Mr. DENNIS. I guess I would like to have the opportunity to present this to the commitee this morning, if I might, sir.

Senator DODD. All right. I can only give you 5 minutes this morning.

Mr. DENNIS. I am Robert T. Dennis, assistant conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America. The league is a nationwide organization of citizens dedicated to wise and proper management and use of the Nation's natural resources. As is true of other conservation associations, the league's membership base is constituted of sportsmen. We estimate that more than 80 percent of our members own firearms; they use theirs in accordance with the law. We therefore have considerable interest in the bill before you today, and appreciate the opportunity to present our views concerning it and firearms control in general.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this whole statement appear in the record if I might.

Senator DODD. It will.

Mr. DENNIS. As you see from reading it, we have attempted to as sist the committee by outlining

Senator DODD. Yes.

Mr. DENNIS (continuing). A series of firearms controls which we support and a series which we would not support. A good part of the statement is designed to outline our views on the various bills before you in accordance with these proposals.

But I do want to say, just in brief, that we would support any firearms bill which incorporates our recommendations. We would be very happy to work with the committee in implementing existing legislation to meet these regulations. I say, first of all, we would support a firearms control proposal to provide and require enforcement of strict penalties for criminal misuse of firearms.

Second, we would certainly support a bill which would drastically restrict traffic in and strictly regulate individual ownership of måchineguns, bazookas, antitank guns, land mines, and similar paraphernalia of war as well as sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, the silencers, and similar paraphernalia of crime.

I might say we are as concerned as anyone else about the reported proliferation of private armies, while we list a number of other things we would support here.

For instance, prevention of gun sales to juveniles unless parental consent is clearly demonstrated, and a number of other things which we certainly support.

I think that the statement also goes into considerable detail on control proposals which we would oppose. Because of this position as briefed here, we cannot support S. 1592 as presently written. We can support some Federal firearms legislation. We supported S. 1975 last year. We were prepared to support S. 14 this year. We could probably go beyond either of those bills.

I would like to go beyond the written statement to respect fully suggest that this committee consider a four-bill package approach to the firearms misuse problem. This would include, first, a bill making it a Federal crime to use or carry any firearms which has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the commission of any

robbery, assault, murder, rape, burglary, kidnaping, or homicide other than involuntary manslaughter.

Senator DODD. May I ask you a question about that, I think every State has such a statute.

Mr. DENNIS. Well, perhaps we need a Federal statute in this area setting mandatory penalties for such crimes.

Senator DODD. Yes.

Mr. DENNIS. A great number of our members are very concerned about what appears to be a laxity or an inability of law enforcement bodies at local levels to deal with these people.

We know that people that do use firearms illegally seem to be turned loose again and again, and our members are concerned about this.

The second bill that we would urge be considered would be a bill along the lines of S. 14 or S. 1965, perhaps going beyond these measures to set reasonable controls over movement of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce.

Third, a bill along the lines of S. 1591 to place strict controls on war and gangster weapons. Again our statement indicates a couple of modifications that we would like to have in those bills, or in that bill, but basically we very strongly support that bill.

Fourth, we wonder if it might not be possible for the Congress to take some action setting Federal standards under which an individual may transport personal firearms across State lines so long as he complies with State and local laws and regulations effective in areas wherein he actually makes use of such firearms. What we are getting at here is the need for nationwide criteria under which a person traveling interstate could transport his firearms through, and I emphasize through, any State or locality without being arrested for violation of State or local controls. Such controls are not drawn in the first place with the intention of harrassing law-abiding tourists and travelers but some could, in fact, have that effect.

I think that this is perhaps an extension of the controls that S. 1592 tries to place on this personal transport interstate. We think we understand the purpose of that, we recognize this interstate problem but we also think that without some sort of nationwide guidelines that any individual could get into difficulty trying to transport guns interstate for lawful purposes, even though he is a perfectly law-abiding citizen.

Again, as the statement points out it would appear to us under existing State and local laws that it would be unwise for anybody to try to transport a handgun, let us say, from Washington to Boston, without doing considerable research about all the areas he is going to pass through en route. I think that perhaps your efforts to reduce the crime problem caused by interstate movement of guns could be matched by some effort under the interstate and foreign commerce powers of the Federal Government to protect law-abiding citizens who are really trying to transport firearms for lawful purposes.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I am sorry that we did not have opportunity to present this statement in full. I again hope that it will be fully in

cluded in the record.

Senator DODD. Of course it will be word for word. You can be sure of that. It will be printed exactly as you presented it.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Dennis follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS CONTROL LEGISLATION, JULY 1, 1965

Mr. Chairman, I am Robert T. Dennis, assistant conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America. The league is a nationwide organization of citizens dedicated to wise and proper management and use of the Nation's natural resources. As is true of other conservation associations, the league's membership base is constituted of sportsmen. We estimate that more than 80 percent of our members own firearms; they use theirs in accordance with the law. We therefore have considerable interest in the bill before you today, and appreciate the opportunity to present our views concerning it and firearms control in general.

At the outset, we should like to make a clear record of the fact that we assume no particular competence to forecast the overall beneficial effects of enactment of S. 1592 or of any other firearms bill. League membership is a cross-section of law-abiding citizens, not criminals. We believe we can judge how legislation in this area would affect socially responsible people; we are not able to determine the extent to which it would control irresponsible actions. However, it is certainly true that many of our members hold the opinion that were private ownership of firearms totally outlawed effective tomorrow, the criminal element of our society would continue to have and misuse guns for years and that only responsible citizens would suffer.

League members fully support the goal of reducing crime in the United States. We certainly hope that experts on the subject of criminal misuse of firearms are correct in believing that more stringent firearms controls will help alleviate crime, for it seems evident that some further controls will be adopted— and we will be most disappointed if their only result is to inconvenience socially responsible Americans.

Mr. Chairman, we are sure of but one fact in the area of firearms controlthat the public is considering at various levels of government innumerabie proposals carrying innumerable variations in language, all of which were presumably drafted as being the ideal approach to recognized problems. It is virtually impossible for the average citizen to fully analyze these proposals But it is interesting, and perhaps of considerable concern, that most of the; are directed entirely at the inanimate firearm rather than at the misuser of that firearm.

The subject of these hearings is S. 1592, a bill both highly technical and complex in language and implication—and, therefore, extremely confusing to the layman. We sincerely wonder whether anyone understands all its e plications.

There has been much said in these and previous hearings about the conduct of sportsmen and conservationists with respect to S. 1592 and other firearms bills. We do not believe the picture has been fairly painted. So far as the Izaak Walton League is concerned, there are provisions of S. 1592 which we endorse; there are other provisions which we question. We determine and represent our position on firearms proposals under the same considered and responsible procedures which we apply to conservation issues.

Rather than attempt to go one-by-one through the provisions of S. 132 and indicate our position on each, the league would prefer to list those firearms regulations which it would support, and those which it would not support. There is no question that the Izaak Walton League would strongly endorse any firearms bill which incorporates these recommendations.

Izaak Walton League members support firearms control proposals which would:

(1) Provide and require enforcement of strict penalties for criminal misne of firearms. Many league members have indicated a sincere belief that HR 5641 and H.R. 5642, introduced by Congressman Casey, outline in principee the most rational approach of recent years to the whole firearms problem. I person to punish is the criminal, not the decent citizen.

It seems clear that if any new firearms control law proves ineffective, propose s for even more restrictive legislation can be reliably predicted. We note in 1⁄2 « respect that the comments of various proponents of S. 1592 seem to indicate them? hope that S. 1592 will be only the beginning. We believe it much more sensi

to "throw the book" at the criminal than to inflict unnecessary and ineffectual penalties on the law-abiding gunowner.

(2) Drastically restrict traffic in, and strictly regulate individual ownership of machineguns, bazookas, antitank guns, land mines, and similar paraphernalia of war, as well as sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, silencers, and similar paraphernalia of crime. We see no overriding reason for the average citizen to own and operate such devices. We are as concerned as anyone else about the reported proliferation of private armies outfitted with such devices.

With the qualification outlined below, we therefore fully endorse S. 1591. We also ask why S. 1591 cannot be broadened to include all applicable provisions of S. 1592 (such as sec. 3(f) of that bill) insofar as war and gangster weapons are concerned.

We see no point in mixing handguns, rifles, and shotguns in the same category with war and gangster weapons. We respectfully suggest to this committee that the goal of achieving reasonable control of concealable weapons, rifles, and shotguns would be more readily attained if it did not attempt to lump all categories of weapons in one firearms bill.

As indicated above in qualifying our support for S. 1591, we take exception to the term "destructive device" employed in S. 1591 and S. 1592. As presently defined, that term includes certain high-caliber sporting rifles as well as an array of largely antique muzzle-loading weapons. The league seriously doubts that either the elephant gun or the Kentucky rifle figures prominently in the Nation's crime problem.

(3) End bulk imports of cheap firearms, particularly handguns, which have no value for sporting, target, or home-protection purposes. In this regard, we support the purpose of section 3 (e) of S. 1592.

However, we would want clear assurance that the Secretary of the Treasury could not arbitrarily refuse import of high quality rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Also, we would point out that certain surplus military weapons are suitable for sporting and other legitimate purposes, particularly if modified. Finally, we believe that section 3(e) of S. 1592 should be worded so as not to require that American citizens have a permit from the Secretary to import any rifle, shotgun, or handgun acquired for personal use during foreign travel or military service; declaration of such items for customs purposes ought to be adequate.

(4) Prevent gun sales to the recognizably irresponsible and the insane, and to convicted criminals. A resolution on this subject adopted by our 1964 annual convention is attached. In our view, S. 14 would achieve this goal insofar as mail-order sales are concerned.

(5) Prevent gun sales to juveniles, unless parental consent is clearly demonstrated. Again, we support S. 14 in this regard. Though we have been unable to poll them, we believe most league members would support the age provisions of S. 1592.

But we point out that responsibility comes at no particular age. Just as there are men of 35 or 50 years who employ firearms improperly, there are boys and girls of 10 or 12 who measure up in every respect to the highest firearms use standards. Many children of this age receive excellent training and are safe shooters. They share pleasures afield with their parents. In short, they are responsible gun owners.

We agree that children under the age of 18 should not be permitted to purchase firearms except with the knowledge and consent of their parents. But we would not prevent gunownership by juvenile citizens. S. 1592 does not prohibit such ownership.

However, we note that Secretary Fowler, who would have primary responsibility and broad authority for administering S. 1592, said to this committee: "minors under the age of 18 should not have access to rifles or shotguns." We totally disagree with that philosophy-and it is precisely that kind of thinking which has caused law-abiding firearms owners to oppose S. 1592 on the basis that it gives the Secretary of the Treasury too much opportunity to harass responsible citizens. Taken to the extreme, Secretary Fowler's statement might indicate a belief that no one should possess a firearm until his children reached the age of 18, for any child surely has access to his parents' belongings.

(6) Reduce traffic in stolen weapons, and in weapons from which serial numbers have been removed. We find that provisions of S. 1592 in this regard are already incorporated in present regulations. We fully support their inclusion in new law if such is deemed necessary and desirable.

49-588-65--42

(7) Require clear notice that firearms are contained in packages being shipped or mailed.

(8) Raise manufacturers', importers', and dealers' license fees to levels which cover the cost of processing license applications, such processing to include reasonable inquiry into the character of the applicant.

However, we note that many experts believe the fee level of S. 1592 to be higher than necessary for these purposes-and so high that certain reputable businessmen will be forced to terminate their current firearms and ammunition trade. We note further that section 3 (c) (2) of S. 1592 directs the Secretary of the Treasury not to issue a license if he judges the applicant "is, by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connections, not likely to maintain operations in compliance with this act." We feel that overly zealous interpretation of this provision would make it impossible for any newcomer to enter the firearms business. We point out that much of America was built by inexperienced persons starting an industry "on a shoestring." We feel that the only criterion for refusing a license should be clear evidence that the potential licensee would not operate in accordance with the law. Mr. Chairman, league members would not support legislation which would: (1) Outlaw individual ownership or responsible use of firearms. None of the bills being considered by this Congress fall into this category. (2) Make it impossible for decent citizens to purchase sporting quality handguns, rifles, and shotguns of their choice. Neither S. 14 nor S. 1965 would have this effect. We have heard the argument that S. 1592 wouldn't either.

But we wonder if a total ban on interstate mail-order sales would not in fact make it extremely difficult or impossible from a financial standpoint for individuals to acquire certain types of firearms. Should a person desire a particular firearm for which there is little demand in his State, it is unlikely that local outlets would care to open dealerships in that firearm. Furthermore it is possible that Federal action banning interstate mail-order sales might encourage State action to terminate such sales intrastate.

S. 1592 would seem to make it difficult for a person to have a sporting firearm custom built to his personal specifications by a firm located outside his State. Also, under S. 1592 restrictions on "destructive devices" and handguns, it would be virtually hopeless for a law-abiding citizen to acquire, for example, a particular revolver or antique gun which he might discover in the course of vacation travel outside his State.

(3) Make it difficult or demeaning for a respectable citizen to purchase ammunition of his choice. Many experts believe that the dealers fees proposed by S. 1592 would cause small-volume stores to discontinue sales of handgun and rifle ammunition.

No doubt ammunition would continue to be available somewhere in every area, but quite possibly at some inconvenience to the prospective legitimate user. Meanwhile, it is hard for us to believe that any criminal planning to use a firearm for an illegal purpose would fail to arrange well in advance to obtain necessary ammunition. And firearms "crimes of the moment" can occur only if ammunition is already available—if a person becomes so annoyed with his wife that he decides to shoot her, a trip to the corner store for the missing ammunition ought to provide as much effective oportunity to "cool off" as a trip to a more distant distributor.

Section 3(g) of S. 1592 requires that ammunition dealers keep detailed records of ammunition transactions "in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe." Does this mean that if I wish to purchase a box of rifle ammunition I must first fill out a form giving my name, address, criminal record or lack thereof, purpose of purchase, and so forth? This would be demeaning in the extreme. I expect the sponsors of the bill intend no such procedure-but where in S. 1592 is the purchaser protected?

Finally, we recognize that proponents of S. 1592 have said that it is not the intent of the bill to end hand-loading activities of individuals or gun clubs. But we cannot find that lack of intent anywhere in the bill. We do find that section 1(8) says "the term 'manufacturer' means any person engaged in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution,” and we do find that section 3(a) says that "no person shall engage in business as *** [an] ammunition *** manufacturer * * * until he has re ceived a license to do so from the Secretary." That license would cost $500. The bill would therefore appear to require a person to obtain a $500 license