otherwise get around by myself, what work I do depends altogether on the Post Office. Our administration is pushing hard for an "Anti fire arm Law". Most of this is aimed at the "mail order" end of it. Also cries have been heard to drastically raise the cost of a Federal Fire Arms permit. This would do nothing but hurt people such as myself. We hear much government sponsored propaganda to "Help the Handicapped" etc. I hope you can call this to the attention of other law makers with whom you work. I know you have been in Placerville several times. I would like to talk more with you on this if you could drop in some time while in the neighborhood. Respectfully yours, JIM CARBERRY, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1967. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: Enclosed please find a letter which I received from one of my constituents, Mr. Christopher Lunding, regarding firearms. I would appreciate your making his letter part of the record. With every good wish, THOMAS P. O'NEILL, JR. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., March 6, 1967. Hon. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I write you to urge that you withhold your support from H.R. 5384, introduced into the House on February 15 by Rep. Celler. This Bill would outlaw all interestate sales of firearms, except between licensed dealers. Now is a time when President Johnson and numerous like-minded individuals are carrying on a concerted campaign to place restrictions upon the sale of firearms, for what everyone would agree is the most admirable of reasons: to keep guns from the hands of criminals. The motive is unasailable; H.R. 5384 is not. It is faulty in many ways, but to me the most condemning thing about it is that it regulates beyond the amount necessary to secure its objective. In hampering the criminal it penalizes the sportsman. If one agrees that some sort of attempt must be made to limit what has come to be known as the "firearms menace," rejection of the Celler Bill is not enough. We must propose an alternative. Two Bills currently under consideration do this. One attempt is made in your own Bill, H.R. 3993. Another approach, seen most recently in H.R. 1454, sponsored by Rep. Wyatt of Oregon, would provide a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm during the commission of some crimes. These two Bills, if enacted, provide a necessary and sufficient restriction on the scale of firearms and deterrent on their use. Your Bill will keep firearms sold interstate out of the hands of criminals; H.R. 1454 and other similar Bills (H.R.'s 360, 542, 1007) will hopefully deter criminals from the use of firearms, which is the aim of all those who clamor for firearms control. I hope you will continue to initiate and support such constructive legislation. Rep. Celler's Bill seeks to stop a leak by smashing the plumbing. Its restriztions are clumsy in accomplishing their purpose and over-inclusive. They do nothing at all to deter the criminal. For these reasons I respectfully urge you to oppose H.R. 5384. My concern is not emotional; I do not oppose responsible firearms control legislation like H.R. 3993. H.R. 5384 should be defeated because its unselective limitation harms the honest sportsman as well as depriving the criminal of some access to one of his many accessories. I thank you for your kind attention and continue in my support in your laudable attempts to gain enactment of rational firearms control legislation. Yours very truly, CHRISTOPHER LUNDING. THE OHIO GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, INC. February 19, 1967. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CELLER: I would like to protest the passage of H.B. 5384 on the following grounds: It infringes on my rights, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, to possess and and bear arms. It will not deter the criminal from using firearms in the commission of a crime. I would be very much in favor of a bill which would aim heavy Federal Penalties at the criminal who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. Sincerely, B. E. BRENNAN. President. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, Utica, N.Y., March 7, 1967. Congressman EMANUEL CELLER, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: Enclosed is a copy of a resolution endorsed by District Lodge 157, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Whereas the peaceful use of firearms is a source of relaxtion and reward to many of our members; and Whereas said peaceful use at times necessitates the use of mail or other forms of interstate commerce; and Whereas House Bill 5384 and Senate Bill S1 Amendment 90, would seriously interfere with that use by prohibiting said interstate commerce by individuals; and Whereas said bills may result in eventual elimination of firearms, thus denying our children and their progeny the right, should they so desire, to the enjoyment of that peaceful use now known to our members; and Whereas we are in favor of punishing the misuse of firearms, therefore Be it resolved that District Lodge 157, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is opposed to H-5384 and S-1 Amendment 90, and recommends legislation providing severe mandatory penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms in lieu thereof." DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CELLER: At a recent meeting of the Executive Board, Pistol Division, Connecticut State Rifle & Revolver Association, the following resolution was adopted: "THAT, the Pistol Division-CSR&RA unanimously recommends the disapproral of H.R. 5384, SR 1856 and S.1 and further that the Committee unanimously supports HR 360, by Robert Casey (22nd Dist.-Tex.) HR 542, by Ed Edmondson, (2nd Dist-Okla.) HR 1007 by John M. Murphy (16th Dist-N.Y.) H.R. 999 by John M. Murphy (16th Dist. N.Y.) and HR 2830 by Robert L. F. Sikes (1st DistFlorida). It is the opinion of the entire committee that the Firearms Acts of the 1930's can be amended to include a logical and workable Mail-order amendment. No new firearms laws are needed. Enforcement of the laws all ready written is needed. The Committee feels compelled to support the bills outlined above in light of the three they oppose in the previous paragraph. Sincerely, RICHARD G. BEAULIEU, Connecticut State Pistol Director. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, THE CAPITOL CITY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB, INC., Representative from New York, House of Representatives, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CELLER: Speaking four our entire membership of over one-hundred senior members, we wish to go on record as opposing H.R. 534, SR-1 and SR-1856. We also wish to go on record as recommending an enforceable amendment for the purchase of firearms through the mails, to the Federal Firearms Act of 1958 and the National Firearms Act of 1933. We are in agreement that no new firearms laws are needed. As Mark Twain once said, "If a person had a mind to do another 'in'—no law in the land will stop him." DEAR SIR: I write in reference to H.R. 5384 the House version of Amendment 90. We believe this piece of legislation to be restrictive and not in the best interest of the American Citizen. With the recent court rulings giving the criminal broad protective rights, we should be thinking in terms of easing the restrictions on acquiring firearms for the law abiding and responsible citizens who have the right to protect themselves and their property. A classic example of this is the city of Orlando Florida where the Police Dept. conducted classes in self-defense to more than 2400 Women of the city, where in the first six weeks following the beginning of the program there was only one attempted break in, while previous to this program there were a lot of breaking and entry, rape, prowlers and burglary. We feel the first step in reducing crime is to take off the kid gloves in handling the criminal. He has (as the court declares) his right to council, but he has No Right to a life or way of crime at the expense of the law abiding and responsible citizen, who you want to hamper and prohibit His Right to protect himself and property. We strongly urge all responsible citizens to use the power of their vote to secure public officials to uphold their rights and moral dignity, instead of coddling the criminal who crys in his beer after being caught in a life of crime at Our expense-We are Tired of this Nonesense. On behalf of the Honesdale Rifle & Pistol Club-I submit this letter to you, and request it be included in the official record of the hearings on H.R. 5384. Sincerely, HOWARD W. LORING. Secretary, Honesdale Rifle and Pistol Club. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, SCRANTON, PA., Chairman, Subcommittee No. 5, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: President Johnson's message to Congress on Febrary 6, 1967 proposed that Congress pass certain anti-gun legislation and licensing similar to the Sullivan law in New York. Senator Thomas J. Dodd has introduced bill S-1 in the Senate and Congressman Emanuel Celler has introduced bill HR 5384 in the House of Representatives. The Dodd-Celler bill mention above is known as the "State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967” and concerns itself with the sale, shipment, and use of firearms and ammunition. As a law-abiding citizen who loves good guns, who enjoys hunting, and who is concerned about the safety of himself and his family because of the criminal acts of others, I wish to state my views to you concerning this subject of guns, criminals, and law enforcement. I am very much against any kind of federal, state, or local gun legislation which infringes on the constitutional right of a law-abiding American citizen to purchase, own, transport, and use firearms for legitimate purposes. I oppose legislation such as the Sullivan law in New York State, and the relatively recent anti-gun law passed by the City of Philadelphia which does nothing to prevent a person who wishes to disregard the law from obtaining a firearm, but makes it either impossible or extremely frustrating for a person to purchase, own, and use a firearm for legitimate purposes. A gun by itself has never killed anyone. A gun is a perfectly harmless instrument unless it is used improperly. We all know that no matter what restrictive gun legislation may be enacted, if a criminal or potential criminal wishes to obtain a firearm with which to commit a criminal act, he will not hesitate to obtain one through any means, legal or illegal. Therefore, gun legislation directed at the purchase, ownership, transportation, or legal use of firearms hinders no one except the law-abiding citizen. If we take the position that guns are dangerous because some people are killed by their use, is it unreasonable for us to take the same position concerning ice picks, poison, automobiles, knives, or clubs. I don't feel that I am being ridiculous about this-the whole point being that it isn't the instrument that is used which in itself is dangerous, but the person using the instrument. It is my opinion, and I am sure that you know that it is the opinion of many others, that a tougher attitude on the part of parents, the courts, parole boards, and the public in general towards those who commit illegal acts will do considerably more towards the deterrent of crime than any sort of legislation that can be enacted which hampers and frustrates the purposes of law-abiding citizens. I refer you to a bill already introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Robert Casey of Texas known as HR 360 which provides mandatory prison terms for those who commit certain criminal acts while armed with a firearm. My only objection to this bill is that it doesn't go far enough in that the weapon should not be restricted to firearms. However, I am in favor of a bill such as this. I am also in favor of a bill regulating the interstate or foreign commerce in firearms in contravention to the law of the state in which the firearm is being sent. HR 2839 introduced by Congressman Robert Sykes of Florida is such a bill. In summation, I take exception to the preamble of the Dodd-Celler bill which states in effect that crime is so prevalent among juveniles in this country because of the easy availability of firearms. I respectfully submit that criminals or potential criminals, juvenile or otherwise, would be considerably more reluctant to commit a crime if they knew that their punishment would be sure, swift, and severe. As things stand in this country today, both you and I know that certain Supreme Court decisions, certain technicalities in present laws, and public apathy have tended to favor the position of the criminal, have tended to insubordinate the rights of the law-abiding citizen, and as a result the criminal or potential criminal feels that he can get away with criminal acts with either little or no punishment. This, in my opinion, is the crux of the crime situation in this country today. 77-540-67- -52 I am in favor of action, legislative or otherwise, which would subject people who commit crimes using any kind of a weapon to punishment which would be more sure and more severe than presently seems to be enforceable. I am opposed to HR 5384 or any similar legislation. Further, I request that my opinions as set forth in this letter be included in their entirety in the official record of the hearings on HR 5384. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. HOFFMAN. STATEMENT CONCERNING H.R. 5384 SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5, House Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Referring to H.R. 5384 and its narrow and discriminatory concern with firearms and their potential for being used as instruments of violence, the enormity of the problem of so-called lethal weapons and the fallacy of the proposed solution as set forth in the aforementioned bill was dramatically presented to me in the following manner. Recently, at my place of employement, a worker had need to borrow from a co-worker a draftsman's compass. Briefly, such a compass is an instrument normally used to draw circles or arcs around a fixed point and consists of two legs hinged together at one end. The two opposite free ends contain, respectively, a piece of pencil lead and a steel needle point. Upon returning the borrowed compass, the worker, in an impromptu and innocuous manner, referred to the instrument as a "lethal weapon." That very same evening, on a popular television program two ordinary household items, a pair of scissors and an electric iron, were depicted as being used as instruments of violence to do harm to human beings. The conclusion is obvious that objects are not, or do not become, lethal in their own right but require human activation to make them so. Therefore, many objects other than firearms can be used as weapons. Unfortunately, H.R. 5348 does not serve to effectively reduce the availability of weapons, generally, and therefore cannot be considered a valid, objective anti-crime measure. A more positive approach would be to increase the penalties for crimes wherein a firearm is used, thereby placing guilt upon the criminal, rather than requiring the legitimate buyer or merchant to continually prove his innocence through various restrictive administrative devices. In addition, it is suggested that the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act be strictly enforced. Respectfully, ROBERT NYE, PENNSYLVANIA GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, April 1, 1967. STATEMENT TO HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON HR 5384, CELLER BILL This Organization represents a cross-section of Pennsylvania gun-collectors. dealers, hunters, shooters, sportsmen and gunsmiths, many of whom are veterans of recent wars, and all of whom place a high value on their right to arms which is guaranteed to them by both State and Federal Constitutions. We feel that these rights are infringed by HR 5384. We disagree with the preamble to HR 5384 and, in particular the claim that easy availability of firearms is a factor in the increase of crime. Crime is caused by the criminal and is largely due to failure to enforce present adequate laws and laxity of the courts. We object to having our right to firearms decided by the police i.e., the vesting in any police department the right to approve or prohibit our ownership of firearms for legal purposes. This legislation is designed to make it difficult if not impossible for the law abiding citizen to enjoy ownership of firearms and could be a large step toward elimination of private ownership firearms. |