use of firearms and concealed weapons rather than at the right of ownership."

Gentlemen, that right of ownership-the right to keep and bear arms—is a fundamental, personal freedom of the people of the United States of America as granted by the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I represent a State where the firearm is not only a necessity for farmers and ranchers, but where hunting is perhaps one of the most popular sports. I oppose any legislation which penalizes the hunters, the marksmen, and those who use firearms for lawful purposes, such as the Nevada ranchers and sportsmen, as well as the gun collectors. In Nevada we have a keen understanding of firearms, therefore we fear them less. And while we may fear them less, we do have a strict Nevada State firearms law that is rigidly enforced. Our State law forbids a person from carrying any handgun or other deadly weapon concealed upon the person or in a vehicle unless, upon written application, he is granted permission by the county sheriff. No minor under the age of 14 years shall handle or have in his possession or control any firearm of any type for any purpose except while accompanied by, or under the immediate charge of, an adult person. And no person shall sell or barter a handgun or other concealable firearm to a person under 18 years of age.

I sincerely believe that the proposed restrictive legislation will serioutly hurt the hunter and the sportsman as well as those who collect antique guns. It would make it almost impossible for anyone needing a gun to protect his home and family to own a gun.

I must strongly oppose any efforts to restrict the sale to bona fide. purchasers. And I am of the firm belief that the purchase and sale and ownership of firearms is a matter for local determination.

It is a States matter and I, as the Congressman for the State of Nevada, intend to do everything possible to preserve States rights, and protect those who use and purchase firearms for legitimate purposes.

If we must come up with any legislation, then I say, let's enforce those already in existence and hit hard at the unlawful use of firearms and not propose legislation that will seriously affect those law-abiding citizens the hunter, sportsman, conservationist, antique gun collectors, and those who seek no more than to protect his home and family. Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baring. We will now hear from the Honorable James F. Battin.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES F. BATTIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of your committee for allowing me to submit my opinions on H.R. 5384, State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967, which you are now considering. First, although I do not wish to alienate your attention to my remarks, I must state that I am unilaterally opposed to this legislation as proposed. Controls are necessary to restrict the flow of weapons that have value only as destructive devices, such as bazookas, machineguns, cannons, grenades, and the like. But it is not necessaryin fact, it sets a dangerous precedent-to regulate the possession of sporting and defensive guns.

I maintain that to require registration of small firearms, pistols, rifles, and shotguns is to directly usurp the rights granted in the second amendment to our Constitution. This amendment clearly guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There has been some confusion in the interpretation of the opening clause of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and I would like to clarify this. This "militia" has been wrongfully cast as an organized military unit, but what the Constitution referred to, in the vernacular of the times, was the entire populace. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines militia as "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call for military service." This militia, which this bill seeks to restrain, is already "well regulated" by all of the laws of the United States and its separate States. Those who should be deprived of the right to bear arms are the persons in our society who are outside this definition of militia-the felons who are not qualified to serve in the Armed Forces.

I submit to you that there are already enough laws to deprive felons and mental deficients of this right. The problem is in enforcing the existing statutes, not in enacting restrictions that will encompass the responsible Americans who have already been guaranteed this right in our most sacred document. If this committee in its wisdom feels more specific legislation is needed to assist law enforcement officers in coping with armed criminals, then laws should be passed that deal with criminals, not honest citizens. Make it more dangerous for thieves, burglars, rapists and robbers to carry guns. Provide prohibitive punishments for offenses committed with firearms. Give the courts more latitude in punishing armed criminals. Thereby you will give our law enforcement officers incentive to enforce these laws and the lawless a deterrent. But don't disarm the man who wants a gun to protect his home and family and, in dire straits which we hope will never come about, to defend his country.

With alarming increase in crimes against individuals in recent years, propoents of firearms controls have chosen the worst possible time to attempt to restrict our right to own guns. This lawlessness and the lurking danger of assault have been used as arguments in favor of strict gun legislation, but quite the opposite is the case. Persons intent on burglary will consider their actions in a different light as long as there remains a possibility that the occupants inside the unsuspecting house may be armed. If a burglar has assurance that his intended victim is defenseless, what deterrent is there to his act except the unlikely occurrence of a patrolling police car. After an armed burglar is inside a house and has the family under his gun, the patrolling policeman has no indication a crime is being committed. A burglar entering the house of an unarmed family has to concern himself with only the few seconds it takes him to force the door.

Proponents of this measure also argue that the controls will only make it difficult for people bent on crime to obtain weapons. They do not say it will be impossible for a normal-appearing madman or a criminal with bogus credentials to buy a gun. But it will take a few weeks longer to get a gun under this measure. I don't have to assure you that destructive, dishonest and demented individuals who want a gun will not hesitate to go through the complex procedure required to

obtain one under this bill. And even if we pass a bill that will take guns from everyone, don't be deluded into thinking the criminal and the insane person will not find another way to get a gun or to accomplish their purpose with another weapon.

The man who goes about robbing liquor stores with a gun these days would be able to use a knife or small club to accomplish the same crime if the Federal Government deprives storekeepers of their weapons. If a gun control law is enacted the people who will obey it are those who should not have to. The criminal or insane person, whom we seek to disarm, will disregard this law as well as other laws and the only thing we have accomplished is to disarm their victims.

Supporters of gun controls have argued with me that sportsmen will still be able to obtain weapons through an involved procedure. This is true enough at present, but restriction begins that infringement which the Constitution specifically warns against. The purpose of licensing any object is to control and the provisions of a license allows the discretion of the governing power. I do not believe that Congress wants or should have this power in the area of firearms.

I believe that instead of discouraging the good citizens of our country from owning firearms, we should endorse the principle of selfprotection and diminish the need of such.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission summed up a distinguishing characteristic of Americans with this statement in its final report:

The outdoors lies deep in American tradition. It has had immeasurable impact on the nation's character and on those who have made its history. This is a civilization painfully and only recently carved in conflict with the forces of nature-farms from unbroken prairie and cities from wilderness. The epic of American life is the tale of the pioneer, edging his way westward in the face of unending danger and hardship. When an American looks for meaning in his past, he seeks it not in ancient ruins, but more likely in mountains, forests, by a river, or at the edge of the sea.

The man with the gun is found on almost every page of our history. He has been known by such names as Miles Standish, George Washington, Daniel Boone, Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Wesley Powell, Teddy Roosevelt, Buffalo Bill Cody, Alvin York, and a host of others. He has been famed for his steady aim, square shooting, and bravery in peace as in war.

Almost without exception, our national heroes have been hunters and fishermen outdoorsmen who received their early training in pitting their skill and physical endurance against the forces of nature and the cunning of wild creatures. They have left their imprint on the American brand of patriotism, as well as on the trails of adventure which once led to far-off forests, prairies, mountains and western shores.

Today, in America, there are still some 14 million men and youngsters over the age of 12 years who take to our fields and forests each fall in pursuit of game. The figure is undoubtedly much higher, but statistics are hard to come by. Between 1940 and 1962 the number of licensed hunters in the United States increased by nearly 80 percentalmost twice as much as the percentage growth of population during the same period. Hunting continues to be one of the most popular types of outdoor recreation in America-and every indication points to the continuation of its popularity.

In recent years, many people who have good intentions but are poorly informed, have pictured the hunter as a "vanishing" American and have blamed on him many of the woes that have befallen some of our native wildlife species. These are the people who, even though they may accept the contributions to our American heritage made by the hunters and explorers of the last century and the first eras of this one, now condemn the modern sportsmen as an unnecessary element in our society. Some attack the hunter on moral grounds, charging cruelty to animals. Some attack the man with the gun with fostering many of our social ills-juvenile delinquency, rising crime rates, the degradation of our physical, mental and moral health.

The fact of the matter is that there exists sound evidence that outdoor sports, including hunting, can be an effective preventive, and oftentimes a cure, for juvenile delinquency. Judge William G. Long, of Seattle's Juvenile Court, heard 45,000 cases of juvenile delinquency during a period exceeding 20 years and discovered that not one of these boys or girls had a wholesome outdoor hobby as his or her recrea tional outlet. In the same vein, we have the case of J. J. Jones, the jailer of Knox County, Tenn. While performing his duties, Jones examined the belongings of 10,000 inmates and discovered that less than 2 percent had owned a hunting or fishing license.

Hunting may not be the only solution to some of our social ills but it is certainly one of the best. But the "sport of Kubla Khan--the first game manager recorded in history" goes far beyond social significance. From the first Thanksgiving dinner of 200 years ago one featuring a main course of wild meat-venison and "partridge" and wild turkey to present, the hunter has not only pursued the wildlife resource of America, he has fought valiantly to preserve it.

What some modern-day critics of the sport have never learned, or perhaps have conveniently forgotten, is that modern game laws and game management programs have resulted almost entirely because many hunters at the turn of the century saw the handwriting on the wall. They knew that hunting, particularly market hunting, had made serious inroads on wildlife populations. But they also realized that a more serious threat to wildlife was posed by the spread of our civilization across the land. We had cleared the vast forests that were the home of the passenger pigeon-and with them went the habitat without which this bird could not live. We had plowed up the prairies and fenced the western ranges upon which the buffalo depended. Even without hunting, these famous American species were doomed.

Because those early sportsmen-Teddy Roosevelt, William Hornaday, Henry William Herbert (who used the pen name Frank Forester and was the first American outdoor writer), George Shiras 3d, John M. Phillips-set out on a crusade for wildlife, we have brought back from the brink of extinction such wonderful animals as the whitetailed deer, the black bear, elk, pronghorn antelope, and a host of others. In 1890 the deer population of North America was estimated at no more than 500,000 head. They were practically extinct in Pennsylvania and in many other States. In 1963-just 75 years later, the deer popu lation of New York State alone was estimated at 375,000 animals. Another 350,000 lived in Pennsylvania. Every State in the Union permitted deer hunting of some kind last year.

In 1922 the American Bison Society made a census of all pronghorn antelope in North America. The total was set at 11,749 head and no

antelope hunting was permitted in that year anywhere on the continent. În 1963, the continental pronghorn population exceeded 500,000 and hunting was allowed in 12 States and two Canadian Provinces. The combined annual hunter take of antelope in Wyoming and Montana alone is about 50,000 animals-twice the total living population of 1920.

During this same period of less than 50 years, elk have increased from around 50,000 animals to approximately 250,000 in 1963. We have even brought back the buffalo and today about 8,000 head occupy all available range in the United States. Some States even have permitted a controlled harvest of buffalo in recent years in order to keep the herds in balance with their food supplies. Sportsmen have long made important contributions to the public welfare, the protection of all wild birds and animals, and the economy of our country.

Today, for example, much of the pleasure the housewife and businessman derive from watching songbirds in the backyard is made possible by the voluntary contributions made by hunters each year to improve wildlife habitat through America.

Hunters are the financial backbone of State game departments which are charged by law to care for all wildlife, not only the game species but the nonhunted wildlife as well. Millions of bird watchers, nature enthusiasts, tourists, and campers enjoy the wonders of wildlife the year around, but few realize that, if it were not for hunters, there would be little, if any, wildlife to watch. Law enforcement officers whose salaries are paid entirely through revenue derived from the sale of hunting licenses not only enforce seasons and bag limits on those birds and animals which may legally be hunted-they likewise enforce the laws, rules and regulations designed to protect nonhunted species such as hawks, shore birds, eagles, and swans.

State game departments as well as the Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife are constantly creating new habitat and improving living conditions for all of nature's creatures. A waterfowl refuge benefits more than ducks and geese; a food strip planted in the forest creates a habitat good for songbirds as well as game birds.

State game departments each year collect more than $68 million from hunters for licenses, tags, and permits. This money is used for land acquisition, biological research, wildlife protection, for creating more food and cover, range improvement, and protection of all wild birds and animals.

More than 300 million has been distributed to State game departments since 1938 under terms of the Pittman-Robertson Act which created a "Federal aid in wildlife restoration fund" from an 11 percent excise tax on the sale of all sporting arms and ammunition. It is significant that arms and ammunition manufacturers recently testified before a congressional committee reviewing all Federal excise taxes and requested that their products continue to be taxed for this purpose. Indeed, this is probably one of the few times in recorded history that anyone requested continuation, instead of abolishment, of taxes. But these manufacturers realize the value of continuing a program designed to conserve and more properly manage the natural resource upon which their very existence depends.

The program has resulted in the purchase and development of 2,370,000 acres of land and about 900,000 acres of prime waterfowl