Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

It has been my observation in the cases I have tried in my court that I recall none where it has been of any significant aid in either preventing or detecting the crime.

Senator DODD. That is remarkable in view of the chief deputy attorney general's comment.

Mr. COMSTOCK. I may say, sir, and, while Charlie O'Brien is an acquaintance of mine, I find he has been quite imbued with the idea of putting across the program of his former chief, Attorney General Mosk, and, of course, Tom Lynch, while he goes down the line for the bill in general, has been merely too demanding of the bill what we consider the unduly restricted provision. We had no difficulty in working out, at the State level, with Charlie O'Brien's acceptable amendments to the paramilitary bill, and its present form has been opposed by many administration senators, even as dealing with a situation which has given no trouble at all.

A lot of fanatics may get at someone's ranch and get some onepounders and some .50-caliber guns and get a kick out of practicing and thinking that someday the Communists are going to take over the country and they are going to be guerrilla fighters. We recognize that as eccentric in the NRA, but many senators, having no part in our program, opposed this bill. But we went along with provisions we thought were reasonable and the bill has passed.

This was entirely agreeable to Charlie O'Brien, who was the followup on the attorney general's program on these firearm bills. We had a lot of bills that we considered really crackpot gun bills that fell by the wayside. Some of the proponents of them abandoned them and did not push them, but the program, as we have worked it out in California this year, has been a logical and a good one and in some cases has tended to eliminate confusion in our present deadly weapons control law and, in some cases, to strengthen it as they increase the waiting period from 72 hours to 5 days.

Senator DODD. That is all very interesting, Judge, but it is a little off the subject.

You have said in your experience of some 35-odd years on the bench that you do not believe-and I have forgotten just how you put it right

now.

Mr. COMSTOCK. That I could recall none.

Senator DODD. Could not recall any case in which registration or licensing or keeping of records, which is the same thing, had helped in the prevention or solution of crime.

I merely pointed out to you and read to you your deputy attorney general's comment.

Would you suggest to me that he would twist the facts because he favors this bill?

Mr. COMSTOCK. No, I would not suggest that. I recognize in Charlie O'Brien one who thinks we should have registration of firearms, with which we distinctly disagree. We do not think it helps to any great extent, and we think that one of its principal objections, and one of the principal objections of the Sullivan law, is that the registrations or making it illegal to possess or own a firearm without a license, one that is practically insurmountable is the fact that the law casts the ownership and consent of this upon the heir, upon the

death of the person who had the license. That is an almost insurmountable objection to this sort of thing.

Now, Charlie O'Brien and Tom Lynch have recommended general registration and we distinctly disagree with the merits of any such suggestion.

Senator DODD. Now, do you remember during your statement I raised the question about shotgun shells. You said a man would not be able to buy them and I asked you if you had read this bill and you said said you had.

Now, I have two copies of it here in my hand, and on page 16, subparagraph (g) it reads:

Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipping receipt, or sale and other disposition of firearms and ammunition at such place for such period and in such form as the Secretary may, by regulation, prescribe.

You made the point, in answering me, that "ammunition" was so broad it included everything. But you read the bill. On page 5, subsection 15, the definition section, the term "ammunition" means pistol or revolver ammunition. It says "ammunition or destructive device" and "ammunition for machinegun or rifle." It obviously does not include shotgun shells. I do not know how anybody could read it and come to that conclusion.

Mr. COMSTOCK. If I may point out, I have a very distinct fact in mind that the definition in the act does omit any reference to shotgun shells.

Senator DODD. It actually defines what the term "ammunition"

means.

Mr. COMSTOCK. If I may go on, sir, I have that in mind and I point out that in the definition of a destructive device, unless I read it wrong, a destructive device embraces a sawed-off shotgun or a shotgun having a caliber of greater than one-half inch with a barrel less than 18 inches long.

Now, if one is manufacturing ammunition for a destructive device. what are we going to do with those who are loading shotgun shells with the rifle slug and the buckshot and other types of calibers which are shot by bank guards, by our local police and sheriff groups in their frequently used police weapon, the sawed-off shotgun?

I participated less than a year ago in an FBI school in which the instructor said to me:

Judge, you are quite a shot. Let me see you shoot this rifle slug at the silhouette at 100 yards.

He gave me a sawed-off shotgun and I promise you that was a terrifying result. I fortunately hit the silhouette several times with the hole that was about an inch in diameter and the FBI instructor pointed out what terror that struck to the heart of the criminal and it was in the hands of the guard or the police officer.

The point is manufacturing ammunition for a destructive device which is within the definition of "ammunition," he is going to be loading buckshot and loading rifle slugs.

Senator DODD. Well, I think your testimony on this is characteristic of the kind of testimony we have had from several witnesses, and I suggest that any clear reading of this bill makes it perfectly clear that shotgun shells are not included.

Now, Mr. Comstock, you are presently chairman of the Legislative Committee of the NRA, as I understand it.

Mr. COMSTOCK. Well, I shall not be reappointed and those committees are now being revised.

Senator DODD. I did not ask that. Now, are you presently chairman?

Mr. COMSTOCK. Well, yes, I think I am, unless there has been a complete acceptance by a newly appointed one that I am unaware of. At the time I prepared my statement I certainly was.

Senator DODD. You know those are pretty simple questions for an experienced judge.

As far as you know, you are presently chairman?

Mr. COMSTOCK. So far as I know; and so far as I know I shall very soon, if not already, be replaced and accept a new committee on law and order.

Senator DODD. As far as you know, you may not live the day out. I asked if you are presently chairman.

Were you chairman when this body considered S. 1592?
Mr. COMSTOCK. Yes, I was.

Senator DODD. And did you participate in the drafting of the April 9 newsletter that was circulated to the NRA membership?

Mr. COMSTOCK. To the extent that I considered the draft after it had been written by other members of a committee appointed for that purpose.

Senator DODD. Well, you merely reviewed what others had prepared. Mr. COMSTOCK. What?

Senator DODD. I said you just reviewed what others had prepared. Mr. COмSTOCK. I participated in the discussion before the other thing was approved and so did our executive committee.

We were all aware of the content of it and I think share the responsibility for it.

Senator DODD. Were you aware of the inaccuracies and misstatements in it?

Mr. COMSTOCK. I have been made aware of some things that have been pointed out as inaccuracies and some of them I do not consider were inaccuracies. Others I think were quite inadvertent and certainly no greater than the inaccuracies contained in the statement of witnesses before this committee and members of this committee.

Mr. DODD. I know, but you are an expert. You are a judicial person. It is your business to read carefully and understand. You said you did review it.

Mr. COMSTOCK. Yes, sir, I did; and I would not deny responsibility for the statement or my part in it.

Senator DODD. Let me read some excerpts from that NRA letter. Well, it will be unnecessary to do it because we have reached the point where you say that you did review it and can take the same responsibility as the others.

I point out to you that letter was mailed on April 9. The President of the United States, President Johnson, delivered his "crime" message on March 8, 1965, and up until April 9 he received only 50 letters opposing his position and after April 9 he received 12,000.

Do you think this NRA letter had anything to do with the tremendous increase in the number of messages in opposition that the President received?

Mr. COMSTOCK. Why certainly, sir. I certainly do. I think that we sent out an informative letter to our membership.

Senator DODD. And do you think the statements and inaccuracies and exaggerations in it had anything to do with this tremendous volume of opposition?

Mr. COMSTOCK. Well, sir, I deny the premise of the inaccuracy and misstatements. I would like to comment on those.

Senator DODD. Well, let me conclude and you can comment all you

want to.

I received a letter on May 27 on the stationery of the Hawthorne Trap & Wildlife Club, Hawthorne, Wis., addressed to me. It reads, in part:

As the sponsor of S. 1592, presented on March 22, 1965, I am returning directly to you for answer some questions which are bothering gun club members and shooting enthusiasts all over the United States.

I must first say I have already written both Senators from Wisconsin as well as the President in opposition to the proposed legislation. However, within the last 48 hours I have read and reread your bill which after perusal has caused me to have some very serious second thoughts. I am therefore, as the secretary of a responsible gun club, asking you personally to reply at your earliest convenience to the following three questions.

I point out to you that these are the points in your letter which General Orth said were inaccurate and said were not factually true.

1. Would the enactment of S. 1592 prevent me, as an individual sportsman from reloading ammunition for my own use either for target or hunting purposes? Of course it would not, as you well know, Judge.

Mr. COMSTOCK. Certainly not.

Senator DODD (reading):

No. 2. The passage of your bill, would it prevent our trap club from reloading shotgun ammunition for resale to our members and visiting shooters?

Of course it would not, as you know is true.

Mr. COMSTOCK. I would not concede that point, Senator. I would like to speak on that.

Senator DODD. It is a little hopeless, because it is abundantly clear. And the third question is:

3. Would the enactment of S. 1592 prevent me, as a resident of Wisconsin. from transporting my own shotguns or rifles into another State for lawful purposes; that is, for target shooting or hunting?

You know very well it would not do such a thing.

Mr. COMSTOCK. We do not say it would.

Senator DODD. In your letter it did.

Mr. COMSTOCK. I do not; and I would like to speak on that. Senator DODD. I do not have the letter in front of me. I could be mistaken, but my recollection is that it was.

The letter goes on to say:

Should your answer to the above three questions be in the negative I can assure you that the opposition to your bill will fade rapidly.

If, on the other hand, your bill would restrict legitimate hunting or sport shooting I believe you have already stated it would never pass on the floor of the Senate.

This letter is obviously based on the inaccuracies in your information letter that you sent out.

He says on the last question

Would it prevent me as a resident of Wisconsin from transporting my own shotgun or rifle into another State for lawful purposes?

That is for target shooting or hunting. You said it did not say that. Let me read from your letter, page 2:

If you transported your rifle or shotgun to another State for lawful purposes such as hunting, you would have to comply with such ordinance and restrictions and redtape as might be required by the regulations.

This is obvious. The readers believe they would not be permitted to carry their rifle or shotgun to another State.

Mr. COMSTOCK. I do not think so at all. I think it would merely compel him to comply with burdensome restrictions as might be required by regulations, and as exactly as we state.

Senator DODD. You know the bill says just the opposite.

Mr. COMSTOCK. What is that?

Senator DODD. The bill says just the opposite.

Mr. COMSTOCK. I do not feel sure of that.

As I read the bill, if I go over into Nevada, as I frequently do, to hunt mule deer and transport my gun, under the words of the bill if I have someone else transport it for me, I am going to have to comply with such regulations on that as may be required and I promise you, sir, that we out in the Far West will have a terrible time uncovering from the Federal Register, or what have you, those regulations which may control what we have to do. My vacation is coming on and I want to take a mule deer trip over into Nevada and I think it would be very burdensome for me to hunt up all the regulations I would have to comply with before I go hunting.

Senator DODD. We have had witnesses, a good many people I am sure who said they did understand and from your letter that they would be permitted to carry a shotgun or rifle for hunting purposes. Mr. COMSTOCK. I refer only to the language of our letter that says we would have to comply with such burdensome regulations or redtape as might be required by the regulations.

Senator DODD. I have something I want to put in the record. At my request the American Law Division of the Library of Congress has prepared a memorandum on one of the items you raised here today, the scope of congressional practice of delegating discretion to executive officers to issue regulations implementing enforcement of statutes. I think it is interesting to point something out and that is that the American Law Division of the Library of Congress has provided the subcommittee with a 35-page document, with covering letter, which cites the legislative history of congressional delegation of discretionary authority to executive officers. It says, and I quote:

Almost from the very inception of the National Government established pursuant to the Constitution, the Congress found it necessary to delegate to the President or to subordinate executive officers, discretionary power to issue regulations found necessary to carry into effect congressional policy expressed in statutes. As long as Congress embodies in such statutes an intelligible statement of policy, the Supreme Court, with one exception, has been disposed to uphold as such discretion conveyed thereunder to executive officers.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »