Thirty-eight States now have hunter safety programs. Most of these are directed toward minors, but New York State requires anyone getting his first hunting license to pass the course. A study was made which compared accident statistics of the 12 years prior to the state of the New York program with the first 12 years it had been in effect. Although the State had 30 percent more hunters during the latter period, there was a 10-percent reduction in accidents and a decrease of 351 fatalities.

Utah began hunter safety training in 1956 and consequently reduced hunting accidents from 128 that year to 27 in 1963. The percentage of accidents caused by minors decreased from 79 to 12.8 percent. Since making hunter safety training mandatory for hunters under 21, New Jersey has cut its hunting fatalities in half. This is the kind of effective gun legislation which the gun owners support.

This is the type of legislation, I, too, support. It is time to forget emotional legislation and seek ways and means to develop laws to protect the law-abiding citizen's right to purchase and own a firearm. It is time to punish those who would use a gun improperly or in the commission of a crime. It is not right or proper to make it a crime to want or own a gun. In effect, I sincerely believe this is what H.R. 5384 does.

Thank you gentlemen for your time.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dulski. We shall now hear from the Honorable George A. Goodling.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE A. GOODLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYL

VANIA

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we must remember that in the consideration of gun legislation there are two fundamental rights involved; that is, the right of the public to safety and security from the reckless use of firearms, and the right of the responsible citizen-as per the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution-to handle firearms in a responsible way.

Suitable legislation, then, would be that type which does not sacrifice one right in the process of protecting the other right but, instead, preserves each one of these vital rights of American citizens.

The problem being dealt with is not one of the gun itself but is, instead, the use of the gun. It is the same problem that attends the automobile, a hunting knife, or countless other implements and devices in our everyday lives which, if carelessly or irresponsibly used, can bring great destruction.

While the public safety, as related to firearms, is a must, it is equally imperative that responsible citizens are free to use firearms in a responsible way. The right of the reputable citizen to own and use firearms for the lawful purposes of self-defense, marksmanship training, and sport should not be burdened with regulations and prohibitions designed to deal with the irresponsible use of firearms.

We should not accept any legislation that has the effect of disarming our lawabiding citizens and making them "sitting ducks" for a lawless minority which always, by one means or another, seems to be able to get its hands on lethal instruments. Legislation of this nature

would not provide protection for the public but would, contrariwise, place the well being of the public in jeopardy. The criminal would be encouraged in his activities, knowing he would be dealing with an unarmed and defenseless citizenry.

Marksmanship training, Mr. Chairman, plays a very important part in the American way of life. Throughout the country myriad gun clubs have as their object the development of skill in target shooting, along with the proper handling and care of firearms. Young boys and men learn how to be straight shooters on target and in life, how to handle firearms in a responsible manner, and how to respect the safety of others. Their elders spend time on skeet ranges or at trap shoots, enjoying these shooting matches at locations safely removed from the cities and their populations.

Men with this background of marksmanship in civilian life have made a great contribution to our Armed Forces, all the way from Colonial America up to the present. All of us are familiar with the fame of Alvin York who-if he had been denied the chance to gain shooting skill by hunting wild turkeys-would not have been able to give such a grand performance against enemy troops in World War I. Individuals with this kind of marksmanship background serve as an "extra reserve," a kind of backup for our National Guard and Reserve forces.

The many hunting clubs throughout America perform in a similar manner, with the interest in hunting coming in company with a keen and constructive interest in the conservation and preservation of our natural resources.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that throughout my life I have been associated with sportsman clubs, and I have never seen a reckless or irresponsible use of firearms by any member of these organizations. More aptly, the membership of these clubs is constantly conscious of the proper handling of firearms, with care and caution being keynotes in gun handling. A true sportsman understands firearms and knows how to handle them, with safe handling of firearms always being a starting point.

The individual States are ideally constituted to carry out an effective gun-control program, for they are close to the root of the problem. For this reason, any Federal legislation that is contemplated should operate to strengthen existing State laws. This could be done by amending the Federal Firearms Act and making it unlawful to sell or ship firearms to any person in violation of any State firearms statute. In conjunction with this, the Federal Government could encourage and persuade the States lacking effective laws to adopt measures that would facilitate uniform enactments at the State level throughout the country. While the lighter firearms could be handled by State statutes, effective controls should be set up for such bulky destructive contrivances as antitank guns, bazookas, silencers, and similar unconventional devices. The National Firearms Act already covers machineguns, and this authority could be amended to cover these other mammoth weapons. Legislation emanating from this committee should meet the requirements of both the public and of the law-abiding private citizen concurrently. The measure should get at the real problem, that of crime, and it must not invade the constitutional right of our citizens, "to keep and bear arms". There are more than 40 million gun owners in the

United States, and the constitutional rights of each one of these must be respected.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate having the opportunity of presenting this statement for the attention of your committee.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Your testimony is greatly appreciated Mr. Goodling. Thank you. We shall now hear from the Honorable Cecil R. King.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CECIL R. KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee and to comment on H.R. 5384. I have a long and intimate familiarity with the history of this gun control legislation. I am deeply interested in it personally, and as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee which, as you know, held exhaustive hearings on somewhat similar legislation in 1965.

As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association of America and a member of its board of directors, I am naturally distressed by the attack on the association made by one witness before this committee which I can describe only as vicious and by the generally widespread inference that the National Rifle Association blindly opposes all efforts to enact reasonable and sensible firearms legislation. Mr. Chairman, I can assure this committee, from my own personal knowledge, that this is not so. Quite the reverse is true. On two occasions, one in 1954 and again in 1960, at the request of the National Rifle Association, I introduced legislation in the Congress to make amendments to and improvements in the National and Federal Firearms Acts. These amendments were arrived at in conference between representatives of the National Rifle Association, other national sportsmen and conservation groups, and officials of the Department of the Treasury, the agency which enforces the Federal firearms laws. In both cases, the amendments were passed by the Congress, resulting in a substantially improved law. In each instance, comments in the press were nonexistent and no one referred to the National Rifle Association as a "powerful gun lobby" for its efforts in improving the Federal law.

Most recently, in 1961, at the request of the administration, the Federal Firearms Act was amended to strengthen several of its provisions. These revisions were found desirable by the Department of Justice and were wholly concurred in and supported by the National Rifle Association.

I would only point out further in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that the parent of the very legislation we are considering today was S. 1975, introduced in the early months of 1963 by Senator Thomas J. Dodd of Connecticut. This bill, Mr. Chairman, was the result of more than 4 years of investigations by the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency. Numerous conferences were held by the subcommittee staff with the staff of NRA and all national sportsmen organizations having an interest in the legislation, and it had their full support. The NRA has never altered its position. The tragic events in Dallas in November of 1963 led to an era of highly emotionalized thinking about guns, and the result has been a succession of introductions, each

77-540-67- -51

more restrictive and each, in my opinion, more unwarranted than the last. It is time we got back to a reasoned approach to this problem, and it is my hope that this committee will do just that.

On Monday, April 17, Mr. Chairman, I introduced in the Congress H.R. 8645. This is substantially the original bill which started this long succession of hearings. It has been tempered somewhat by evidence submitted at these and previous hearings. It is directed at concealable firearms which, from a preponderance of the testimony, appear to be the weapon in need of additional controls. It is the product of the combined reasoning of many competent and dedicated organizations for a period extending over the last 5 years. In my opinion, H.R. 8645 will do what the administration has asked for; and it will not interfere in any way with the purchase and ownership of firearms by honest citizens for legitimate purposes. This bill, combined with H.R. 7457, introduced earlier to control "destructive devices," should correct the problems before you for consideration.

I commend this proposal to the committee's attention. I believe you will find in it the solution to many of your problems.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. King. We will now hear from the Honorable Ancher Nelsen.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANCHER NELSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, today we are considering an act to regulate firearms. This becomes a controver sial and perplexing problem chiefly because it is a subject which immediately brings to mind crime and the use of firearms for crime; only secondly does it elicit the idea that there are purposeful and constructive uses for firearms. Besides the subject of crime, there is perhaps no domestic question which brings forth more concern, more emotions, more wrath, and more speeches. The only constructive actions that will be taken on the crime problem are the ones that receive rational and studied thought, and not the ones that attempt to placate the emotions of the moment.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the Nation's attentions became focused on firearms legislation after the assassination of President Kennedy. It was a traumatic, tension filled day for the Nation; and a few men can call it to mind without also bringing up emotion laden experiences of the hour. We look back to the object that was the focal point of the hour, and we see the photo of the murder weapon. We react and say, "If only he didn't have the rifle.”

Emotions lead one to grasping at the first solution to a problem that comes to mind. The immediate answer, though, is seldom the best answer or the most effective.

The proposal before us today would among other things, ban the sale of mail-order firearms, but unfortunately there has nowhere been shown that this impediment to commerce in firearms would have any real effect on the individual's intent on using them as criminal weapons. The common thug can inevitably obtain a stolen, pawned, or secondhand gun, if he desires one.

We talked here about firearms and crime but I would like to change the course of discussion from the instrument used in a crime to the criminal.

What are the prime considerations of a criminal when he decides he is going to act illegally? He asks himself what will be his rewards, what are his chances of getting caught; and if he gets caught, what will be his penalty. When he thinks of this last variable, "What will be the penalty?", the criminal considers whether he will be penalized more for one crime than another with the same or similar rewards, and, gentlemen, it has been shown that he will usually choose the combination with the least penalty and the greatest rewards.

As my friend, Congressman Bob Casey of Texas pointed out, "Armed robbery of post offices, which hold large sums of money are generally unguarded, carries a mandatory 25 year Federal sentence. There were but 66 such robberies last year. Armed robbery of a bank carries a lighter sentence-from suspension to a maximum of 25 years, depending upon the leniency of the judge. There were 1,070 bank robberies last year. But the severeness of the penalties is reversed on burglaries. Burglarizing a post office carries a light penalty of up to 5 years, plus a fine of up to $1,000. Burglarizing a bank carries a stiffer penalty of up to 20 years and a fine of up to $5,000. It is obvious the criminals know-and avoid-crimes with stiff penalties. Last year, they burglarized 1,763 post offices and only 467 banks.

These statistics reveal that there is a definite correlation between the penalty and the crime committed. Some proponents of H.R. 5384 scoff at this fact, but of their theory, I have seen little cogent or convincing proof. So then, when we find that the perpetration of a crime is an anathema, it should be punished accordingly.

Congressman Casey has introduced a bill that would be aimed at the criminal and not at the weapon he may use. The bill is geared to greatly discourage the use of firearms in not only robbery, but assault, murder, rape, burglary, kidnaping, and homicide, other than involuntary manslaughter. He would require sentences in such crimes in the first offense for not less than 10 years, and not less than 25 years for the second offense.

The problems that focus on the armed criminal involve primarily the repeat offender. Page 28 of the 1965 Uniform Crime Report compiled by the FBI from the case histories of nearly 135,000 criminal repeat offenders, states:

This entire sample had an average criminal career of more than 10 years (span of years from first to last arrest) during which they averaged five arrests, 2.4 convictions and 1.5 imprisonments.

In its "Profile of Known Repeaters by Type of Crime" the report

states:

Repeating the same crime was highest for the narcotic offender, 53 percent, the burglar 48 percent, the gambler 47 percent *** 33 percent of the robbers repeated in robbery. For the crimes against the person--murder, rape, and felonious assault-the rate of repeating in the same crime is considerably lower than for the property offenses.

The report goes on to note the high degree of leniency that is granted even in light of the high level of repeat offenses. "The frequency of leniency action in the form of probation, suspended sentence or parole ranged from 38 percent for the murderers to 55 percent for the burglars."

After these statistics drew the surprised reaction of many it seems that the FBI then did a followup study over a 2-year period on 6,907