Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

merely in order to handload rifle cartridges at cost for "distribution" to a friend.

(4) Require registration of firearms. We do not object to present law and regulations requiring dealers to maintain detailed records of firearms transactions-including name, addres, firearm description, and serial number-but we do object to registration as such. We believe that section 3(g) of S. 1592 could be construed to promote total firearms registration.

(5) Require prior approval or licensing by police or other authority of firearms purchase by citizens. There is no reason whatsoever to subject the lawabiding citizen to such provisions. We are happy that they are not included in S. 1592.

(6) Make it impractical to obtain necessary or desirable repairs, reworking, and modification of firearms. We feel that S. 1592 is not satisfactory in this

area.

Section 2(a) (3) of S. 1592 is vague-what will the Secretary allow as "authorized service"? What conditions will the Secreary further impose under the regulatory authority granted by this section?

We also call attention to section 1(9) of S. 1592 which seems to require a $100 dealer's license of "any person engaged in the business of * * * making or fitting special *** stocks * * * to firearms." A number of people in this country engage in the part-time home-workshop business of providing custombuilt stocks for rifles and shotguns. S. 1592 would almost certainly put them out of operation.

(7) Make it unduly burdensome for a person to transport a firearm from one State to another for lawful purposes. We recognize that sections 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) of S. 1592 provide no real new control over the individual who takes his firearms with him across State lines. These sections do, however, authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to set conditions under which the same individual might have his firearm transported for him by others. Does this mean that, if a friend and I plan a hunting trip to Wyoming involving his driving a personal car to our final destination while I travel by air, a great deal of redtape would be involved in securing permission for my friend to take my gun in his car? There is no question but what the situation affecting personal transport of firearms is already confused. It would seem that no one ought today to attempt an auto trip from Washington to Boston with a handgun in his possesion without first spending months of research on State and local handgun laws en route. Otherwise, he could conceivably spend months in jail. For this reason, it would be a distinct service to the law-abiding gun owner for this committee or some other party to devise and promote adoption at the State and local level of uniform gun laws which do not hinder interstate transport for lawful purposes.

Mr. Chairman, under the philosophies expressed here, the Izaak Walton League of America cannot support S. 1592 as presently written. We feel that it is too broad. We feel that in the effort to restrict criminal operations involving firearms, it would impose unnecessary and undesirable burdens on honest citizens. We feel that it would grant to the Secretary of the Treasury undefined authority to implement further regulations-but we also wish to be recorded as recognizing that it is necessary and desirable for the Congress to grant general discretionary operating authority to officers of the executive branch, so long as adequate limitations on that authority are written into the law and into the legislative record. Mr. Chairman, the Izaak Walton League of America can support S. 14 and S. 1965. In some respects we can go beyond those bills to endorse various provisions of S. 1592. We would be happy to work with this committee in modifying S. 1592, but, in view of the controversy which it has aroused, would respectfully recommend that any revision be given a new number.

We certainly endorse the expressed purposes of all these bills to reduce firearms crimes in the United States. In retrospect, it seems to us that the impasse which exists in reaching that goal through firearms control is due in part to the fact that legislative proposals are generally drawn by persons who are primarily familiar with gun law breakers rather than with the activities of law-abiding gun owners. The responsible firearms user ought to participate more fully in the drafting of regulations. The Izaak Walton League, though preferring to concentrate on the conservation issues which are its reason for being, offers its assistance.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us to be here today.

RESOLUTION No. 15 ON RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, 42D ANNUAL CONVENTION, JUNE 24-27, 1964, DAVENPORT, IOWA

Whereas the citizen's primary right to keep and bear arms is clearly set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America; and

Whereas any general requirement for the registration of firearms, for approval prior to purchase of firearms, or for other type of firearms control, by police or other public agency, would constitute infringement of that right and a step toward its eventual dissolution; and

Whereas misuse of firearms is the fault of the user and not of the firearms themselves; and

Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is occasionally abused, particularly by the insane, by the misguided and the irresponsible, and by the criminal element of our society; and

Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is also a privilege: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Izaak Walton League of America in convention assembled this 27th day of June 1964, at Davenport, Iowa, That it strongly opposes any effort to require the general registration or other control of firearms by the police or other public agency; and be it further

Resolved, That the league supports efforts to prevent gun sales to the irresponsible and the insane, and to convicted criminals, so long as any control mechanism is subject to appeal to the courts; and be it further

Resolved, That, as the primary and most logical effort to control the misuse of firearms, the States and their political subdivisions should adopt and strictly enforce laws establishing severe penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of any crime, or for flagrant misuse of firearms in any way.

Senator DODD. I express our gratitude to you for coming here and giving us the benefit of your view, and if you want to come back and read it all into the record I want you to do so.

Mr. DENNIS. Well, thank you, sir. Perhaps if you had any-you or your staff had any-questions after reviewing the statement again we would like to come back if we were invited.

Senator DODD. Yes, sir.

Of course, I read your statement and there are many things that I would question but I think just about all the points that would cause me to ask a question have been raised by other witnesses. I think we have covered the ground pretty well, you know. This last point you make about the interstate problem we will certainly consider it. It seems to me the best answer to that is to get some uniform State laws.

Mr. DENNIS. I recognize that would be the ideal way. I know there have been several attempts to provide model State ordinances in this area, and States, some States adopt them, others don't, and so we at present, of course, have a tremendous hodgepodge of these things. I think they are all designed for very fine purposes, but unfortunately they do create a jungle in a sense for the honest citizen.

Senator DODD. Yes; it is difficult. It is not an easy area,
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Dennis.

We will recess this hearing until further call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee recessed subject to call of the Chair.)

FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee (composed of Senators Dodd, Hart, Bayh, Burdick, Tydings, Hruska, Fong, and Javits) met, pursuant to call, at 2:25 p.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas J. Dodd presiding.

Present: Senators Dodd and Burdick.

Also present: Carl L. Perian, staff director; and William C. Mooney, chief investigator.

Senator DODD. The hearing is called to order.

Today we are continuing hearings regarding the need for tightening up Federal firearms legislation to reduce the flagrant misuse of pistols and rifles by persons who are incapable of safe and responsible handling of these instruments of destruction.

We have as our first witness a distinguished government official of the State of California, Mr. Hale Champion, who is also uniquely qualified to testify on this subject because of a harrowing personal experience to which he, his wife, and his 19-month-old daughter were subjected by armed bandits.

I have looked forward to the testimony of Mr. Champion because he can tell our good citizens who still feel safe in their homes that as long as any felon can obtain a gun at will, it is only chance which separates any man, woman, or child in this country from the ordeal which he and his family experienced as hostages at the hands of desperate criminals.

Now, I want to make it clear for the record that the legislation we propose here cannot remove all guns from the reach of criminals. I have said this repeatedly in the course of these hearings, but the important point is they can substantially reduce this danger.

I have asked Mr. Champion to appear here so that he can emphasize for the benefit of the American public the horror even a few guns can bring into the lives of innocent citizens if they are in the wrong hands.

I think his testimony will show over and above the tragedies and murder figures recorded in our hearings that this deliberation on gun legislation is academic only when you are not looking into the black barrel of a pistol or rifle, that the danger of misused firearms has been a stark reality for many, and that death and injury are just around the corner for many unsuspecting citizens in this land.

Mr. Champion is director of finance, appointed by Governor Brown, of California, and he is a member of 28 State boards and commissions, including the public works board, the State lands commission; he supervises the State planning office and programs policy staff in the executive department, and he has been active in efforts to enact firearms legislation in the State of California.

I have not met you, Mr. Champion. We met on the telephone. I need not say to you again that I am one of millions in this country who felt for you and prayed for you and am glad that you came out all right.

Go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF HALE CHAMPION, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CHAMPION. Thank you very much, Senator. I am glad to have this opportunity to appear before your committee and tell you personally how impressed I am by the work you have done in this field.

I am not an expert witness in this field although I do have some relevant knowledge of the problems involved, largely through general governmental experience. As you pointed out, I also have recently had a special experience which has greatly increased my direct interest in Federal, State, and local gun laws. I want to make it clear at the outset, however, that my general knowledge and special experience do not so much point to specific provisions of law as to the attitudes with which the problems of controlling the sale and use of firearms, whether concealable or not, should be approached.

From our legislative history on firearms regulation in California and from the fiery correspondence I have received since it was announced that I was to testify before you-and the correspondence has been fiery in character

Senator DODD. I understand that.

Mr. CHAMPION. I am sure you have much more of it than I. It seems to me that the greatest difficulty in dealing with firearms legislation is one of the attitudes concerned, primarily on the part of opposition to change or reform.

The firearms regulation problem is not unique in this respect, nor, in fact in many other respects. A scattered rural society in which individuals could have a great deal of freedom without infringing on the rights of others or endangering the lives of others has changed with breathtaking speed into a tightly interwoven urban complex in which most of us spend a good deal of time polluting each other's air and water, using our automobiles as unintentional lethal weapons, and be ing generally indifferent to the consequences of other people's possession of firearms at the risk of indifference to our own lives and safety. And California is a State in which this change from rural to urban has taken place with amazing rapidity, and we are still trying to eat.b up with the impact.

A lot of people I think probably who have not visited California are under the impression that it still is a good deal of a rural society. Asa matter of fact, 90 percent of the people of California are now in urban areas. Some of us do not want to recognize the changes in our society at all. For such persons the problem of the sale of a rifle to an un

known hoodlum who can immediately cut it down to a concealable weapon if he chooses is no different than the problem of getting a rifle into the hands of a militiaman who stood at Lexington or Concord. With them logical discussion is impossible. Other more reasonable persons recognize the change in size, shape, and scope of the problem but not in its fundamental nature.

I think this is what happened. The volume has gotten so great that the fundamental nature of the problem has changed.

These people will admit the necessity of some reform, but only in degree. They continue to feel that new regulations ought not to impose any more than a minimal burden of time and inconvenience on the would-be legitimate purchaser or user of a firearm no matter how much additional regulations which would impose such burdens of time and inconvenience might help to solve the firearms control problems of society as a whole. I would urge that the attitude ought to be reversed. The legitimate purchaser and user of a lethal firearm ought to be willing to go to at least the same great lengths to protect the interests of society as the legitimate purchaser and user of another lethal weapon, the automobile. He ought to be willing to accept relatively heavy burdens so long as his basic privilege is still available.

Perhaps my personal story will help explain why I think the acceptance of such burdens is wise and necessary.

At about 3 a.m., Thursday, July 8th, my wife, my 19-month-old baby and I were kidnaped from our home in Sacramento.

Now, we were not kidnaped because the gun laws are inadequate and I do not propose to tell you that, nor do I propose to go through the whole 24-hour story of hostage, exchanges of gunfire, and eventual

release.

But there were pertinent episodes, and I do want to tell you about those. Part of what happened I know myself and part of it comes from subsequent investigation and interview by others about which I was told.

First, it should be noted that the two men who took us as hostages were less than 2 weeks out of Oregon State prison, that they were being sought throughout the Northwest for bank robbery, the killing of a deputy sheriff, rape, and prior kidnapings. When they took us from our home, they had either three or four weapons in their possession, all pistols of one type or another.

I do not know how they were obtained, but I understood officers believe none of them was purchased. As a matter of fact, I think one of them was taken from the deputy who was killed, but that is not a matter of personal knowledge. And in this the adequacy of gun laws, as far as my knowledge at least is concerned, is not a factor. What happened later, it did become a factor. We were driven over the Sierra-I did most of the driving over the Sierra-into Nevada at gunpoint and drove up the highway the next morning as far as Carson City. This time we had been in the car about 6 hours. Carson City is the State capital of Nevada. There we waited in our car just off the main street with one of the kidnapers while the other, a 30year-old Georgian named Wilfred Marion Gray, made the first of a number of trips around the corner on to the main street to buy supplies and equipment. When he came back a few minutes later he showed us his first purchase, a .30-30 lever action Winchester and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »