fornia to the Secretary of the Army; a national trustee of Ducks Unlimited; and a retired colonel of infantry in the Army of the United States. I could go on at great length to recount the positions of trust and honor which he has occupied. Another of our members is Mr. John Schooley, a past president of the National Rifle Association; a member of the National Board for Promotion of Rifle Practice; a past district director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the U.S. Treasury Department; former director of safety and ex officio sheriff of the city and county of Denver, Colo.; and an accomplished and reputable member of the legal profession. All other members of our committee are men of equal stature or nearly equal stature and deserved renown. I wish I had time to identify them all to you.

I shall not repeat some of the principal arguments against this type of legislation which have been so often advanced by many law-abiding citizens and with which you are thoroughly familiar, I am sure, except to say that if these have been sometimes contemptuously referred to as "time worn" I assert that they are as valid today as they ever were, and if they are badly worn it is only because they have stood the test of time, and logic, and reason and, hence, cannot fairly be termed "idiotic" as has sometimes been done.

I wish to touch upon several particularly objectionable features of the bill. I am sure that these specific things have been incorporated without the deliberate intention of its highly respected author, Senator Dodd. Unless these defects are removed, they will cause great hardship to the millions of lawful owners and users of firearms, and in my belief would probably encourage, rather than discourage, the use of firearms in crime. I refer particularly to the vast amount of rulemaking authority delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate. The delegate would doubtless have to be a new unit or bureau in the Treasury Department or perhaps the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. This delegation of power, if exercised to the limit, could totally destroy the legitimate firearms industry and deprive the sportsman, the arms collector, the potential soldier, those requiring weapons for self-protection, the entertainment industry, and many other law-abiding citizens and organizations of their basic rights and traditional privileges.

I find no less than 10 places in this bill where such phrases occur as "in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe." Such vagueness of expression coupled with a delegation of broad authority to a member of the executive branch tends toward great confusion and in my judgment would be just plain, bad law. We have but to refer to the famous "sick chicken case" of early New Deal times to know how high judicial authority condemns such a delegation of a fundamental constitutional function. A typical example of this is found in section 3(c) (2), on page 13, where it is said the Secretary shall disapprove an application for a license if, after notice and opportunity for hearing, he finds that the applicant is

by reason of his business experience, financial standing or trade connection not likely to maintain operations in compliance with this Act.

I emphasize it uses the mandatory word "shall."

Let me pause to point out it does not say whether his business experience should be bad, good, reputable, or disreputable. It does not

say whether his business should be condemned because of big business or condemned for being small and poor, licensed or what kind of trade connections would disqualify him and, in my opinion, gentlemen, I submit that this kid of uncertain language is a criterion for refusing any of the licenses involved and this proposed law and is worse than the proposal that was contained in one of the earlier bills which resulted in the Securities and Exchange Act, a product of the great depression which would have made it a felony to advertise or offer the sale of any securities in a manner "likely to mislead an average investor."

That one was cast out in the proper course of legislative and congressional debate. It was again "likely to mislead an average investor." That made it a felony and that is one of the vital things we oppose in this bill with respect to the delegation of powers to an executive officer or his delegate, some subordinate.

Another example is in section 3(g), on page 16, where the specified licensees are required to maintain records of all their dealings in firearms and ammunition

at such place, for such period and in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe

and to submit to the Secretary such reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof as he shall by regulations prescribe. Further provisions in said section would require the Secretary upon the request of any State or political subdivision thereof to make available to such State or subdivision

any information which he may possess or which he may obtain by reason of the provisions of this act; with respect to the identification of persons within such State or possession or poliitcal subdivision thereof, who have purchased or received firearms or ammunition together with a description of the firearms or ammunition so purchased or received.

I pause there to point out if that power is exercised within the framework of this proposed law, that a record would have to be kept of every single sale in order to supply information on request of every sale of ammunition or firearms. The local dealer, whether he was a service station operator on the route up to the hunting territory in Maine or the small dealer or a woman at a local gun shop would have to maintain a record of every sale of a box of .22 shorts or every sale of a box of shotgun shells that I might drop in to get to go duck hunting and this would be a great expense. It would involve a great amount of mechanics, the processing of every single sale, however insignificant. It would be a great burden upon those of us who like to drop in on the way to the pheasant field or over to the duck club to buy a couple of boxes of shells.

These records are to be kept as directed. They would require questionnaires and the keeping of complex and accurate records available upon demand to the Federal or local authorities at any time.

Senator DODD. Judge, you have read this bill very carefully I am

sure.

Mr. COMSTOCK. I think so, sir.

Senator DODD. You point out to me where shotgun shells are included. You just said shotgun shells could not be sold. Now, this bill says no such thing.

Mr. COMSTOCK. No, this says "record of every sale."

Senator DODD. Shotgun shells are specifically excluded.

Mr. COMSTOCK. It does not say shotgun shells. It says every sale of firearms and ammunition shall be made the subject of a record to be supplied to the law enforcement officer upon request.

Senator DODD. And the bill later on specifically excludes shotgun

shells.

Mr. COMSTOCK. And the bill still later on requires that the licensee pay for a license to furnish ammunition for any of the devices shall be at the same rate as the application for a license to manufacture the device and if that be so and if the definition of the destructive device which includes firearms of any description, including shotguns and rifles with a barrel longer than 18 inches, and if they are more than .50 caliber, more than one-half inch in the bore, they are destructive devices and, of course, a 16- or 12- or 10-gage shotgun shell would fit the short-barrel shotgun and be ammunition for destructive devices, unless I read it wrong.

I point that out, sir, as a point for consideration by this committee. Senator DODD. Well, I will take a look at it, but I think I am right that any man reading the bill, the bill makes it perfectly clear that shot gun shells are not included.

Mr. COMSTOCK. Now, I go on with my prepared statement.

This is an indirect approach to registration at the State level of all transactions in firearms or ammunition. In my judgment, and in the opinion of many knowledgeable lawyers, this would be a clear encroachment upon the police power of the State, and an improper extension of the commerce power.

I go on to another subject of deep concern to me when I say it is shocking to find in this bill an omission in the proposed amendment to section 4 of the Federal Firearms Act which could practically destroy the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and its program, which throughout its many years of successful operation within the Department of Defense has proved so valuable in times of both peace and war in keeping our Nation strong by maintaining a citizenry trained to arms, modeled in small part after the highly successful defense system of the Swiss Nation. The bill omits that portion of the present Federal firearms law which exempts from its provisions

shipments of firearms and ammunition to institutions, organizations, or persons to whom such firearms and ammunition may be lawfully delivered by the Secretary of War.

This exemption as contained in the present law protects shipments by the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and its laudable defense purposes. Its omission would emasculate the National Board program.

I pause there to mention I have read with a great deal of interest the statement of the Honorable Stephen Ailes, the Secretary of the Army, and I am cognizant that he has said that the program of the National Board can be modified so as to comply with this bill if it becomes law, and he sets out a method by which it can be modified and can permit the National Board program, if so modified, to proceed.

He points out that shipments of the type now authorized by law and supported by the National Board upon requisition by clubs within

49-588-65-31

the limited quantities of arms and ammunition which are issued in support of the program, an application for parts and components and the surplus pieces which are for sale by individuals, can be implemented by establishing in each State in the supply setup of the Federal Government, in the National Guard of each State, and I am sure it takes no argument to point out there is not a National Guard outfit in the country today that is mechanically set up to handle as a midpoint, shipments by the National Board for transshipment or further shipment within the State to those entitled to be supplied under the National Board program.

I throw out for consideration the question of whether a mere stoppage in transit of something that has its initial shipment from a central point, presumably the Springfield Arsenal or something of that sort on an order sent into Washington to the Pentagon Building, the National Board, and then processed by a further order from the local stopping point and ultimately ending up in the hands of an individual is not really a mere way of getting around the provisions of this law. Why should we have to try to get around the provisions of this law in supporting the National Board program?

Why do we not just leave the provisions in the present Federal Firearms Act, that is the one that exempts this type of shipment as a part of our defense system to the individuals and organizations entitled to those shipments and think of the appropriations necessary in each State of the Union that would have to be set up to provide a stopping point, so as to make it an intrastate shipment instead of an interstate shipment, if it can be said that merely because there is a stoppage along the way?

I would think very strongly that it is still in the current interstate commerce whether it stops along the way or not, and I can see it would take a great—a very limited appropriation for the National Board to set up these mechanics that Secretary Ailes said can be set up by way of modification to the present system in order to comply with this bill, if enacted, Mr. Chairman, into law.

Senator DODD. You are aware that he said no function of the Department of Defense would be impaired by passage of this bill.

Mr. COMSTOCK. Well, I think it would very greatly circumscribe the activities whether or not we consider a very, very laudable part of the defense program which has been supported so many years as a part of the National Board for promotion of rifle practice, because if we are going to have to fight for further appropriations to set up stopping points in each State in order to make it an intrastate shipment instead of an interstate shipment, we are going to have a lot of complications and a lot of expense.

Goodness knows, we have enough trouble getting enough appropriations for the National Board program and the Camp Perry matches and that thing now where the appropriations have to be made every year, and I do not want to go too long and take too much time on that, Senator.

Senator DODD. That is all right.

Mr. COMSTOCK. It is a very important phase of it and I would wel come the opportunity to go further into it, but I do not want to belabor that point.

Senator DODD. I would just point out here that I do not think you need worry about that appropriation.

I think what you have to worry about is the fact that $12 million of the taxpayers' money was spent on this ammunition within the last 5 years.

I think you can anticipate some questions being raised when that appropriation comes up again.

Mr. COMSTOCK. I am sure I can, and if I may take a couple of minutes and may I point out instead of junking a lot of Springfield rifles and a lot of other surplus things, that these things have been sold to law-abiding people who have complied with very stringent regulations in order to buy them and have returned, in revenue to the U.S. Government, a large amount of money. I do not have the number of millions of dollars, but have returned in revenue to the U.S. Government a price for these things that have been sold as surplus which would have been otherwise run over by trucks and rendered into junk and torn to pieces and rendered useless. And I would also say the appropriations for the National Board are but the seeding of a program which is, in the main, carried on through private effort of good instructors on the local rifle club ranges which are provided by private funds and club members running into millions of dollars to get this important defense training and that most of the arms and ammunition expended on those ranges in the production of this very fine result of preinduction and citizenship training and military rifle courses is supplied through private funds is, in effect, nerely the result of the seeding of this program by the limited appropriations of the National Board, an amount which, of course, through the years does not amount to much of an expenditure-not as much as one failure of a missile on an experimental firing.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure I do not have to belabor that problem further with you.

I now point out that the prohibition against shipments to individuals is highly inimical. The bill would tend to create a monopoly in the hands of importers, manufacturers, and dealers and the license fees are so high as to destroy legitimate small business. Skeet- and trap-shooting clubs, individual members thereof, and small dealers in hand-loaders' supplies and hand-loaded ammunition could not afford such license fees; and a legitimate source of supply, at reasonable prices, to the millions of members of such clubs would be effectually

cut off.

The definition of a "destructive device" in the bill is obviously designed to outlaw the private possession of bazookas, flamethrowers, fieldpieces, mortars, and the like. With this purpose, certainly we have no quarrel; but the definition is so poorly devised that it would outlaw many legitimate collection pieces and sporting arms. I shall leave further comments on this portion of the bill to the collectors, muzzle-loading arms competitors, and others better informed than I. The news and communications media throughout the land have been replete with quotations from the supporters of this bill, citing statistics to the effect that crime has been lessened in the cities and States where highly restrictive firearms legislation is in effect, and referring to this bill as one designed principally to eliminate the mail