it become law, would forbid the shipment to an heir living outside the state of the deceased, any firearms left as an inheritance, unless the heir or heirs were federally licensed firearms dealers, manufacturers or importers. A logical question would be-what happens to such assets of the deceased?

The proposed legislation, by virtue of its having no provision for the shipment of firearms to organizations and individuals approved by the Director of Civilian

Marksmanship, will seriously curtail the progress of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice in providing preinduction rifle and pistol training for civilians. It would appear that this curtailment may become of greatest value to the enemies of this country, while being of little or no value in reducing armed crime. It seems appropriate to mention at this time, that the program of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice was begun in 1903 and was instituted by an Act of Congress. The program has been continuously praised by military leaders and numerous Presidents of our country for its contribution to our over-all defense posture. The omission of an "exception" for shipments of firearms in futherance of the "National Board" program is in our judgment another of the undesirable aspects of the proposed legislation.

There is a provision of H. R. 5384 which is in direct conflict with authority granted to the Secretary of State under the Mutual Security Act of 1954. Under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, control over the importation and exportation of "weapons of war" rests with the Secretary of State and the "Munitions Control Division" who are in a better position to judge the advisability (considering our best national interest) of importing or exporting certain firearms. It would appear to be imprudent to remove this control (if this is proposed) from a Federal agency which is best qualified to exercise it and place it in the Treasury Department which would not have information, of sometimes a classified nature, available to it.

In the matter of the issuing of dealers licenses under the proposed legislation (H. R. 5384) it appears that applicants for a dealers license may be issued one, if certain nebulous requirements not yet fully known are met. Under existing Federal firearms law a license shall be issued if certain conditions are met. The placing of so much arbitrary authority in the hands of the Treasury Department seems wholely unjustified.

In recent testimony before this subcommittee the U.S. Attorney General quoted some figures indicating the number of convictions obtained by Federal authority under the National and/or the Federal Firearms Act. However, these statistics were only for 1965. We would urge this subcommittee to seek information showing the number of convictions obtained under these two Federal statutes for the years 1938 to 1965. It is our belief that comparatively few convictions have been obtained under these two potentially effective, but all too seldom enforced. laws. Continued vigorous enforcement and prosecution of these laws might well lessen the need for the legislation under consideration here today.

That we in this county do have a crime problem there can be no doubt; there are abundant statistics to indicate we do not have a gun problem. Many causes and cures for crime are touched upon by the report of the "President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice." It is our belief that a greater improvement in the over-all crime picture will be achieved by passing legislation directed more at the criminal rather than upon legislation with which only the law-abiding will comply and the criminal ignore.

The present legislative proposal (H.R. 5384) appears to us to be capable of generating much more needless and undesirable harassment of the law-abiding sportsman and citizen, than it does of having a deterrent effect on the criminal. Congressman Bob Casey of Texas has often quoted from New York Judge Alfred J. Talley the following, which we think is most appropriate here: "The demand of the hour in America is for jurors with conscience, judges with courage, and prisons which are neither country clubs no health resorts. It is not the criminals, actual or potential, that need a neuropathic hospital. It is the people who slobber over them in an effort to find excuses for their crime. ... It is the hope of the Texas State Rifle Association and the Houston Gun Collectors Association that, in the wisdom of this subcommittee, there will be indicated a recognition of the desires of your constituents, and of the fact that more law simular to law already proven ineffective for apparent lack of vigorous enforcement and prosecution, is not the answer to our growing crime problem. In our judgement, proposals which place severe penalties for first and successive violations of law when committed with a firearm have more merit, and a better chance of being effective in reducing armed crime, than H.R. 5384 which you are presently considering.

Gentlemen, this concludes my statement. I thank you for the opportunity of presenting it here today.

Chairman CELLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sargent.

(Whereupon, at 4 o'clock, p.m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 o'clock a.m., Thursday, April 6, 1967.)

ANTI-CRIME PROGRAM

FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 1967

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Celler, Corman, Brooks, and Biester.

Also present: William R. Foley, general counsel and Donald E. Santarelli, associate counsel.

Mr. CELLER. The subcommittee will please come to order. We are continuing hearings on H.R. 5384, the State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967.

The committee is very pleased to have with us this morning, the Honorable Robert Sikes representing the State of Florida. He is certainly an authority in this field and we are delighted to have him share with us his thoughts about this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA

Mr. SIKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who believes that legislation can be designed which would improve the present Federal firearms legislation and contribute in a worthwhile way to restraining firearms crimes. Something useful can be accomplished without departing from the American way of doing things. But the administration bill is not, in my opinion, well conceived legislation and I think it will do more harm than good.

I am not prepared to associate myself with the recent emotional and ill-informed claims of public opinionmakers that guns are evil, that they should be less accessible solely because they can kill people when improperly used, and that the rise in firearms crimes are in large measure caused by lack of government regulation of commerce in firearms. There are somewhere between 50 and 100 million firearms in the hands of civilians in the United States. May I say many of these guns circulate among millions of law-abiding Americans who trade, give, and exchange them as they see fit. The inventory of firearms in the United States is annually increased only by a trickle compared to the number of firearms already privately owned. Any new Federal restrictions on the right to acquire and dispose of firearms would affect many more weapons than those sold annually and should have a solid justification backed by unmistakable evidence of need.