Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

had by any person who had been convicted of a felony. One of your major firearms manufacturers in your district was denied the right to engage in the sale of firearms through an unfortunate act of an employee of theirs.

Now, this is the kind of thing that I think is very unwise and they proposed to push through a piece of legislation during the last Congress which said that only persons who were involved in defense contracting could be exempted from the penalties of what I regarded as a very unfair and very unwise piece of legislation. So I forced the delay in the consideration, and we worked out this compromise.

I think I have proven that I am responsible. I have supported legislation

Senator DODD. I am not suggesting you are irresponsible.

Mr. DINGELL. What I am saying is: I say that the Department of Justice on this matter has a preconceived point of view, they are going to go to any end to accomplish their means. I remember a few years ago they sought the power of making regulations on the transportation of gambling devices in interstate commerce.

Well, I would be willing to wager there are numbers of Members of Congress who have carried a deck of cards or a parchessi board in their baggage, to play cribbage or poker with their friends. I remember a number of past Presidents of the United States who have enjoyed the game of poker. Any one of them could be subject to criminal prosecution under a regulation passed by some man not elected by the people, simply for carrying a deck of cards across a State line. I have observed on many occasions where officials of the Treasury Department have sought to impose more and more and more restrictive regulations upon the citizens of this country, and the purchase and the sale and the use and enjoyment of firearms, and, frankly, I think it is time we put a stop to it.

Senator DODD. I have one message I think I should give to you. While you were testifying, I had a call put through to Dr. Wolfgang. He wants to be on record as supporting the strongest possible Federal legislation restricting the use and distribution of firearms. He said that he actively supported such legislation on the local level in Philadelphia.

Mr. DINGELL. Well, it occurs to me that Mr. Wolfgang is busily testifying one way with regard to fact and another with regard to legislation. I don't want to be in a position of impeaching my own witness, but I am not particularly impressed by it, Senator.

Senator DoDD. OK.

Thank you very much, Congressman.
Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Senator.
Senator DODD. Congressman Saylor?

I am happy to greet you as a friend and a colleague.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SAYLOR, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 22D DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. SAYLOR. Senator Dodd, I appreciate the opportunity to come here and say a few words with regard to the legislation that you are considering.

Senator DODD. Well, I am glad you are here. I welcome you. You and I have known each other a long time.

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes, sir; we have known each other for a good many years. And I can recall on occasions when we were visiting with our respective families in the national parks and had a very enjoyable time.

Senator DODD. I do, too. Anyway, I am glad you are here.

Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Senator.

You know, during the past weekend, Memorial Day weekend, I had an occasion to read a small sign which seems very appropriate for this day and age. That sign was as follows: "Do It Today-Tomorrow There May Be a Law Against It."

I thought it was very appropriate that I saw that before coming over here to this committee.

I checked on the number of deaths over the Memorial Day weekend. I find out that the American Automobile Association says that there were 490 people killed on our highways and in accidents over this weekend. In the four or five holidays during last year, 1963, over Memorial Day we had 525 killed, over July we had 556 killed, over Labor Day, we had 561 killed, on Christmas we had 226 killed, and on New Years Day 193.

Rather remarkable that the figures indicate that the total deaths from the use of firearms in that same year and by the use of firearms they also include deaths from explosions, were approximately 1,100 people died in home accidents from firearms, and this includes suicides, and there were a thousand, approximately, lost their lives in public accidents.

Senator, this bill that you are considering is causing a great deal of concern, not just among the police officers of this country, who are very interested in this piece of legislation, but it is causing a great deal of concern among the rank-and-file citizenry. And in our local paper that came to my office just yesterday, an article appeared which contains an extract from the Reverend Ralph E. Baker, whose residence is 176 Jackson Street, in Conemaugh, who makes some query about this bill. And he concludes his letter as follows:

It seems that our constitutional rights as free citizens are being infringed upon more and more every day. Politicians pass a law, and what was formerly right becomes wrong and punishable as a crime. Law-abiding citizens are sewed up a little tighter in the legal straitjacket, and the unlawful have a little freer hand because they don't recognize the law anyway.

Now, Senator, yesterday the Chief of Police of Washington appeared, and it is very evident he doesn't need this law, because he already told you that he has the Railway Express Co. under complete control. And I would like to give you my own personal experience, because under your law I would have not only had to get permits, but I think I would probably have been classified now as a criminal.

I have owned a Remington .58 shotgun for a good many years. I have used it in a number of States in hunting. I have used it to shoot clay pigeons in a good many States. And it has served me very well. But during the last hunting season, in one of the neighboring States, the gun seemed to not function as properly as I thought it should. So after the hunting season was over I had it packed up and delivered to the Railway Express Co. for shipment to Remington Arms. A short time thereafter I received a note from Remington Arms that they had completed the repairs to my gun, and had returned it by the Railway Express.

I received a notice from downtown, the Railway Express, that they had my gun, and if I could come down and fill in the forms required by the local Police Department that they would, upon proper identification and proper signatures, return my gun to me.

Now, I am very frank to tell you, Senator, I thought this was somebody trying to be rather facetious. I didn't do anything about it for about 2 weeks, when I received a notice from Remington Arms that they had been notified by the Railway Express that I had not picked up my gun.

I haven't looked at the lawbook since I came to Congress, as a lawyer-but I went over to the Library of Congress and made a careful examination of the statutes under which the local chief of police and the Railway Express had any right to retain my property. I checked with the corporation counsel and to my surprise found that he agreed with my research that there was absolutely nothing which would justify the police department with issuing the rules and regulations that they did. And so I wrote a letter to the Railway Express Co. telling them that unless they forthwith returned my gun, that I had but one recourse, and that was to bring suit in the Federal court for the return of my own property-bought legally, used legally, and still lawfully.

Now, in all probability it was because I was a Member of Congress that I received my gun. But when the Railway Express man came up to deliver it to me, believe it or not, he still had with him the forms which the police department of the city of Washington wanted me to fill in.

Now, if they can do that under the present rules and regulations. what will happen to the average American citizen if this bill passes is beyond human conception.

In the first place, I am sure that the use of guns among our small people and sportsmen will come to an almost-will come to a halt.

Now, somebody wanted to know whether or not there is any connection between the use of a gun at an early age and whether or not the young men who are being taken into our service are fit for military combat duty.

Well, I called the Department of the Army, and, lo and behold, I received from the Department of the Army, Technical Research Report, PRB 1110, "Development of Combat Attitude Areas."

Technical Research Report 1112, "Identifying Fighters for Combat." Both of these reports, after extensive search and research by the Department of Defense clearly indicate that the young men who have been reared in communities where we have become accustomed to handling a gun at an early age make by far the better combat soldiers.

If this bill is passed, I am afraid that we will end up with a very definite lack of young men fit for combat service or taking a great deal more training.

Now, Senator, I am worried about another facet of this bill, and it should concern not only every Member of the U.S. Congress-it should concern every citizen in the United States, because it is completely contrary to our theory of law.

Under section after section in this bill, all you have to be is indicted. You don't have to be convicted. And, lo and behold you, it becomes an unlawful act.

Now, I am sure that there are Members serving in the U.S. Congress, if this bill is passed, who won't be able to meet the requirements. And I am sure that it was not the intention of Senator Dodd or anyone else in the administration to contravene the sections of law which presume you innocent until you are proven guilty.

But if this bill is passed, anybody who is indicted has a stigma connected with him-they will not only not be allowed to ship arms, but they won't be allowed to buy or use them. This, I think, is a bad thing. I hope, therefore, that it will not pass.

I was rather concerned, Senator

Senator DODD. I think you may have a good point on that language.

I assure you we will take a careful look at it.

Mr. SAYLOR. You know, in your speech that you made on the floor of the Senate on March 22, when you introduced this bill, which you said you introduced in behalf of the administration, that the legislation called for controls more comprehensive and stringent than even you had dared hoped for. Then you went on to say that:

The blind and almost mindless efforts of the segment of the gun enthusiasts, with their shabby timeworn slogans, have been to date successful in defeating

Your efforts. You said

Federal control over the interstate control of weapons is robbed of half its effectiveness if there is no control over who may obtain weapons at the local gunshop. This should be obvious to all but the simple minded and the incorrigibly wrongheaded.

Well, Senator, I happen to be one of those apparently that you were talking about, because I sincerely believe that while there should be some legislation with regard to people who are proven mentally incompetent, known criminals, this bill far exceeds any of those requirements. And, for that reason, I hope that this legislation that you are which you are holding hearings on-will not become law, but that some of the other bills which will place some reasonable regulations or restrictions might be enacted.

Senator DODD. Thank you very much.

Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you.

Senator DODD. You made an observation about that language "indictment." I am told, and I am sure it is accurate, that this is the language in the present statute, the Federal Firearms Act. It says a person "under indictment or has been convicted."

I am inclined to agree with you on the use of the word "indictment." I would be inclined to think it should be deleted.

But I guess it got into this draft, this bill, because it was taken from the Federal Firearms Act.

Well, you are a very interesting witness, I must say.

Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Senator.

Senator DODD. Thank you very much.

Attorney General Sills, of New Jersey.

You have been very patient. I am grateful to you. I understand you are accompanied by Capt. Frank Pasch, supervisor of the Bureau of Identification of the New Jersey State Police.

Mr. SILLS. Yes, Senator.

Senator DODD. We welcome you and are anxious to hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. SILLS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE HOUSE, TRENTON, N.J.; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. FRANK J. PASCH, SUPERVISOR, BUREAU OF IDENTIFICATION, NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE, TRENTON, N.J.

Mr. SILLS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to come before you today, in my capacity as attorney general of the State of New Jersey, to offer testimony in support of S. 1592, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act.

.

My support of this legislation is not prompted by a mere whimsical desire to see the responsibility for firearms control thrust upon the shoulders of Federal law enforcement authorities. Rather, I view S. 1592 as a measure which must be adopted if the firearms legislation which I would like to see adopted in New Jersey is to have any meaningful effect. And I am sure that the members of the subcommittee are equally cognizant of the fact that Federal legislation will constitute no more than a token response to the firearms problem if State and local authorities abdicate their responsibility to take effective action in an area where the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is recognized to be limited. President Johnson made this quite clear in his March 8 message on law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice.

I share a common understanding and sympathy with the advocates of this bill, Mr. Chairman, for I, too, have been labeled "fair game" by a vocal and powerful minority group which has declared “open season" on all who admit to the commonsense urgency of firearms control.

I would like to insert here, Mr. Chairman, not so very long ago I was invited by a member of the NRA to appear at their national banquet here in Washington, and my response was, "As a guest or a target."

While we may be maligned, I maintain, however, that the greater danger is that the American people may become the unfortunate victim of the outlandish campaign against this legislation which seems to thrive on misinformation and ignorance.

I believe that most Americans favor measures designed to remedy the misuse of firearms. I also believe that had any of us been able to channel the emotions of the American people shortly after the tragedy of November 22, 1963, we might very well have gun controls today. Yet, here we are some year and a half later, considering this vital proposition in an atmosphere of reason and decorum. This fact notwithstanding, opponents still prefer to accuse proponents of playing on hysteria.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »