Lapas attēli

have been accomplices to the mail-order sale of guns illegally purchased and shipped into our State.

In 1964 a survey was conducted by the State police to determine if purchase permits had been obtained by residents in New Jersey who had received mail-order guns from Seaport Traders, Inc., and Weapons, Inc., both California-based corporations.

It was discovered that of the 126 guns sold and shipped by mail by Seaport Traders, Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., permits were issued for the legal purchase of 63, no permits were issued for 56. Of the 28 handguns sold and shipped by Weapons, Inc., permits were issued for 22, no permits were issued for 5.

Of the 154 guns sold and mailed by these two outfits, 61 were sold and mailed without permits being issued. It was also ascertained that 26 persons with criminal records were among those who had purchased the 61 weapons from these 2 mail-order houses.

I trust that the testimony I have offered to the subcommittee has given some indication of the problem we face in New Jersey. This problem derives not only from the wanton and indiscriminate importation and resale of lethal weapons of all varieties which we cannot legally control with the legislation we now have, but also from the violation of the existing laws which cannot be prevented without Federal assistance. In this respect, I believe the subcommittee might consider making it illegal to sell all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, to out of staters, except as providing in the bill. I am sure any law-abiding honest sportsman will be able to purchase any rifle or shotgun he desires from a reputable firearms dealer.

Once again I must reiterate my inability to comprehend the totally unrealistic opposition to firearms legislation put forth by what we all recognize to be honest and law-abiding firearms users. I believe, for the most part, the individual gun buff is sincere, albeit misinformed, in his opposition. On the other hand, I believe some of the spokesmen for the powerful firearms organizations are not so sincere.

These people would be opposed to any legislation no matter what the legislation said. I am convinced, in fact, that were I to prepare a bill proposing the abolition of all firearms controls, but just announce publicly I was going to introduce "gun legislation," I would find a few hundred letters on my desk the next morning opposing it as a violation of the U.S. Constitution amongst various other sundry reasons.

Is it not insane to continue to allow dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics, subversives, juveniles, and those mentally or physically unequipped to use them? If something is to be done, is it not madness to expect the Federal Government to do it alone, or State and local governments to do it alone? Why shouldn't gun buffs join with us in our efforts to wipe out one of the most important contributing factors to the rising tide of crime and violence?

The N.R.A. says, in fact, they have no addicts, alcoholics, or criminals among their 600,000 members. If this is true, then they have absolutely no fear of legislation which will have them register their guns or legislation like S. 1592 which will make registration feasible and effective.

Incidentally, I am aware that the mail the subcommittee has received from gun buffs is heavy. Comparatively, my own mail has also been heavy. After being called to appear here today, I thought it might be worthwhile to have a check made to see if any of these people had criminal records. I believe you will find the results interesting.

A check was made on approximately 335 letters received by me Evidence disclosed records of arrests for approximately 25 of these letterwriters for such offenses as: Shoplifting, possession of lottery slips, highway robbery, assault and battery, hijacking deer, passing bad checks, manslaughter, carrying a concealed weapon, breaking and entering, larceny, abandonment, lewdness, child neglect, impairing the morals of minors, possession of stolen property, and the like.

In addition to these 25 positive identifications, there were 64 other names indicating possible arrest records which we cannot identify positively without further investigation because of variations in the letterwriter's identity with that of the arrestee, with respect to discrepancies in spelling and addresses.

By way of conclusion, may I ask how many more children will be murdered by deranged parents using a mail-order or illegally possessed weapon? How many more policemen will be murdered by ex-convicts who are legally able to purchase a firearm with no questions asked? How many more private armies will spring up and arm them. selves in preparation for their self-proclaimed “days of liberation"?!

How many more people will be killed in their homes, their cars, or a crowded place by a sniper's bullet from a high-powered foreignmade rifle?

In fact, how many more Presidents must we lose before we come to our senses? No one knows the answer to these questions. And, like the light

, house off a rocky shore, we will never know how many lives will be saved by S. 1592 or stricter local legislation. My guess is that many will be saved. For that matter, if only one son or daughter or mother or father or President is saved, all our efforts will be worth it.

As I cannot forget that tragic day in Dallas, so also can I not forget that sorrowful plea from the mother who lost her 9-year-old son. Using her own words once again, I say to you:

Please, please know that most people feel as you do we will give you any support you require.

Thank you, sir.

Senator Dodd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Attorney General. That is a very interesting statement, and very well documented. Factually, you certainly have a lot of first-class information that you put in the record in the form of a statement, which I am sure will help us a great deal.

Do you have some questions, Mr. Perian?
Mr. PERIAN. No, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Dodd. One question I do want to ask you. Have you triedI assume you have—have you tried to work out any cooperative arrangement with the police of Maryland and other neighboring States!

Mr. SiLLs. I am informed by Captain Pasch that there is a working alliance with the Maryland authorities now. We are now informed by Maryland whenever an address is given of a person in New Jersey.

Senator Dopp. Of course that won't really cure the situation.

Mr. Sills. No. It is helpful, and it may assist in certain instances where people are frankly not aware of what they can or cannot do, and figure this is an easy way to purchase a gun, and so they do it.

Senator DODD. Yes.
Well, I thank you for your time and trouble, your patience, as well.
Mr. ŚILLS. I would like to say one thing.

I have heard the Congressman here this morning talk about the misinformed editorials, and calling this legislation antiweapon legislation. And I have heard many of the people in the gun clubs refer to legislation as antigun. I think I would like to point out that it is not antigun. It is anti the type of people who should not have guns. I don't know why it is always said that sportsmen will be unable to secure guns, rifles or shotguns. If they do not fall into one of the unfit categories, there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun from a legitimate source. And there is merely a slight inconvenience involved on the question of having it shipped from a dealer to a dealer. But that at least gives you the control which is so necessary at the local level. Without that, local legislation would not mean much at all.

Senator Dopp. That is a very good point. I am glad you made it. It needs to be restated all the time, I guess.

A lot of people apparently are of the opinion that if this bill is passed, they will not be allowed to hunt, belong to gun clubs, or go from one State to another for sport and hunting purposes.

There is no such restriction in the bill.

But, nevertheless, it has been an effective propaganda instrument against the legislation. Thank you very much. Mr. SiLLs. Thank you, Senator. Senator Dodd. Dr. E. C. Hadley? Dr. Hadley, you are the President of SAAMI. Mr. HADLEY. That is correct.

Senator Dodd. You have been active in the firearms industry for many years. You were technical director for Remington ArmsI guess you retired from that position. You were the technical director for Remington Arms.

We are glad you are here, and look forward to hearing your testimony.



Mr. HADLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Robert C. Barnard, who is counsel for the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute.

Senator Dopp. I am glad to have you. Mr. BARNARD. Thank you, Senator. Mr. HADLEY. Reading from my memorandum, my name is E. C. Hadley, and I am president of the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI). I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on behalf of SAAMI with respect to the firearms legislation presently pending before this subcommittee.

I have worked in the firearms industry most of my life and was technical director of Remington Arms Co. for many years until my retirement in 1948. I have served as president of SAAMI for the past 12 years.

The Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute is a trade association which represents most of the major sporting arms, ammunition, and powder manufacturers in the United States. Throughout its history SAAMI and its member companies hare played an active role in promoting the safe use of sporting arms and in furthering conservation of our natural resources. The member companies have a long record of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to the administration of justice and the national defense

We are concerned with the problems caused society by criminals and other irresponsible persons who use firearms for improper and often illegal purposes. We are also concerned with the misuse of firearms because of the threat it poses to the rights of the millions of law-abid. ing gun owners who each year enjoy and benefit from the healthful outdoor recreation which hunting and shooting provide.

The sporting arms industry has traditionally favored measures de signed to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible elements. However, we believe that the legitimate use of these products by the many millions of law-abiding gun owners, hunters, and shooters need not be unduly restricted in the process. In this regard, we believe that as a first step punishments for the criminal misuse of firearms should be stricter. We favor legislation, comparable to that introduced in California, Texas, and other States, providing stiff mandatory sentences for persons who use firearms in the commission of crimes. For each additional such offense, the mandatory sentence should become progressively greater.

We recognize, however, that stiff penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms are not enough. As this subcommittee has effectively demonstrated, this country has in recent years been flooded with millions of cheap surplus military firearms and other weapons which have been widely distributed. The ready availability of such weapons, especially pistols and revolvers, by mail order has invited their purchase by juveniles and other persons who, under the laws of most States, would not otherwise have been able to obtain guns.

In order to prevent the evasion of State and local firearms control laws, a case has been made for measures which would prevent the interstate shipment of concealable firearms to persons who are not permitted by State or local laws to purchase or possess them.

Since 1961, we have cooperated with this subcommittee in seeking to formulate legislation along these lines. Indeed, both before and after the original hearings in 1963, we met with members of the subcommittee staff and representatives of the Treasury Department, NRA, and other representatives of the firearms industry and sportsmen's groups to review the various proposals suggested to remedy the protlems disclosed during the course of the subcommittee's investigation. Out of these meetings and the formal hearings came a bill which was subsequently introduced by the chairman as S. 1975 in the 88th Congress. This bill, as introduced, was designed to assist State and local

officials in crime prevention by prohibiting the mail-order sale of concealable weapons to persons not entitled to purchase or possess them under State and local laws applicable at the place of delivery.

The principles set forth in S. 1975, as originally introduced, and before later amendments with which we did not agree, had and continue to have, the full support of our organization.

The sporting arms industry is in general agreement with the broad objectives stated in the President's March 8 message to the Congress on crime prevention. The President stated that his purpose was to suggest legislation to aid the States in crime prevention. We believe this

to be a proper standard, for it is the States which must carry the burden of crime prevention and which must at the same time seek to protect the legitimate interests of their citizens in the sporting use of guns.

SURPLUS MILITARY WEAPONS One of the most significant proposals recommended by the President is a ban on imports of surplus military firearms and other weapons not suitable for sporting purposes. The need for gun control legislation has been generated in large part by just such imports. As early as 1958, the sporting arms industry sought to obtain a ban or restriction on these imports on trade and national defense grounds. We wish to make it clear that we did not then and do not now oppose the importation of quality sporting firearms of new manufacture. In dealing with this matter, we believe it should be pointed out, as we are sure the subcommittee is aware, that there are already large warehouse stocks of surplus military weapons in this country which represent many years? supply at the present rate of sales. These would not be affected by the import ban in S. 1592 as presently drafted.


S. 1591

We also endorse the principles of S. 1591 which would bring under Federal control the interstate shipment and disposition of large-caliber weapons such as bazookas, antitank guns, and destructive devices such as grenades, bombs, missiles, and rockets. Several months ago we indicated our support for such a proposal to the chairman of this subcommittee.

S. 1592

I would like to comment more particularly on S. 1592. There are several features of this legislation which we believe impose restrictions that go beyond any demonstrated need for purposes of crime prevention.

AMMUNITION We believe the inclusion of ammunition in S. 1592 is unnecessary, will hurt many small businessmen, and will work a handicap on sportsmen. The bill seeks to regulate sales of ammunition (other than shotgun ammunition) by requiring ammunition dealers to pay a $100 license fee. The Treasury Department has, in the past, gone on record with this subcommittee and others as having "no objection to removing ammunition from the coverage of the act.” They have pointed

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »