We must provide the necessary safeguards in the use of firearms if we are to have this liberty to maintain this wonderful right that has come down to us through the many years.

How can we best protect this inherent right?

During the last several years I have been fighting a campaign of the Maryland General Assembly for legislation to control the promiscuous and indiscriminate sale and use of firearms.

I am not opposed to firearms. I believe there are many, many wonderful things that can be said about firearms-the use for sport and many of these items and statements, of course, have already been made by Senator Tydings and I am sure you have heard it many times before.

In my freshman year, I introduced house bill No. 233, not realizing the force and effect of an organization which, I think we have heard about during the last many months and years, the National Rifle Association. The bill proposed a 72-hour waiting period which, of course, required a check into the person himself; whether or not he was a felon, dope addict, or derelict. This also required a compulsory training program and restrictions as to juveniles and to mail orders.

Shortly after the introduction of the bill I was deluged with letters, telegrams, and telephone calls in opposition thereto. However, several of the letters suggested that my thoughts were good and that the National Rifle Association would like to be helpful in correcting a few of the problems existing in the bill. This was the first time I began feeling the effect of the NRA.

I appreciated the offer. I proceeded to make an appointment with the gentlemen on 16th Street and spent several hours with them preparing a new bill, later to be known as house bill 1072. It was recommended that for the final touches I discuss the matter with General Reckard of the State of Maryland. It was a real honor to discuss the bill with the gentleman, and I felt that I really had a partner in my firearms legislation. However, I felt then after lengthy discussion with the general that the NRA was basically a cosponsor of the bill. It was interesting, however, that by the same day house bill 1072 was dropped in the hopper, that is March 21, 1963, the NRA "informative" letter was mailed, knifing each and every proposal of house bill 1072. It was mailed to all the members of the house of delegates and to the committee members of the judiciary committee and the chairman giving each and every provision of house bill 1072 and, of course, they knew every item of the bill because we had worked them out item by item so they were one step ahead of me at that point, and any point where I thought we were working together. By taking certain words and phrases out of context, it was suggested that I was trying to disarm the Nation and deprive our youth of their right to firearms instruction. Senator DODD. I must say that has a familiar ring.

Mr. BLONDES. Senator, this is just a little background of how I, too, have felt the pressures of this organization.

This was a gross misrepresentation and a devious method of attempting to destroy the legislation.

Incited by their printed words and suggestions, the telephone calls and letters came again, but this time more ugly, obscene, and threatening to my wife and children.

As Senator Tydings indicated earlier, they stated in their letters that they should not be abusive and do not do this and do not do that. Well, I have learned even in the care of my children who are 12, 9, and 6 that when you tell them "do not," that is not what you expect them to do, exactly, and I submit that the more "do nots" that their letters tell their various members to do—and I might add that I am a card member of NRA and I feel there are many, many good aspects of being a member, but let me say that I will not choose to discuss that at the moment, but incited by their ugly letter they become much more obscene. They were vicious, Senator. There were threats at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning using the most vile language and that I hope our children will really never be subject to. It was a problem for my wife and it was a problem for me to decide what to do do I drop this or do we continue to fight for something that we believe in.

Finally and this helped my decision-the communities began to rise in opposition to the statements being made by NRA and our fight continued. Therefore, in March of 1964, I introduced house bill 314 which provided for the 72-hour waiting period in order for the police department to determine whether the applicant was a dope addict, had been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor, or had been committed to a mental institution for 30 days or more.

This bill died a glorious death under the pressures of the unregistered, unrecognized, nonlobbying entity known as the NRA.

A big step forward was made, however, when the matter was referred to the legislative council. This body held hearings and produced, for introduction in the 1965 session, a bill which the NRA blessed and commended. It was a fantastic farce, Senator; for it provided for a training program prior to the issuance of a hunting license, this dynamic training program would be strictly on a voluntary basis-another method of NRA trying to make certain of no restrictive legislation. If this bill had passed the house, did the legislative council really think that it would have been an effective piece of legislation?

Anyone who wants to take any training courses-there are plenty available through the Izaak Walton League, the NRA, and through many other organizations-Boy Scouts, Boys Clubs, and so forth. But this was another method of the NRA trying to make certain of no restrictive legislation.

Senator, it would have been useless if this bill had passed the house. It is interesting to note from what Senator Tydings testified to a few moments ago that I, too, heard what had happened in Baltimore County; and is it not interesting to note that this one commissioner made this statement that if your bill, Senator, does pass this would help make the decision and that implies that he then would support the legislation suggested in Baltimore County.

Is this really true? I think it is again part of the game, part of the game of a vicious cycle that we find ourselves in that each time, if this is done or if that is done, we will support it. But what happens when you cooperate and work in this, or that? There is another reason, Senator-never happens.

In 1965, I found it necessary, therefore, to introduce house bills 197 and 198, trying to eliminate, in both bills, the objections expressed by the opponents to the previous legislation.

House bill 197 provided for the written consent of parents of children under 18 before they could purchase firearms. It had a mandatory course in training, safety, and use of firearms, restrictions as to mail orders and a 72-hour waiting period for the State police to check the same items as proposed previously in house bill 314.

House bill 198 provided only for the 72-hour waiting period and the

control of mail orders.

House bill 198, at that time, Senator, I really felt to classify that bill was a "chicken bill" because house bill 197 was the real, real guts of what we needed. House bill 198 was what I felt was feasible at that time-a "chicken bill" that maybe we could have some success with it. So both bills went in, and so the game again began. I was convinced by the opponents to firearms legislation and the NRA advocates that if I would provide certain amendments these bills could be successful. This time the rifles were eliminated so as not to upset the sportsmen. Certain provisions were inserted to protect the gun collectors. Other provisions were inserted and instead of the State police controlling it, it would be the commissioner of our inland game and fish commission. Included also was a test in lieu of a training program. After taking much time to provide for these amendments, the bills went to the judiciary committee for hearing; and, for the first time, some action was taken by this committee.

There, the chairman referred the bill to a subcommittee, and this was the first time it was acted on or any overt act was done in reference to firearm legislation.

The subcommittee on which I served in an ad hoc position-and I might add Mr. Palmisano, who is here with us today, changed all but the title of house bill 198. It provided for the same police check, but, however, increasing it to a 5-day period from the 72-hour waiting period and added the licensing of firearm dealers. With a big smile and being very happy when I came home, I discussed the matter and really felt we had made a big step forward. The bill was then sent back to the committee, and, to my amazement, it passed the committee with little opposition, went to the house floor, and was passed with very few words being said either pro or con. Later I realized, however, that there were many tricks left in that bag.

For instance, I could see that the opposition purposely ignored house bill 198 and let it successfuly pass the house in dead silence. It was obvious the bill had become quite restrictive and that the senate, with the pressures of the NRA, would pigeon hole it and defeat it in quick time. It was finally brought to the senate judicial proceedings committee and killed in the waiting hours of the session. Many of the provisions of the bill had been worked out with, and had met with the approval of, very avid members of NRA; and yet, the day the senate. judicial proceedings committee voted on the bill, I had the opportunity to see telegrams from the same individuals who had worked with us on this bill and had suggested certain recommendations and provisions where they had sent wires on that day and to the subcommittee, into the senate judicial proceedings committee, telling the committee of the evils and errors of the bill and crying for its defeat. Once again, the carnival continued. The NRA spins the wheel, and the legislation gets turned around; and I wonder what sideshows we will have in 1966.

Senator DODD. Do you have a lobbying statute in Maryland?
Mr. BLONDES. Not with me.

Senator DODD. I do not mean with you. Do you have one on the books?

Mr. BLONDES. Yes, we do.

Senator DODD. That is requiring lobbyists to register?

Senator DODD. That is a further subject I am going to take up as a result of thees hearings. I think that organizations should be registered and some of these others that are blatant lobbyists.

Mr. BLONDES. It is amazing how they do it. Each opponent who comes forth claims not to have any connection with NRA, but to be of this gun club or that gun club or that Isaac Walton League or something and no one steps forth representing, as such, the NRA and it is something that I, too, feel is desperately needed and I think once they are forced to register as a lobbyist organization, some of these evils can be corrected.

Senator DODD. If we do not get anything else we will get that. I do not think there will be any difficulty in proving they are lobbyists

of the first order.

Mr. BLONDES. Maybe I will have the opportunity of following what you do here and have our act changed in Maryland.

I would like to just comment on your bill, Senate bill 1592. I would like to state that this is a very dynamic step in the hopeful fruition of the protective firearm legislation this country desperately needs. The evils that have befallen our country and its heroes through the misuse of the mails and the lack of control of sales will always be an ugly part of our past.

When your bill is finally passed, many of the problems in the traffic of firearms will be corrected.

Senator, the bill will not relieve the Maryland Legislature and other legislative bodies from their duty and obligation to pass legislation to control the internal sale and use of firearms within our own State boundaries.

Senator, it has been a real honor and pleasure for me to be here with you today. I hope, if there is anything that I can do in the future, or if I can be of any help at all, that you will call upon me. I will always be available to do whatever I can in whatever small way that will be of any help to you.

Senator DODD. Thank you for your testimony. It is a very important piece of testimony because you are obviously an expert since you have been through this.

Mr. BLONDES. No more so than you, Senator.

Senator DODD. I am beginning to learn that elsewhere in the country other people have been through it too. I expect we will hear more about that during the course of these hearings.

You indicated on the day you introduced your bill that the NRA sent out an informative letter. Do you have a copy of that letter! Mr. BLONDES. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator DODD. Will you let us have it?

Mr. BLONDES. Be very happy to.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 95," and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 95

[Legislative Bulletin, National Rifle Association, Washington, D.C., Mar. 21, 1963]

To: All NRA members and clubs in Maryland.

Subject: A bill to regulate the possession, use, and receipt of firearms by minors. Proposal: House bill No. 1072.

Sponsor: Delegate Leonard S. Blondes, Montgomery County, Silver Spring. Status of proposal: Introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS

(a) No minor under 18 years of age may carry, use, or possess any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon unless he has in his possession at the time a permit issued by the Maryland State Police.

(b) No minor under 18 years of age may receive through the mail any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon unless he has filed with the mailer of such weapon or ammunition a permit from the Maryland State Police.

(c) No person or firm may sell or otherwise transfer any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon to any minor under 18 years of age unless such minor has exhibited a permit from the Maryland State Police. (d) No person or firm may mail any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition to any minor under the age of 18 years unless the mailer has received a State police permit authorizing such mailing.

(e) A permit to possess and use or a permit to receive a firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon shall be issued by the Maryland State Police only after (1) payment of a $1 fee; (2) consent under affidavit of a parent or guardian; (3) evidence satisfactory to the State police that applicant is of good moral character: (4) a certificate of successful completion of a firearm safety course, conducted by an organization approved by the superintendent of State police, and the content of which course also approved by the superintendent.

COMMENTARY

The net result of this bill would be the elimination of all junior marksmanship activities in the State of Maryland by all youngsters under the age of 18. There would be no junior shooting clubs and no junior shooting programs. Aside from the practical effects of this proposal, there is a serious inconsistency in its provisions. On the one hand, a person under 18 years of age must have a police permit in order to possess and use a firearm; on the other, he cannot obtain such a permit unless he successfully completes a course of study in the use and handling of firearms. Obviously, a person cannot successfully complete such a course unless he handles firearms, but the use of firearms is prohibited without a permit.

Members will recall that Delegate Blondes introduced House bill No. 233 to prohibit the purchase or use of firearms by minors. This bill was killed in committee because of the widespread opposition by shooter-sportsmen. The present bill by Mr. Blondes is in no sense an improvement over his previous bill.

PERSONAL OPINION

You may express your opinion on this bill by letter, card, telegram, or telephone to the sponsor, your senators and delegates in the general assembly and to any or all members of the committee listed below. (If you do not know the names of your lawmakers, you may obtain this information from your city or county clerk.) Your legislators may be reached at the statehouse, Annapolis.

F. C. DANIEL, Secretary.