exempted under the act now in effect, would be blanketed in under S. 1592. I see no valid reason for dropping these exceptions from the operation of the law, if we start from a premise that there are legitimate uses and legitimate users of firearms.

My mail, Mr. Chairman, has reflected concern over the wide discretion allowed the Secretary of the Treasury in this measure. I will mention only two facets of this which particularly bother me. Section 3 (c) (2), which directs the Secretary to disapprove an application for a license if the applicant is not likely to maintain operations in compliance with the act "by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connection," seems to me to be such an unnecessarily broad grant of discretion to the Secretary as to preclude any reasonable hope of reversing the Secretary's decision, thereby vesting final authority in an executive officer contrary to our accepted philosophies and procedures. Such discretion reminds me of the words of Lewis Carroll, the eminent author of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland": "I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' said cunning old Fury, I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.""

Under the importation provisions of the bill, section 3(e) (3). allows the Secretary-I note that it does not direct him-to authorize importation of a firearm which "is of a type and quality generally recognized as particularly suitable for lawful sporting purposes and is not a surplus military weapon and that the importation or bringing in of the firearm would not be contrary to the public interest." I would simply point out to the committee that aside from the difficulty which will arise in interpreting this language, and thus again, a broad discretion vested in the Secretary, there are many types of surplus military weapons which may be suitable for lawful sporting purposes or which may be readily converted to sports weapons. The British Enfield would be a good example of such a weapon and, in fact, I believe all Mausers are highly regarded by sportsmen or at least their actions are and could fit the definition of "particularly suitable for lawful sporting purposes." In the category of handguns, the Luger would also fall into this class. Is there any real reason to put a blanket prohibition on importation of military weapons, or was this perhaps an emotional reaction to a specific incident?

Also, on the import provisions of the bill, I might mention that it appears from Director Margrave's statement that there is presently sufficient authority under the Mutual Security Act of 1954 to prohibit all importation of arms and ammunition, including those items called "destructive devices" in S. 1592. In view of this present anthority, I would urge the committee to explore the enforcement of present law, and whether this may be strengthened, rather than create new legislation in this field.

Mr. Chairman, I commenced my statement with a plea for objectivity. As a cosponsor of S. 14, I believe I have recognized that there is a problem and that the Federal Government has a legitimate contribution to make in the solution of that problem. I have stated before, however, that I believe S. 1592 is not the proper solution and that with all deference to the chairman, this bill is not well drawn.

Again, there is a problem, but the solution is not to be found in depriving legitimate users of firearms or their liberty to acquire and

use them with comparative readiness. I believe that S. 1592 would cut off the head to cure the headache and, while I, too, am concerned about the threat posed by guns in the hands of irresponsible elements, I would say to the committee, and to Senators, as Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DODD. Thank you, Senator.

I want to apologize to you-I have to leave for another matter that has come up, and Senator Burdick will preside. But I do want to make these comments on your statement.

First of all, I think you have a point about collectors. There has been discussion in these hearings about this part of the bill. I think

that has to be clarified.

I think, also, with respect to small arms ammunition sales in rural areas, your reference to the young lady in your office, which disturbed all of us, seems to me is not very pertinent here. She got her gun, as one should. She has a permit for it. Nothing in this bill would deprive her or anyone else from doing that.

Now, as to your problem

Senator ALLOTT. May I comment on that?

The Senator is completely correct as far as he goes. The context in which I used this was to illustrate the completely different philosophy and regard in which guns are held in the West and in the East. Senator DODD. I don't know as there is too much difference. Senator ALLOTT. I think there is.

Senator DODD. You westerners always say that.

The other point I want to make is your concern about carrying your gun. You have a gun, you want to travel across State lines. Well, right now it would be illegal-if you took your gun and went to New York, and it was a concealed weapon, you would be in trouble. Maybe you haven't done that. I would advise you not to. What would you suggest we do about that-repeal the law of New York?

Senator ALLOTT. I would be in trouble with New York whether it was concealed or not, as I understand the Sullivan law.

Senator DODD. I think you will find this is true in more than one State.

Now, do you suggest that we write a Federal statute which will repeal all these State laws?

Senator ALLOTT. I am certainly not going to advocate such a thing. I believe that the proper way to do this is through the States. I do think, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so-I think that we should proceed in this area. I feel very definitely that the first obligation of Government-the first, above all else is to protect its citizens from the deprivations of the lawless. In order to do this, it is necessary in the present day and age, at has always been in some part of our country at some time, to possess firearms.

But this bill would in effect, as I have pointed out, make the violation of any State law in the possession of firearms a Federal offense. Senator DODD. Yes.

Thank you, Senator.

The other point I think I should call your attention to is that having to do with the problem you posed on page 3 of your statement:

While I am engaged in my duties as a Senator in Washington, D.C., traveling in interstate commerce, if I decide to sell or dispose of my gun, presumably I cannot legally do it outside of Colorado.

After you so read your statement, I had a member of the staff get in touch with the Treasury Department, and they tell me this is not the law, and that you would not be barred from selling it here.

Senator ALLOTT. I don't know whether that is based upon the fact that I am not engaged in interstate commerce. But if you take the position that someone who is outside of the peculiar protection of the Constitution, as a Member of Congress is-it might be under the proposed law I think the statement I made would be true, as I read the proposed bill.

Senator DODD. I am sure they are not giving you an exception. As a matter of fact, I didn't know we had one.

Senator ALLOTT. We have the exemption from arrest, while going form our homes to sessions of the Senate or returning.

Senator DODD. I know that. But I never interpreted that to mean I could pack a gun in New York in violation of the local law.

Well, I thank you very much for your testimony, Senator. I have appreciated your support in S. 14. I am confident I can convince you get behind this one, too. It may take a little time.

to

Senator ALLOTT. It will take a long time.

Senator DODD. Senator Burdick will preside.

Senator BUBDICK. Senator Allott, I would like, also, to compliment you for taking time from your busy schedule to give us your views on this legislation.

As I understand, the sense of your testimony is, that we should start with S. 14, which would limit somewhat the acquisition of guns by minors, mental misfits, and habitual criminals.

Senator ALLOTT. That is correct.

Senator BURDICK. And another phase of your testimony that I was interested in is that it is your contention that there is already authority today to limit the importation of guns fom foreign lands.

Senator ALLOTT. Yes. I was very interested in the statement I referred to Mr. Margrave, Director of the Office of Munitions, stated in one place in his statement that they had prohibited "contrary to our policy to permit the importation of arms from Soviet bloc countries, since from a national security standpoint it is clearly undesirable to support by U.S. imports the arms manufacturing capabilities of Soviet bloc countries."

And then he goes on to say that they do not include as arms under the import control either shot guns or firearms.

Well, is it any worse to support the munitions industry of the Soviet bloc countries in certain areas, when they do not include shotguns or firearms using only .22 rim fire ammunition?

It seems to me to be a completely paradoxical position.

Senator BURDICK. I might also say that I am very familiar with the small town operation, the general merchandise store who sells a few odds and ends, a few boxes of .22 shells. And I quite agree with you that in my part of the country it would be quite a burden to many

small merchants to have to acquire a license at the fees established. I want to share my views with you on that one. Senator ALLOTT. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise one question which I think has not-it may have been raised in these hearings before. But I believe that there is a genuine, sincere constitutional question here which may have been raised by other witnesses.

Beginning on page 8 of the bill, and in subsequent sections, reading from subparagraph (c), it would be unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer "to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person other than a licensee, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is under indictment."

I think the previous law used the words "being under indictment for a crime of violence."

I understand that has been deleted and the present law does not have it.

But suppose-let me ask the question first: When has an indictment constituted a conviction for moral turpitude in the United States? Let me use a specific example.

If Mr. A gets into a quarrel with the Department of Internal Revenue, and it is alleged at least by some of my constituents that sometimes these people can get a little hard-nosed, and is unable to effect a settlement with the Department of Revenue, and that the Department of Revenue will not effect a settlement under the 6 percent interest provisions, nor under the 50 percent penalty provisions, and in addition to that decides it wants to prosecute, he surely is going to be indicted. Now, I cannot see how this affects a man's sense of responsibility, he can be acting in perfectly good faith as to his disclosures and his reports to the Department of Revenue-and I cannot understand upon what theory of law, constitutional or otherwise, this particular manand I could give you many other similar instances could be considered as being guilty of moral turpitude, so that he is not qualified to possess or purchase a firearm the same as any other person.

I do not know, and I have not had an opportunity to research it in the time that I have had, whether there have been any Supreme Court decisions upon this.

There might be some basis, if the original language of the law—an indictment for a crime relating to violence, or whatever the exact words were-were in it. But there are so many areas in the Federal law today, and in the State laws where a man might be indicted which are completely unrelated to his ability and his qualifications to purchase or own a firearm that I cannot help but believe that this particular section makes the bill unconstitutional.

Mr. PERIAN. I would merely like to point out, Senator, that that particular section that you refer to is not new. This has been in the law-this particular section-since 1961.

Senator ALLOTT. That is what I said.

Mr. PERIAN. At the top of page 5 of the bill I think there is an exclusionary clause to some degree, and that is the term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, shall not include any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair

trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses, relating to the regulation of business practices that the Secretary may by regulation designate." This terminology was developed by the committee in consultation over the last 4 years with many members of the firearms industry, including manufacturers.

I simply want to point to that.

Senator ALLOTT. Well, I personally am unwilling, and would be unwilling to relegate to the Secretary the authority to decide what crimes he would exempt from this. I am fully aware of this particular thing.

I would not say that of necessity a man who is involved in a quarrel with the Internal Revenue Department would come under the exemp tion or exclusion contained in subsection 13, on page 5. And the only other answer that you can make to it is that the Secretary is going to have to go through the thousands of State statutes, let alone how many hundreds and maybe thousands of Federal statutes, to decide which ones he is going to exclude out of this bill.

And this is not a small task in itself.

Senator BURDICK. Senator Allott, I don't believe there are any more questions. Again, I want to thank you for your appearance this morning.

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BURDICK. The next witness will be Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. KIMBALL. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, may I summarize my written statement, and submit it for the record as if read. Senator BURDICK. Your written statement will be received, and it may be summarized.

Mr. KIMBALL. I am sorry that Senator Dodd left, because our organization, the National Wildlife Federation, has supported S. 1975 as it was originally introduced, involving concealable weapons, disagreed with the Senator when it was broadened to include all firearms, including what we term the long gun-rifles and shotguns.

We had discussed with him in an informal way the various provisions of S. 14, prior to S. 1592, and agreed with him on a number of areas in that bill.

But, again, we disagreed with him on the proposition that the sporting arm, or the rifle and shotgun, be included in these regulations.

Now, specifically, as far as S. 1592 is concerned, as we understand it the primary purpose of this bill is to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act so as to reduce armed crime in this country, to help eliminate juvenile delinquency, and to impose strict controls on the sale and distribution of weapons commonly used in acts of violence.

Now, neither we nor any group of responsible citizens, I think, can disagree with such a worthy objective. The question, therefore, becomes not so much one of purpose, but revolves around possible achievement of those objectives. And we are convinced that the acceptance, the modification, or the rejection of this piece of legisla