witness here has said there is really no evidence that the long guns, as they call them, the rifles and shotguns, are used to any extent by criminals.

Mr. CHAMPION. One was held to my head for something like 20 minutes, so I can testify that at least once it was so used.

Senator DODD. I think your testimony will be helpful to us on this law certainly. I do not know what the committee will think about including these long guns in over-the-counter sales. I doubt that that would be advisable. But certainly the very least we can ask is that mail-order sales be put under control. I am sure you agree. Mr. CHAMPION. I do indeed.

Senator DODD. Well, I thank you very much for coming here and giving us the story of your experience. Is there anything you want to add?

Mr. CHAMPION. Nothing at all. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator DODD. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mr. Daniel R. McLeod, attorney general of the State of South Carolina. With him is Mr. J. P. Strom, director of the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division.

Attorney General McLeod, we will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. MCLEOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ACCOMPANIED BY J. P. STROM, DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION

Mr. MCLEOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before this committee. As the chairman said a moment ago, I have with me Mr. J. P. Strom, chief of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. He has occupied this position for a period of 8 years. Prior thereto, he was assistant chief of the division for a period of 10 years. He has been engaged in law enforcement throughout his entire adult life with the exception of wartime service. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy.

Chief Strom is now serving as national president of the FBI National Academy Associates.

For a number of years, we have been concerned in South Carolina with the serious problem presented by the ready availability of weapons to all persons.

When I assumed office in 1959, I submitted to the legislature the following recommendation with respect to this problem, and similar recommendations have been annually submitted since then:

The present existing laws relating to firearms are universally disregarded, and a more practicable means of controlling the indiscriminate purchase and possession of small firearms should be enacted.

A draft of proposed legislation will be made available to your body.

I am convinced that the law with respect to the carrying of concealed weapons should remain unchanged.

I believe also that the regulation of firearms can best be implemented by directing the force of the law toward persons rather than weapons. Consequently, it is my suggestion that you consider the advisability of prohibiting certain persons from possessing, carrying, et cetera, any weapon. Categories of persons who should be prohibited from possessing firearms would include(a) Convicted felons,

(b) Persons convicted of offenses involving the use of firearms,

(c) Insane persons,

(d) Persons of a designated minimum age, and

(e) Those declared by order of a court to be unfit to possess weapons. Solicitor B. O. Thomason, of the 13th judicial circuit, and I have prepared an outline of legislation incorporating what we consider desirable features. This will be made available to your honorable body.

It is noted that under present law, the sale, possession, transportation, et cetera, of small firearms is totally prohibited. In at least two counties (Greenville and Charleston), the grand juries have recommended that this law be totally enforced. This demand arose from the outgrowth of numerous shooting incidents involving small firearms.

That was the suggestion which was submitted to the legislature over a period of 5 years.

At the 1965 session of the general assembly, under the direct prompting of Solicitor B. O. Thomason of Greenville, S.C., the legislature adopted what we consider a model gun law. This law has the general effect of restricting sales of weapons to certain categories of persons deemed unfit, in accordance with the criteria established by the law, to acquire or possess a small firearm.

The problem has been recognized by various bodies in the State charged with investigation of law enforcement problems. The grand jury of Greenville County, on March 10, 1965, in its presentment to the court of general sessions, stated:

At our general sessions, we took cognizance of the numerous shootings that were taking place in Greenville County, a great number of which involved small caliber pistols. In our presentment, we recommend that some action be taken to change the present gun law, which is not enforceable in its present form, to a law which would be adequate enough to prevent these violations.

The grand jury pointed out that 42 persons were treated at the Greenville General Hospital for gunshot wounds during the first 2 months of 1965.

Similarly, the grand jury of Charleston County, S.C., in its September 1959 presentment stated:

This grand jury, at this term of court, met with the heads of the law enforce ment agencies of the county. We have made certain recommendations as to the careless and haphazard sale of illegal firearms within the county. We have been assured by the heads of the city and county police departments, the State highway patrol, and the sheriff's office of their cooperation.

At its December 1959 term, the grand jury reported:

This grand jury has consulted, at this term of court, with Chief William F. Kelly of the Charleston City Police Department and the director of the county police department, relative to the illegal sale of firearms in the city and county of Charleston. We have been assured by these gentlemen that a meeting has been held and that plans are in process for enforcing the State law which prohibits the sale of pistols, and that the law relative to same is to be strictly enforced.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I have another grand jury report, which I will quote just briefly from, dated 1964, December

1964.

Throughout the past year we have seen time and again that the vast najority of killings in this county have resulted from the fact that a small pistel was being carried by the assailant. The grand jury feels that this is certainly one of the most serious problems that it has run into during the past year, and therefore strongly recommends that the county officials cause a thorough study to be made of this problem

And recommending certain specific provisions be included in that. In response to an inquiry by Chief Strom, the chief of the Police Department of Greenville, S.C., stated-and this is a letter dated this month-"I would like to see stricter laws passed relating to the mail-order firearms traffic into South Carolina.

For your information and file, during the year 1964, 42 teenage males and 3 teenage females were arrested and charged with carrying, shooting, pointing, or having in possession, firearms in the city of Greenville.

During the first 6 months of 1965, we have already arrested for the same offenses as mentioned above, 26 male teenagers and 2 female teenagers.

Chief William F. Kelly of the Charleston, S.C., Police Department, stated in part:

I am extremely happy to learn of the stimulated interest in reference to some form of control over shipping and purchasing and sale, et cetera, of firearms in our State.

We feel, on the local level, that it is extremely too easy for people to secure firearms, from many aspects; certainly more especially with the youth of the community who appear to have easy access to firearms, through various means. In my opinion, it would be wise to see that some form of legislation be made to control this situation before the practice gets out of hand, so to speak.

It is clear to us that the promiscuous and indiscriminate sale and possession of firearms is a serious problem in South Carolina and contributes heavily to the problems which law enforcement officers face. One phase of this problem is with respect to cheap, foreign-made guns. I have taken the liberty to bring before the committee a series of guns which were obtained by Chief Strom's officers in the course of investigations of various homicides and attempted homicides, assaults, and matters of that nature. These guns are all imported guns. There are six or seven of them, some of one particular make, others of other makes. All of these can be classed as junk rather than as an adequate firearm, and all of them have a history of accidental discharge. All of them have a history of promiscuous purchase, indiscriminate purchase. None of them is fit to be classed as a weapon.

No. 1, for example, was purchased from a pawnshop by a Columbia housewife for less than $10, and with this gun she shot her husband. Another weapon admittedly could have been used, but the point is, as so often happens in these cases, there was readily available a cheap firearm which could be purchased without any credentials whatsoever. No. 2 fired two bullets at the same time when it was dropped on the floor of a beer joint in Florence County in South Carolina. Both bullets lodged in the leg of the man who dropped it, and that is a factor which runs true throughout all of these guns, that they are unsafe whether they are fired intentionally or not.

I, like the preceding witness, am not a firearms expert, but I am adequately and reliably informed by Chief Strom and his experts that these guns are a danger to life and limb simply by being fired. They possess no safety features whatsoever. They do not have a hammer lock or some other items which I will refer to here in just a moment, but these should be totally prohibited as junk irrespective of whether they may be classed as firearms or not.

Another gun was used in a Saturday night killing. Another gun. an old one here of a different foreign make, was taken from a subject in Greenwood County. It had been used in committing a murder in North Carolina. The Oulhead pistol is another foreign make used in an armed robbery in Calhoun County. The cheapness is what made this gun readily available. None of them are safe for shooting whether legally or illegally. That was used in a holdup.

Another gun was used in a Saturday night killing, and it was available simply because it was cheap and could be bought without presentment of any credentials whatsoever. The small firearms, the cheap imported weapons, are a serious problem. I have received information, which I consider reliable, that one dealer alone converted approximately 20,000 Rohm pistols so that they could be made to fire 22 caliber cartridges. The Rohm was designed as a starter pistol; that is, to be used in athletic events and for firing blanks, and has proved to be a very popular murder weapon in South Carolina. Its cost is approximately $12.50 to $15 in that State. When fired-and one of these guns did this these weapons discharge lead and powder both forward and backward. They may even fire simultaneously. The Rohm can shoot a bullet from the cylinder as well as from the barrel with a single pull of the trigger. Screws can fall out, pieces can fall off-still it is capable of inflicting mortal wounds. They have no safety devices or safeguards. It lacks a hammerlock to prevent accidental discharge. The cylinder is not ringed and the cylinder chambers are not countersunk to provide for recessing the cartridge rim as another method of preventing accidental discharge.

This gun, and others of its characteristics, should not be permitted to be imported or manufactured in this country, and so far as S. 1592 meets this problem, we are in accord with it.

We suggest that serious consideration be given to the establishment of Federal standards regarding safety features on firearms manufactured in this country.

In this connection, the flood of weapons and the ready availability of weapons in South Carolina is promoted by the very fact that the weapons are available at slight cost.

Imposition of minimum safety standards would, to a large degree. meet this problem.

Solicitor Thomason has publicly stated that he has noticed that many more shootings involve the little pistol and that there is a trend away from the use of knives and blunt instruments in homicides.

The .22-caliber pistol was by far the most frequent death instrument introduced in general sessions court in 15 murder cases and 26 manslaughter cases last year.

Lt. Harold Jennings, chief of city detectives, Greenville, S.C., one of our larger metropolitan areas, said that records showed that the last 33 weapons taken from people included: Eighteen cheap caliber pistols; one better quality .22 pistol; one .25-caliber pistol: one

Russian pistol, about .38 caliber-the chamber of which split on firing; one Colt automatic (caliber not listed); seven .32-caliber pistols; one bone-handled straight razor-and the Chief of detectives stated, "You don't find these very often anymore"-one butcher knife; one other knife; one sawed-off shotgun-"More of these are being found now. They can be bought for as little as $6"; and one set of aluminum knucks "There are fewer of these now."

Solicitor Foard of Columbia, S.C., in connection with a prosecution involving youthful offenders, stated: "The weapon-.25-caliber automatic-gave them enough courage to commit the crime"; and he emphasized that something must be done to keep pistols out of youthful hands. The defendant's attorney agreed, stating that "You can buy a pistol as easy as a pack of cigarettes."

The South Carolina Probation, Parole, and Pardon Board in January 1964, urged officers to tighten enforcement of a State law limiting concealed weapons. The board said:

We are extremely concerned over the increasing number of cases before this board where injury and even death have been occurring, due largely to the person committing an offense having in his possession a concealed weapon.

The board went so far as to recommend a firearms registration law. The general attitude in South Carolina toward firearms control, as reflected by the foregoing, had the effect of making the passage of the Thomason Act possible. Law enforcement officers, individually and through their various organizations, worked to secure passage of the act. The general public was aware that the indiscriminate purchase of weapons should be curtailed, and with public support, passage of the law was possible.

It is hoped that the passage of this act will alleviate our problem, but although we may be able to slow the traffic within our borders, it is impracticable to anticipate that mail-order purchases will not render the problem just as difficult at it was prior to the passage of the Thomason Act. Therefore, we are in accord with any reasonable effort to prevent the indiscriminate purchase of firearms.

With regard to the problem posed by heavy weapons, we have had only one experience of which I am aware. In 1961, a cache of heavy weapons was found by law enforcement officers under Chief Strom in a rural county in South Carolina. It consisted of ninety-five .50caliber machineguns; twelve .30-caliber machineguns; and 771 rounds of 20-mm. ammunition.

If the committee will indulge me, I will ask Chief Strom-we have photos of some of the weapons and ammunition that were taken in that cache of heavy weapons, and Chief Strom, it may be appropriate that he comment on these weapons at this juncture.

(The photographs referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 141 and 142" and are as follows:)

49-588 0-65- 43