of commiting a crime will, in my opinion, be able to secure that weapon by one means or another, either legal or illegal. If he contemplates a crime of violence he will not be deterred by the fact that the acquisition of his weapon might be in violation of another law. For this reason, I feel this legislation would not effectively control the element which might need control or restrictions of this nature, but would quite effectively control and restrict the acquisition and use of firearms by honest, responsible and legitimate citizens. I, therefore, oppose this bill and hope that members of this committee will give these views their most careful consideration before taking any action on S. 1592. STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEE METCALF, OF MONTANA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on S. 1592, to amend the Federal Firearms Act. It has been fashionable in recent months for many of this Nation's wellintentioned but, I believe, misguided civic leaders, commentators, and newspapers to demand that the Congress approve legislation to drastically curb the distribution, sale, and use of firearms. The current discussions have roots back to 1957, when the Internal Revenue Service proposed a series of new regulations on firearms and ammunition. The IRS proposed that everyone would have to sign for all types of firearms and ammunition; that all firearms would have to be serially numbered; and that all dealers would have to maintain permanent records of the sale of firearms and ammunition. I opposed those proposals in 1957. I oppose similar proposals today. and question the authority S. 1592 would confer upon the Secretary of the Treasury to write regulations with respect to firearms. I am in substantial agreement with representatives of the National Rifle Association and such respected conservation and wildlife organizations as the Wildlife Management Institute, and the National Wildlife Federation. I believe our so-called firearms problem is not with the sportsman, the gun collector, or the average citizen who owns a gun or two. Our problem is directly related to the criminal and potential criminals. I don't believe we have a firearms problem in this country so much as we have a crime problem. I will be the first Member in this room today to admit that the easy accessibility to firearms is a contributing factor in many crimes of violence. I ask the members of this committee to bear in mind that the so-called criminal guns are almost always handguns-pistols and revolvers. But if the bulk of attention is directed only at guns, and not at the causes of crime and the criminal, I don't believe the problem will ever be completely solved. I don't pretend to offer a patent solution to this very large and very complex problem. Perhaps more severe penalties would be helpful. Better enforcement of existing laws and regulations may also help. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965, to provide assistance in training State and local law enforcement officers and other personnel and in improving capabilities, techniques and practices in State and local law enforcement and prevention and control of crime. I believe this bill will be of major assistance in the identification of the problem facing State and local law enforcement agencies and will, at the same time, provide programs and projects which will increase the proficiency of police officers, jurists and administrators in law enforcement. I believe there is little doubt that Federal legislation, to prohibit the sale of firearms to individuals who have been convicted of a crime of violence, would be of major assistance, and I would support such legislation. I believe parental consent for juveniles to purchase firearms would be a step in the right direction. I also favor reasonable legislation regarding carrying concealed handguns. However, I would not be in favor of regulation of this kind as it might apply to hunters or gun collectors. I am opposed to any Federal legislation which would require the registration of firearms or require any kind of license or document in order to buy or possess them. I am opposed to any Federal legislation designed to prohibit the blanket sale of firearms by mail. This would be a tremendous hardship in rural States such as my own State of Montana. I want to make it clear to the members of the committee that I favor some legislation to curb the importation of cheap, foreignmade military hardware. Most of the mail-order gun business in this country is dependent upon these foreign imports. The United States has become the dumping ground for millions of surplus or obsolete military weapons, originally manufactured during and before World War II, not only by our Allies but by many of our former enemies. The advertisements offer foreignmade automatic pistols for less than $10. A 20-millimeter antitank gun can be purchased for less than $100. These weapons have no place in the realm of guns for sport. This equipment is, for the most part, junk. The weapons are inferior to the quality of American-made firearms. Their importation should be curbed. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have serious doubts concerning the language of the bill referring to the transportation of a rifle and/or shotgun across State lines. Regulations would be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, yet we have no information concerning what the Secretary has in mind. I have similar doubts about the section of the bill regarding transporting handguns. The language of the bill is not clear and does not spell out what regulations would apply to the hunter or sportsman who wishes to bring a handgun into Montana. STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. MOSS, OF UTAH Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Utah. First, I must congratulate your subcommittee for the fine work it has done over the past months in working on legislation which we hope will be useful in the fight against crime and juvenile delinquency. As President Johnson has indicated many times, the war against crime must be won. The rights of law-abiding citizens must be protected against vicious crimes committed against the every day. The bill before your subcommittee today has come partly from the flame of national indignation which followed the tragic events of November 22, 1963, in Dallas. I believe this bill is a sincere effort to curb crimes committed with firearms. However, every day I receive many letters from citizens of Utah and other States who express opposition to this bill and to any attempt to infringe on their rights to buy, sell, or possess firearms and ammunition. It is easily understood how concern can be generated when we read in the newspaper or see on television that Congress is acting to make pistols and shotguns and rifles less available, or to limit the availability of ammunition for these firearms. Out in the West still live strong traditions fostered by the fact that the sixshooter and the Winchester repeater won the West, and made it the great, free empire of States which it now is. I feel the bill before the subcommittee today is by far too broad. It is what the bill does not say that gives me concern. Very general guidelines have been set down in this bill, with the door opened to administrative action. The bill says that an individual may transport a rifle or shotgun across a State line if such transportation is for a lawful purpose. I submit that it will be impossible to administer this section of the proposed act without infringing on the rights of the sportsman who travels interstate to hunt deer and other game animals, Another section of the proposed law discusses pistols and revolvers, and allows an individual to travel across a State line with a pistol or revolver in his pos session. Assuming, then, that a person convicted of a felony had gained possession of a pistol or other handgun illegally, and he wanted to travel from one State to another, there is nothing to stop him in this law. There could be much to stop a law-abiding citizen, however, who carries a handgun for selfdefense or sporting purposes, and who runs into an administrative regulation which makes him a criminal if caught with the handgun. In Utah, we have a State law which makes it a misdemeanor to carry a loaded firearm in a car, but no other similar restrictions on possession, transportation. or sale are contained in the Utah code. Even then, this law is rarely used for arrests other than fish and game law violations. Another prohibition imposed by this often irrational bill would prevent a sportsman from buying a handgun while visiting a State of which he is not a resident. Many nonresident hunters who visit Utah each fall to seek the mule deer will buy some guns and much ammunition in our State. This law, if passed, would prevent much of this commerce and would place unreasonable restrictions on the law-abiding citizen. The same hunter, who carried his own gun into Utah last year, might be prevented from doing so this year under regulations devised by a bureaucrat who takes it upon himself to "stop crime." This bill will prevent no crime. But one possible good which S. 1592 could achieve is the restriction placed on importation of surplus military weapons which are obsolete or dangerous. Certainly, enough standard, mass-produced firearms are made in the United States each year to satisfy our needs. There is legitimate concern, however, that many quality firearms now imported, by manufacturers such as Browning Arms Co., might also be restricted, again by administrative regulatory action. Browning Arms has its headquarters in Utah, while its fine shotguns are manufactured in Belgium. We in Utah protest any attempt to infringe on the rights of Browning or anyone else dealing in fine sporting pieces who conduct legitimate business with law-abiding citizens. Administrative paperwork and redtape could be harmful and extend the intent of this proposal beyond constitutional limits. Local law enforcement agencies will also be taxed beyond their capabilities under this act, if they attempt diligently to enforce the required procedures. In the West, our lawmen will not look with favor on these new duties pushed on them by the Federal Government. They have enough work now in attempting to control crime with their own best local methods and laws without having to enforce an unreasonable Federal statute. This brings me to another point. I feel that we should quite properly leave many of the matters regarding sale and possession of firearms and ammunition to the several States. The Federal Government constitutionally, has no real right to regulate the sale or possession of firearms and ammunition other than of the varieties now made illegal by existing Federal statutes. I refer to automatic weapons and those with barrel lengths considered illegal for use by private citizens. In general, while S. 1592 might control the sale of firearms to certain individuals who buy from mail-order houses or foreign suppliers, this bill will not in any case prevent a would-be assassin from securing a powerful rifle or shotgun. After all, isn't that what we are trying to accomplish, in the wake of the tragedy of Dallas? The bill will also, through high-priced Federal licenses, make it unprofitable for many small stores, shops, gasoline stations, and other retail outlets to sell ammunition and some firearms for sporting purposes. This is a harsh way to treat the law-abiding citizen. I will support reasonable legislation properly drawn to regulate the ownership or possession of firearms by individuals who will use them illegally. I urge such action be taken by the several States. Congress can act to stop the flood of cheap, foreign, obsolete firearms, however, which is a matter for proper Federal action. This bill presents no answer and only serves to magnify out of proportion a problem which can best be handled by other legislation. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN V. LINDSAY, OF NEW YORK I should like to add my voice to the increasing demand for effective legislation restricting the menacing traffic in mail-order sales of firearms. I do not believe that we should inflict controls upon the right of responsible individuals to own arms-for hunting, gun collections, the defense of their homes or target shooting. I do believe, however, that we should move against the sale of firearms by mail to unknown purchasers who may be children, narcotic addicts, or criminals. It would seem that we in Congress would have learned the lesson so tragically brought to the Nation's attention by the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas. But no legislation has been passed. The evidence for action continues to mount, and can be found in any daily newspaper. I am opposed to any Federal legislation which would require the registration of firearms or require any kind of license or document in order to buy or possess them. I am opposed to any Federal legislation designed to prohibit the blanket sale of firearms by mail. This would be a tremendous hardship in rural States such as my own State of Montana. I want to make it clear to the members of the committee that I favor some leg. islation to curb the importation of cheap, foreignmade military hardware. Most of the mail-order gun business in this country is dependent upon these foreign imports. The United States has become the dumping ground for millions of surplus or obsolete military weapons, originally manufactured during and before World War II, not only by our Allies but by many of our former enemies. The advertisements offer foreignmade automatic pistols for less than $10. A 20-millimeter antitank gun can be purchased for less than $100. These weapons have no place in the realm of guns for sport. This equipment is, for the most part, junk. The weapons are inferior to the quality of American-made firearms. Their importation should be curbed. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have serious doubts concerning the language of the bill referring to the transportation of a rifle and/or shotgun across State lines. Regulations would be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, yet we have no information concerning what the Secretary has in mind. I have similar doubts about the section of the bill regarding transporting handguns. The language of the bill is not clear and does not spell out what regulations would apply to the hunter or sportsman who wishes to bring a handgun into Montana. STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. MOSS, OF UTAH Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Utah. First, I must congratulate your subcommittee for the fine work it has done over the past months in working on legislation which we hope will be useful in the fight against crime and juvenile delinquency. As President Johnson has indicated many times, the war against crime must be won. The rights of law-abiding citizens must be protected against vicious crimes committed against the every day. The bill before your subcommittee today has come partly from the flame of national indignation which followed the tragic events of November 22, 1963, in Dallas. I believe this bill is a sincere effort to curb crimes committed with firearms. However, every day I receive many letters from citizens of Utah and other States who express opposition to this bill and to any attempt to infringe on their rights to buy, sell, or possess firearms and ammunition. It is easily understood how concern can be generated when we read in the newspaper or see on television that Congress is acting to make pistols and shotguns and rifles less available, or to limit the availability of ammunition for these firearms. Out in the West still live strong traditions fostered by the fact that the sixshooter and the Winchester repeater won the West, and made it the great, free empire of States which it now is. I feel the bill before the subcommittee today is by far too broad. It is what the bill does not say that gives me concern. Very general guidelines have been set down in this bill, with the door opened to administrative action. The bill says that an individual may transport a rifle or shotgun across a State line if such transportation is for a lawful purpose. I submit that it will be impossible to administer this section of the proposed act without infringing on the rights of the sportsman who travels interstate to hunt deer and other game animals. Another section of the proposed law discusses pistols and revolvers, and allows an individual to travel across a State line with a pistol or revol session. Assuming, then, that a person convicted of a fe possession of a pistol or other handgun illegally, and he w one State to another, there is nothing to stop him in th much to stop a law-abiding citizen, however, who car defense or sporting purposes, and who runs into an which makes him a criminal if e In Utah, we have a State 1 firearm in a car, but or sale are contained arrests other than fi Another prohibition imposed by this often irration sportsman from buying a handgun while visiting & STEP resident. Many nonresident hunters who visi: Tra: els deer will buy some guns and much ammunition I passed, would prevent much of this commerce and w restrictions on the law-abiding citizen. The same hunter, who carried his own g prevented from doing so this year under regcin who takes it upon himself to "stop crime.” This bill will prevent no crime. But one possible good which S. 1592 conic & on importation of surplus military weapons Certainly, enough standard, mass-produced fres States each year to satisfy our needs. There is legitimate concern, however, the m ported, by manufacturers such as Browning Arm again by administrative regulatory action. Browning Arms has its headquarters in Tri factured in Belgium. We in Utah protest au r Browning or anyone else dealing in fine sports business with law-abiding citizens. Admimetres tra under this act, if they attempt diligentiy tent In general, while S. 1592 might contre The bill will also, through high-ge. for many small stores, shops, gamu ammunition and some firearms 1 treat the law-abiding citizen. I will support reasonable legisurto or possession of firearms by inditatua action be taken by the several istate foreign, obsolete firearms, howeve This bill presents no answer zi problem which can best be hand....... uk carefully about the To reason why we should ssing licensed firearmscollections. But it should weapons must be stopped. 1, the rifle was the principal e for every adult male to be itizen's weapon, nor does the 'ation is now densely packed I our changed and complicated they demand more careful use. it of the times; protection today not the absence of any regulation. Sportsman must admit that there is of this Nation's laws. Sportsmen aded by the greedy practices of ira tices of irresponsible gun buyers. gun lovers, and even the dealers t become a national scandal. et a workable solution to the problem ng the loopholes and bolster our firearms all the States. ་་་ |