STATEMENT OF E. H. HILLIARD, JR., MANAGING PARTNER, REDFIELD GUN SIGHT CO., DENVER, COLO.

Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, my name is E. H. Hilliard, Jr., managing partner of Redfield Gun Sight Co., Denver, Colo. We are a small company, but have attempted during our 50 some odd years of existence to be a thoroughly reputable manufacturer of high quality rifle sighting devices. With an open mind, I have followed and have been enlightened by the hearings and reports of your subcommittee over the last few years, and many points have been clarified by them.

This is a complex subject, where I find the more thought that is focused on it, the more avenues are explored.

The subcommittee has done society a fine service in showing the causal relationship between the easy interstate availability of firearms (facilitating circumvention of local law) to criminals or juveniles and criminal behavior, aiding the latter group in what I would term the conversion from juvenile to criminal. They get the balance of their aid and needed know-how largely from TV; I thoroughly support legislation that would make this conversion less easy, and I think the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, firearms owners and otherwise, are willing to bear with some inconvenience to help correct it. But I think S. 1592, as now written, goes far, far beyond what is necessary.

Before getting into the detail of the bill, I would like to suggest that we as citizens need a redefining from the subcommittee of the purpose of the legislation under discussion. Phrases like "easy access to firearms" have been used by various witnesses and members of the subcommittee. If denial of access means denial of illegal access and acquisition (such as mail-order shipments in circumvention of local law), then I am thoroughly in approval of legislation clearly defined to do that. But if denial of access to firearms by their lawful owners and users has become the purpose, then I must respectfully but vociferously protest that the subject of these hearings has suddenly broadened. It is not a legitimate prerogative of the Federal Government in my opinion, to protect the lawful citizen from his own legally owned firearms. I say this simply because if the Federal Government is going to undertake such protection, by denying "access to firearms," then we are clearly discussing what must lead to removal of firearms from the public.

Here's why I'm wondering if the purpose has been broadened. Senator Dodd's opening statement dated May 19, 1965, the initial day of hearings on S. 1592, defines the bill as a

*

proposal by President Johnson to regulate the sale of firearms in interstate commerce ** part of the President's legislative package *** to bring under control the explosive crime problem in this country.

Yet three paragraphs below, Senator Dodd's sentence:

During these hearings, the committee intends to determine the total scope of the firearms problem in this country. ***

And I think you went on to say the criminal and interstate aspects— indicates to me the Senator may be considering aspects beyond crime and interstate commerce, and possibly the realm of protecting all citizens, even from themselves in their rare moment of irresponsibility.

I simply respectfully ask for a forthright clarification as to the purpose and objective of S. 1592.

If the purpose is to go beyond the easy accessibility of firearms to juveniles and criminals by interstate purchase in circumvention of local law, I cannot point to where it says so in the bill. Yet I feel such going beyond is provided for in the bill under the extremely broad delegation of regulatory, perhaps even legislative power, to the Secre tary of the Treasury. I feel it is essential that our vast majority of law-abiding citizens not be disarmed, and that no tool be delivered to governmental authority, at any level, that could lead to a future disarming of the population. If that registration has historically been a predecessor to civilian disarmament, I think the ownership of unregistered firearms is a most important evidence of freedom for our society to retain. I would like to add that Attorney General Katzenbach on May 19, 1965, told me there was nothing in the intent behind this bill to enable the Federal Government to require or accomplish registration, and that he would be willing to put in the record a letter to that effect. I wrote him a followup asking him to do so, but have not seen any letter which he may have written to the subcommittee in the last few days.

In addition to unregistered firearms ownership as an important evidence of a free society, I find it quite significant that the Secretary of the Army Aile's testimony on May 19, 1965, did not say anything to the effect, that he could never foresee the need or use of an armed citizenry. but simply said more narrowly to the effect that he knows of no plan of defense involving the use of civilians. It's only realistic and logical that the same technology producing pushbutton warfare produces an incredible ability for an enemy to move foot soldiers onto our soil. such as Britain faced in 1940 on a much smaller scale.

Mr. Chairman, I am, in the interest of time, omitting comments on many details of S. 1592 because they have been adequately mentioned by others, but I would like to suggest these changes:

In section 1: Definitions, some wording about parts and subassemblies should be included, I would think, to make the law effective. Senator DODD. I don't want to bother you now, but if you would submit that in written form, I am sure we would all be interested.

Mr. HILLIARD. It says in subsection 3 the term "firearm means any weapon-which will or is designed to or readily convertible to expel a projectile." If a group of parts, when put together, would be covered by the language, readily convertible to, then I think it is already covered. But I just wondered whether the words parts and subasseniblies might not make that clearer.

Senator DODD. It might be a good thing. We will certainly take a look at that.

Mr. HILLIARD. In section 1, subsection 4, I feel the bore should be "approximately three-fourths." Subsection 8 I think might better read "Manufacturer' means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for sale or distribution," so as to clearly exclude from the term "manufacturer" the gun club or hobby reloader.

I am aware that the present act has the wording "in the business of “ under the definition of "dealer," but does not under "manufacturer."

But I think we would be allaying a number of fears if we put that in "the business of" in this.

In subsection 9, I feel a dealer in ammunition only should be excluded. This is because it is legitimate and necessary that the corner groceries and filling stations in hunting areas be able to sell ammunition (and not just shotgun ammunition); and classifying them as a "dealer" will make uneconomic this convenience to the hunting public. Senator DODD. We have been troubled about that particular aspect of it. It may very well need some amendment.

Mr. HILLIARD. Similarly, in subsection 15 the words "or rifle" at the end of the definition should be excluded.

This would be consistent with my wish to exclude sporting rifle ammunition.

My later discussion about the lack of effectiveness of Administrative Procedure Act gives the reasons why I object strenuously to the loose and undefined phraseology like "under such conditions the Secretary may (or shall) by regulation prescribe," every place it appears in the bill.

Senator DODD. You know, that language is not original in this bill by any means. This is exactly the language under which the Secretary has established regulations under the Federal Firearms Act.

Mr. HILLIARD. I am aware of that, Senator. But as a problem becomes more, let's say, sensitive, the need for curing it becomes more apparent, and people's spheres become closer to the surface. I cannot help but think we might improve on the old Firearms Act while we are doing this by defining more clearly what we really mean, and I come back to further reasoning.

Senator DODD. Have you had any bad experience with the Secretary of the Treasury-I don't mean on this one-I mean any Secretary, under the Federal Firearms Act?

Mr. HILLIARD. I think I read in the preamble of your subcommittee report No. 1340 of last August that because the act was so ineffective, there had never been a conviction under it, and if it is otherwise so ineffective, I cannot help but think that he has not had a lot of encouragement to issue regulations, and therefore this phraseology has not really been tested.

Senator DODD. I know there have been convictions. That is how the cases got to the Supreme Court. We must have been speaking about one section of the act.

Mr. HILLIARD. My basic point is that as the problem becomes more intense, I think many of us would feel much more comfortable if this phraseology was clearly defined and limited.

Section 2(A) makes it unlawful for any person to transport, ship, or receive a firearm in interstate commerce, with four stated exceptions. The first of these is that an individual can transport a shotgun or rifle if such transportation is for a lawful purpose. Is it correct that such transporting would include his transporting it as checked personal baggage, without any question about the carrier's obligation to deliver it to him at destination? "*** Having such rifle or shotgun transported for him under such conditions as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe" is another matter. It's very common for people to ship their gear, including guns, ahead for a hunting trip.

This language certainly requires the Secretary to make some kind of regulation on the subject. But we are in the dark, and I believe that the committee may be in the dark, as to what his regulation might say. Let us suppose I live in Denver and decide to go hunting in Pennsylvania.

All these other examples are about someone who lives in Alaska and wants to go across some area and there are only 88 people there. I am trying to get this right down to a good populated eastern State where hunting is also important.

The regulation might require me to fill out a form at the Treasury's alcohol and tobacco tax office in Denver, stating that the transportation is for a lawful purpose, and so forth, and after paying (probably) a fee, I would be issued a permit. This would consume some annoying hours, but it's not impossible. If we suppose, however, that I live in a rural area, far from an alcohol and tobacco tax office, the procedure becomes much tougher. I presumably might have to write for an application form, send it back, and then await receipt of the permit. One does not always know far in advance he is going to be able to squeeze in some hunting in the course of a trip. The result is that I would be, as a practical matter, prohibited from being able to legally take my own hunting rifle or shotgun without the prior permit. Is there any legitimate governmental purpose in this sort of prohibition? That clearly is possible and likely, in my opinion, under the broad discretion in the S. 1592 language.

Section 2(B) makes it unlawful to sell firearms to any person who is under 21, or, in the case of a rifle or shotgun, under 18. I think there is a great deal of merit in this part of the statute. I would only point out that the words "whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe" which are scattered throughout the bill elsewhere do not apply to this subsection. Thus the seller would apparently be guilty of a felony if he sells to an individual who is under 21, even though the seller after reasonable investigation has every reason to believe the individual is over that age. Shouldn't this section be limited by the "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" test?

Senator DODD. I take it you would prefer-I am not sure I get your point here. What language would you suggest?

Mr. HILLIARD. In subsection 2(B), where it is talking about what is unlawful for a bureau to do this simply says it is unlawful for him

Senator DODD. You want to change it to "knows or has reasonable cause to believe"?

Mr. HILLIARD. Yes. In the draft I have, at the bottom of page 7. paragraph B, 5(B) (2), "Who, in the case of an individual, is under 21 years of age, except for a rifle or shotgun, and under 18 years of age in the case of a shotgun or rifle"-that it should not be unlawful per se, but it should be limited by the reasonable cause to believe, which we do have, for example, in the residency provision. I think you have something about reasonable cause to believe that he is not a resident of the State-such as looking at his driver's license.

Senator DODD. That might be another change that should be made. Mr. HILLIARD. I question the workability of section 2(F) which requires someone shipping firearms to advise the carrier that the package contains a firearm, because marking is an open invitation to theft.

Firearms are more tempting to steal than perhaps any other kind of merchandise, with the possible exception of jewelry, and they are certainly more likely to be misused by a thief than by the legal consignee. Section 2(I) makes it unlawful to deal in a stolen firearm. This provision should be of great help in enforcement of criminal law. I only suggest that it be redrawn to read "firearms stolen on the 25-year period preceding the transaction." If a collector should happen to purchase a gun known to have been used by say Jesse James, should he become a felon simply because Jesse James stole the weapon 80 years ago?

Perhaps some limitation to help collectors would be appropriate. Section 3 (A) prohibits persons engaging in the business as a firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer unless he has the necessary licenses. Would some clarification of the word "dealer" be desirable, meaning, I presume, that the person is in business as a dealer, on a continuing basis and for the purpose of making a profit. This really gets into possibly defining what we mean by "in the business of." If the phrase is going to be used, perhaps it should be defined as something to the effect of continuing and for the purpose of profit.

I would hope the hobby handloader, for example, is not in the business if he happens to load for a few friends. Likewise I would hope I was not in the business of importing if I purchased a fine rifle while on a trip in Europe.

I feel the dealer fees are unnecessarily high. Only last August (in the Committee's Interim Report No. 1340) a dealer fee of $10 was recommended.

As an addition, if I may, I wonder about the inclusion of gunsmiths per se as dealers. If there were a lot of little gunsmiths who perform a necessary service to sportsmen and gun owners generally, and they do not sell any arms or ammunition. A hundred dollars is extremely stiff for them. In other words, perhaps a different category for the gunsmith who does not deal in arms or ammunition would be priate.

Senator DODD. It might very well be so.

appro

Mr. HILLIARD. Section 3(E) contains an absolute prohibition on the importation of "any firearms" into the United States except as the Secretary "may" authorize the importation in limited cases. Apparently because of the word "may," the Secretary need not ever authorize the importation of any firearms. The language only permits him to do so. Surely this goes far beyond any legitimate governmental purposes. The section could permit the Secretary to put all legitimate arms importers out of business. It seems to me it just is not necessary to place this total power in the hands of the Treasury. I personally feel also that the legitimate importer of any rifle, shotgun, or handgun that is structurally safe to use should not be barred from such importation, even though some of such items are surplus military. I would think the committee's counsel can draw language with more precision-than the present language which could effect a complete embargo which also would give power to the Secretary to deny licensing the importation of any category of firearm where he can show reasonable evidence that a substantial portion of previous importations of similar firearms have been marketed to juveniles or criminals. It seems to me this is what we're really trying to do.

49-588-6523