that guns lent or sold under this program have been used for any improper purpose. It will continue to be so carried out with the passage of the legislation you are presently considering. As you know, section 2(a) of the bill would prohibit all shipments of firearms in interstate commerce except shipments between federally licensed manufacturers or dealers or, by virtue of the general exemption of section 4 of the bill, shipments between agencies of the U.S. Government or State or local governA sale or other distribution of a firearm to an individual, therefore, can take place only within a State and not through an interstate shipment. This means that the present practice of the civilian marksmanship program whereby firearms are distributed to gun clubs and individual purchasers by interstate shipment must be modified. Under the modified procedure we are contemplating, the distribution of firearms to clubs and purchasers under the program will take place only with individual States. Upon receipt of an approved application for loan or sale, the Army would ship the requested firearms to the U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer serving with the State National Guard in the State in which the club or purchaser is located. This officer is a Federal officer whose function it is to maintain accountability for Federal property issued for the use of the National Guard in his State. Thus, the interstate shipment would be between agencies of the U.S. Government and therefore, under section 4, free from the general prohibition on interstate shipments. Upon receipt of the firearms from the Army, the Property and Fiscal Officer would distribute them to the clubs or to the purchasers within the State. Information concerning the distribution would be made available to the State and local authorities. Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill would place certain regulatory controls on each federally licensed manufacturer or dealer selling or otherwise disposing of firearms within a State. For example, an individual recipient would have to be 21 years old, or 18 years old in the case of a rifle, would have to comply with all applicable State and local laws, and would have to be free of any indictment or conviction for a serious crime. The Army would require observance of all these regulatory controls before authorizing any disposition of weapons under the civilian markmanship training program. Proof of compliance would be required before a weapon would be sent by the Army to the Property and Fiscal Officer in the State. The Department of the Treasury, which would have the major responsibility under the proposed bill, has confirmed to us that the bill would not interfere with the shipment of firearms or ammunition under the civilian markmanship program in accordance with the procedures which I have just described. The Treasury also expressed its appreciation of the procedure whereby the Army will agree to observe the same procedures and limitations which would be accplicable with respect to dealers licensed under the act. Parenthetically, I should say that the Army is not considered a "dealer" under the bill because it is not a "person" as defined in section 1 (1) of the bill. In summary then, the civilian markmanship program can continue to be effectively administered, consistent with the provisions of the proposed law. For a long time, many military and civilian leaders have considered that the instruction in markmanship and the experience with firearms provided to citizens of the United States under the civilian markmanship training program have been beneficial to the national security, by creating a reservoir of personnel trained in a basic military skill, on which the Armed Forces may draw in time of need, and I might add by providing us with a fair number of new recruits who have had some previous experience with the rifle. However, this benefit has never really been measureable, and a solid body of facts on which to base a judgment has never been gathered together. I have recently approved undertaking a study designed to cover from an independent point of view, four areas related to the basic question of the extent to which the program enhances national security. First, the study will give us a basis for determining the benefits which actually accrue to the military from the activities of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice. Second, the study will review the organizational structure which carried out these activities. Third, it will evaluate the program controls. Fourth, it will subject the program to a cost analysis. The firm of Arthur D. Little has been chosen to carry out this study, and the contract negotiations were completed on May 13. We expect to have a draft of the study in 6 months. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Senator DODD. That is a very helpful and interesting statement, Mr. Secretary. Before I ask a question I want to say to you for the record that I am not against guns. I own some myself. I have always been a little bit concerned about this program which you have described. However, I am very glad to have you say you are having studies undertaken. I think it has disturbed a number of other people, some Members of Congress, and maybe it is a very good thing. I am inclined to think it is good and should be continued. I think this study is absolutely necessary. It seems to have grown up helterskelter. I am amazed, for example, to learn that from 1959 to 1964 the Army had given away to private gun clubs 246.9 million rounds of free ammunition costing $7 million. Secretary AILES. That was from 1959. Senator DODD. 1959 to 1964, a period of 5 years, $7 million. Well, that is a pretty expensive item and if it is in our interest and worthwhile, I think many people would have some serious question about it. I also learned in the same period the Army had placed $2.3 million worth of guns on loan to gun clubs, so this raises the output of money to $9.5 million and in the same period, the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice spent an additional $2.5 million so it is now $12 million in 5 years. Well, we have an awful lot of things to do in this country. I say maybe it is all to the good. But it is a little annoying to me and some members of this committee to have an organization that participates in this program amounting to $12 million spreading false propaganda about this bill and I should think it would be your view, and I expect it is. Secretary AILES. Mr. Chairman, as you suggest, nobody has taken a real good look for a long time at exactly the scope and size of this program and what we get in return for it. We have some difficulty in finding out to what extent the recruit who comes into the Army, and has had this sort of training, benefits from it, when he actually engages in his marksmanship training. There is some relation, but what we are trying to find out is, what is the relation and to what extent is the expenditure of Federal funds justified? We are directed, by statute, to do this at this time. Senator DODD. I know. I am glad you are doing it. I am only trying to emphasize the importance of doing it. I was interested in what you had to say about the civilian marksmanship program being carried out properly and responsibly and I know you said you knew of nothing to indicate that guns lent and sold under this program had been used for any improper purpose. How do you know that? Secretary AILES. This is a negative statement as you indicate, Mr. Chairman. We do have some records with respect to serial numbers on the guns. I have a feeling, while this is a negative statement, that somehow or other, we would know about it pretty fast if these guns show up in the wrong place, or are put to the wrong use. We simply have not received any such criticism. Senator DODD. Would it be accurate to say on the other hand since there is so little control over where the guns do go once they have been sold, or in other cases loaned to individuals, quite possibly that access to arms and ammunition could be gained by criminals and juveniles and subversive groups? My point is this: As difficult as it is to prove that this does happen, it seems just as difficult to prove it does not happen and that is why I think the study is of great importance. I think the fact is we do not know. Secretary AILES. That is quite true. That is why I went to some pains to make a statement in the negative here. Senator DODD. Yes. Secretary AILES. First of all, we have little control over guns that have been sold because they can be resold and they are in somebody else's hands. The fact is that we have not run into a situation where those guns showed up in the hands of the wrong people. I suspect we would have heard of it, but I agree with you that it certainly does not prove that it has not happened. Senator DODD. I received a letter dated February 16, 1965, from Col. Rex Sage, Office of Chief of Legislative Liaison, Department of the Army. I will only quote part of it because the rest is not pertinent here. I quote: Neither the Army nor any of its contract agencies has conducted a comprehensive study which compares the marksmanship proficiency of soldiers who had preservice marksmanship experience with the proficiency of those who had not. Does your study undertake to do this? Secretary AILES. Yes, sir. As I said a moment ago, we really do not know what the relationship is. Everybody suspects there is some relationship and we hope to find out something on that score. The real justification for this program from the point of view of the Army, in my judgment, would lie right there. I think past studies have shown that, in Korea, something less than 50 percent of the riflemen in combat fired at anything. Men who have some talent as marksmen are more liable to shoot at something than men who do not. The range of the weapon is extended in the hands of the marksman. We have a great interest in this. We still depend on the rifleman and his being able to shoot his rifle well. The fact that the recruit has been shooting squirrels as a boy enables him to be a better marksman when he comes into the Army, and that is to our advantage. If these training programs are not helping us, then there is little military justification for them, in my judgment. Senator DODD. I think you are absolutely right. I do not know, maybe I am unduly shocked, but there is a program that has been going on since when? Secretary AILES. Since 1903, begun by Elihu Root. Senator DODD. Nobody ever took the trouble to find out if it was any good. It has cost $12 million in the last 5 years. What do you suppose it has cost since 1903? Secretary AILES. Ammunition was probably cheaper then, Mr. Chairman. I think this is the sort of thing that looked as if it were a good idea right from the beginning. I know we had considerable difficulty with various aspects of the Army back then. Perhaps our marksmanship was pretty low. I will say that we have made some remarkable advances in how to teach marksmanship in the Army in the last 3 to 5 years, which perhaps casts a different light on this. Senator DODD. You are talking about in the Army? Secretary AILES. Yes, sir. I say that when this program was founded we did not have the train-fire range and some of these other things, and that is why it was started. Senator DODD. Maybe we do not need it any more. Secretary AILES. Quite conceivably, and that is what this study. should answer. Senator DODD. It has been argued that the so-called armed citizen is vital to the defense of our country in the event of a foreign power invading us. I would like to hear your comments if you care to make any, on this view in the light of the modern concepts of warfare. I have been charged, for example in the literature I have seen with trying to disarm our people so the Communists could more easily take us over and I wonder what you think of this. Secretary AILES. I could just say this, Mr. Chairman, that I have not seen any contingency war plan where the citizenry was included. As you know, we have a National Guard and the Reserve in the States that we go to great pains to train. That program costs us over $1 billion a year. This is something that is very important, but those are combat troops and support troops which would be called up in wartime. But I am not familiar, myself, with any plans in high levels of Government to call out the armed citizenry as at Bunke Hill. Senator DODD. I know. I want to say publicly, particularly to you Mr. Secretary, that I have a great respect for the NRA. I know General Orth very well. I thing he is a fine man, an excellent man He is greatly concerned. I happen to know about these Minuteme and the Vigilantes, and so on. I noticed an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last year whi relates that the national leadership of the Minutemen said that many of his members are also members of the NRA. I do not think th is true. I know the NRA tries very hard, and I am sure it succeeds: excluding these people and I want to be fair about that and says on the record. My understanding is that the rules of the NRA prohibit membershi in the NRA to any of the members of any of these organizations. It is interesting to note that some of these Minutemen and Vigilante claim they are urging their members to get into these rifle clubs that they can get access to guns and ammunition. I suppose your study will take a look at that. Secretary AILES. Yes, sir, we are aware of that problem, as you are and this is one thing that we are definitely looking at. In other words, what are the procedures with respect to the selection of thes clubs, and are they adequate? Like you, I am well acquainted with Frank Orth and I know very well that he was vitally interested in any of that sort of activity In fact, he was violently opposed to his organization being taken over for that purpose. Senator DODD. I know he is, too. He is such a good man it is a pity he has made such a mistake about this bill. Mr. Secretary, I have a letter from the Secretary of Defense which I will put in the record and this simply states that he has asked you to come here. Secretary AILES. Yes, sir. (The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 10" and reads a follows:) EXHIBIT No. 10 THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Hon. THOMAS J. DODD, Chairman, Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, Committee on th Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR DODD: This refers to Mr. Carl L. Perian's letter of April 1965, extending me an invitation to testify before the subcommittee on May 1965, with respect to the bill, S. 1592, "To amend the Federal Firearms Ad I have asked the Secretary of the Army, Stephen Ailes, to testify on beha of the Department of Defense in response to your invitation, and to cover detail the specific items which are listed in the letter of April 14, 1965. The Department of Defense strongly recommends enactment of S. 1592. function of the Department of Defense will be in any way impaired by enactment of this legislation. More realistic Federal control of the distributi of firearms in the stream of commerce between the States and between United States and foreign states is clearly in our best national interest. Beyond the official position of the Department of Defense, I would like add my deep, personal conviction about the desirability of this legislation. Sincerely, ROBERT S. MCNAMARA |