tration laws also forbid certain persons to have a gun at all (felons, addicts. habitual drunks, etc.), and registration affords the police a means of checking compliance with those prohibitions. A registration law normally would impose a lesser burden of investigation on the police than a licensing law, since registration would not forbid possession as broadly. At present writing, the main probable elements of a District gun bill are: 1. The proposal is likely to be a registration bill rather than a licensing bill like the Sullivan law. A registration bill would keep within manageable limits the investigative duties which would be imposed on the police. In addition. such a bill should be easier to enact than a very stringent licensing law which broadly forbids ownership of guns. 2. The bill is likely to be limited to pistols rather than include rifles and shotguns, since statistics and daily experience show that the public danger is largely identified with pistols. Here, too, such a limitation would be intended to yield the maximum benefit and reduce the opposition. 3. New categories of persons will probably be prohibited from having pistols. such as persons convicted of misdemeanors involving the use of pistols; persons under 18 years of age; frequent offenders for drunken driving or habitual intoxication, and persons found to have mental or personality disorders. 4. Criminal penalties would be provided for nonregistration of pistols and for failure to notify the police of transfers, thefts, or losses of pistols. 5. Stiffer penalties would be provided for carrying a pistol on the person (except at home or place of business). 6. Registration fees would be nominal, to avoid any substantial expense to bona fide collectors. 7. Sellers of pistols (now required to supply the police with data identifying buyers and the guns sold before making delivery) would have to give more notice in order to allow the police more time to check criminal records. 8. Mail order shippers of pistols into the District would be required to get police clearance of the consignee in a manner analogous to 7 above. A bill containing these main elements would be relatively easy to administer and ought to be politically feasible. It would not stop all crimes committed with pistols but it should reduce the number of guns in the hands of the irresponsible, the criminal and the mentally unfit and should provide helpful data in tracing guns which have been used in crimes. In the Federal administration, in the District and in Congress, the conviction is growing that the District is not the Tombstone, Ariz., of recent romantie memory and that it deserves gun laws befitting the Capital of a great and responsible world power. The 89th Congress has the most promising opportunity in many years to make this aspiration a reality. We will recess this hearing at this time until Monday at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene Monday, June 7, 1965, at 10 a.m.) FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1965 U.S. SENATE. SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Washington, D.C. The subcommittee (composed of Senators Dodd, Hart, Bayh, Burdick, Tydings, Hruska, Fong, and Javits) met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas J. Dodd presiding. Present: Senators Dodd and Burdick. Also present: Carl L. Perian, staff director; and William C. Mooney, Jr., chief investigator. Senator DODD. The subcommittee will come to order. This morning we have Senator Joseph Tydings, of Maryland, the distinguished Member of the Senate and a member of this subcommittee who has taken a great interest in this particular bill. Senator, I am very happy that you took the time to appear here this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here not only to testify myself, but also to have the privilege of introducing to you and to the subcommittee two distinguished members of the Maryland Legislature, Delegates Palmisano and Blondes. Mr. Palmisano is a delegate from Baltimore City and Mr. Blondes is from Montgomery County. I would like to preface my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I consider myself as something of a gun and sporting buff. I own five shotguns myself. I have been shooting ducks, geese, skeet, almost as long as I can remember. I can remember accompanying my father to the duck blind, at least to sit with him and watch him shoot when I was only 9 years old back in the third grade before he would come to Washington in the morning. So I consider myself at least one who can speak and represent the responsible sportsmen and hunters across the country. I would like to say that shooting is possibly my favorite hobby, one of my favorite sports. I love to shoot. I am not the best trap or skeet shot, but I do enjoy it. So much for the preparatory remarks, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I am pleased to be here to support your bill, S. 1592, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act. 421 A My primary reason for cosponsoring this bill is because we need effective controls on the movement of firearms in interstate commerce. Too often these firearms find their way to juveniles, criminals, and other unstable persons who may misuse them. This bill does not restrict legitimate ownership and possession of firearms. It would simply terminate interstate traffic of mail-order firearms and prohibit the sale of firearms to persons under 21 years of age, except that shotguns and rifles could be sold to persons 18 years of age or over. I am acutely aware of the enormous volume of mail in opposition to this legislation. I am persuaded however, that many of the opponents of this legislation are misinformed concerning the provisions of the bill. This bill would not hinder the importaton or sale of firearms for lawful sporting purposes or the importance of antique and unserviceable firearms. Gun collectors and sportsmen likewise need have no fear that this bill will hamper their leisure activity. Nothing in this bill prevents a citizen from purchasing a gun from any sporting goods or hardware store in his State. Nothing in this bill prevents any citizen from taking a gun or pistol across State lines for lawful purposes. Nothing in this bill prevents or restricts guns from being sold and distributed in every State by reputable licensed dealers. As I said before, I, too, am a hunter and skeetshooter and possess firearms for this purpose. This will not restrict the possession and use of sporting guns. The fees contained in this bill relate to dealers, manufacturers, and importers and not to individual purchasers and owners. These fees are designed to insure that no person shall be permitted to import firearms and/or ammunition, or to manufacture, or deal in these items unless he is a legitimate, reputable person. While the fees provided in this bill may seem high, they are designed to stop the illegal flow of firearms through interstate commerce. Under this legislation, various abuses in the existing Federal Firearms Act licensing system would be eliminated and the hazard and dangers of free-flowing mail-order traffic in firearms reduced. With our ever-increasing crime rate and statistics showing an extremely high percentage of crime committed by persons bearing firearms, I feel this legislation is a very much needed one. I need not cite the evidence which illustrates the ever-increasing crime problem in this country. The record of these hearings and that of this subcommittee during the past 4 years is replete with such documentation, as you know, Mr. Chairman. Let me address a few remark to a problem area which you. Mr. Chairman, discussed on the opening day of these hearings. I refer to the results of the inquiry conducted by Treasury agents who looked into the purchase of firearms in Prince Georges County, Md., by residents of the District of Columbia. Quite understandably, I was disturbed by the results of that inquiry, because of an apparent weakness in the Maryland statute relating to the trade in firearms in Prince Georges County. Residents of the District of Columbia with erinnal records could buy firearms in that jurisdiction. I am delighted to note on May 27, just 2 weeks ago, the commissioners of Prince Georges County approved an ordinance to regulate the sale of pistols in that county. The ordinance requires a 5-day waiting period before one can purchase a gun. During that time, the police will have an opportunity to make a check and to determine whether the applicant is a law-abiding citizen. Prince Georges County thus becomes the only jurisdiction in Maryland outside Baltimore City, with gun control legislation. Earlier this year, the Maryland Legislature refused to enact such legislation on a statewide basis. Only yesterday, Senator Dodd, in our second largest political subdivision in the State of Maryland-Baltimore Countya pistol registration bill was up for a vote. It was defeated by a vote of 4 to 3. The deciding vote was cast by a commissioner or councilman who stated that he did not think the regulation would be effective in Baltimore County until we had a national gun control act similar to the type that you have introduced and enacted by the National Congress. That is one more incentive for me, as a Maryland Senator, to support your bill here today. The commissioners in Prince Georges County are to be congratulated for their courage in enacting this much-needed law and our State's attorney, Mr. Marshall, is entitled to great credit for supporting it. They ought to be commended because their action was taken in the face of strong opposition from the National Rifle Association. Although the National Rifle Association has consistently offered, in its national publicity, support legislation to control the export and sale of firearms, its opposition to this proposed ordinance, which is now law in Prince Georges County, was most vocal. On June 8, 1965, a legislative bulletin published by the NRA was issued to all NRA members in clubs in Prince Georges County, Md. That bulletin is in reference to, and I quote: A bill, No. 13, to require a waiting period for the transfer of a pistol. The bulletin sets forth the provisions of the Prince Georges County bill and urged sportsmen and shooters to attend the hearings on the measure or inform the board of county commissioners of their view. The bulletin concludes with the following sentence: When giving your opinion, be objective and persuasive, and never abusive. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, does this not infer opposition? Would the National Rifle Association member be abusive if he were in favor of the legislation? When hearings were held on the bill in June of 1964, the Washington Star, of June 17, reported Gun buffs sale proposals for Prince Georges County gun dealers, collectors, and sportsmen fired a double-barreled blast at proposed handgun restrictions in Prince Georges County. Armed with articles, statistics, Federal and State statutes, they fired away at the proposal as being too expensive, too restricted, unconstitutional, and unenforceable. Mr. Chairman, there is no evidence to indicate that these opponents submitted constructive alternatives to the proposals being considered by the county commissioners of Prince Georges County. I cannot escape the conclusion that those who opposed the bill, Senate 1592, are opposed to any regulation of firearms. Let me say that I wholeheartedly support Senate 1592 and shall work for its enactment. I believe we have ample evidence that this bill is in the best interests of the people of Maryland and the people of the District of Columbia and of all the people in communities across the Nation. By way of conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity publicly to thank you for your fight, for your courage in taking on such a powerful lobbying group as has consistently opposed any efforts for safe gun-regulation laws. I think that you are doing the people of Connecticut and the people of the United States a great service by this fight and I think that years after you and I are no longer on the scene, your efforts in this field will be read by grateful citizenry. Senator DODD. I am very grateful to you, Senator Tydings, for that very splendid statement. I appreciate the compliment. I do not know that I deserve it, but the importance of your support of the bill cannot be overestimated and it will have, I am sure, a great effect on the committee and when we get on the floor of the Senate. Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Chairman, as I advised you earlier, I am on the District of Columbia Committee. My presence is needed for a quorum to mark up the home rule bill. Before I leave, I would like to have this opportunity to introduce to you and to the committee as I indicated before, two members of the General Assembly of Maryland. Both of these young men are men of courage and dedication. I have had an opportunity to talk with them both before I was a candidate and since I have been a U.S. Senator. They can illustrate to you the problems at the State level of enacting effective gun regulations. I commend them to you and to this subcommittee. They are Delegates Palmisano and Blondes and they are here to testify. I am sure their comments and their statements will be of great interest to you and to the subcommittee and to the Senate. Senator DODD. I am very sure of that and we welcome them. They may step forward. We have Mr. Blondes first. I am glad that you are here this morning, Mr. Blondes. STATEMENT OF LEONARD S. BLONDES, ASSEMBLYMAN, ANNAPOLIS, MD. Mr. BLONDES. Senator, is it a real honor to be here. Your name has been a byword for a long time now, ever since I have been interested enough in following the work of Senators and it seems, that some of the subjects that you are interested in, I have, too, been very much interested in. I hope that you have success with this and I am sure that your constituents do and those others here in the Senate. Senator DODD. Thank you. I notice that you have a prepared statement. Go right ahead with it. Mr. BLONDES. Senator Dodd, Senator Tydings, it gives me great honor to appear here today to testify before your Committee on Juvenile Delinquency which is presently discussing a more explosive problem of our society-the control of firearms. It is quite an interesting experience to appear here before your committee and speak in favor of protecting our constitutional rights to bear arms. |