The public recognizes this need. In a recent Gallup poll, a clear majority of the voters favored stricter firearms control. We are not treading on constitutional rights. We are simply attempting to keep guns out of the hands of juvenile delinquents, fanatics, and criminals. We must not sell weapons capable of inflicting death to individuals we know are likely to misuse them. Our citizens deserve this protection. Members of the subcommittee may recall that I described when the original Dodd bill was before this body how a Carcano rifle, identical to the one that killed President Kennedy, could be purchased in New York City by virtually anyone. My bill does not attempt to make such sales illegal; its scope is limited to firearms shipments that cross State lines. I hope this approach may prove of interest as legislation is drafted in the Senate. I urge the subcommittee to prepare effective legislation and to report a bill for which the Nation will be grateful. STATE COMMISSIONS AND DEPARTMENTS RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 27, 1965 Whereas the great outdoor sport of hunting and recreational shooting in Louisiana is being threatened by the introduction of an antifirearms bill in Congress, S. 1592 sponsored by Senator Dodd, of Connecticut; and Whereas this bill if enacted will increase the cost as well as make it extremely difficult for Louisiana's 300,000 sportsmen to legally acquire, transport, use, and repair shotguns and rifles essential for hunting purposes; and Whereas this proposed legislation poses a direct threat to the continuation of this traditional form of outdoor recreation and calls for further infringement of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the second amendment of the Constitution; and Whereas this may lead to total gun registration followed by confiscation and the disarming of the sportsmen of this country at a time when all agencies of the Government should be encouraging its citizens to use and acquire a working knowledge of the use of rifles and shotguns in the interest of national security as well as outdoor recreation; Therefore be it Resolved, That the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission does hereby go on record as being vigorously opposed to S. 1592 and its companion measure H.R. 6228 to be considered soon in Congress, and that each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation be requested and urged to take whatever steps necessary to see that these bills are not enacted; and be it further Resolved, That representatives of this commission be authorized to attend and testify at any congressional committee hearings on these bills as may be deemed necessary. PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES OF S. 1592 SECTION 2 Section 2 would ban all mail-order sales of firearms (including handguns, rifles, and shotguns) to consumers in interstate commerce. This would inconvenience thousands of country people who do not live close to sporting goods stores. There are more than 400 old-line, respectable houses that have mailed sporting arms to consumers for years. They include such names as Sears, Montgomery Ward, Speigel, and Abercrombie and Fitch. Hundreds of small houses that make receivers and frames and conversions would be put out of business. The dealer could not dispose of any firearms to any person without following procedures regulated by Secretary of Treasury; the regulations are not spelled out and presumably the Secretary could make any regulations he wanted to. A consumer could not buy a handgun over the counter if he is under 21; he could not buy a shotgun or rifle if under 18. The dealer, in an over-the-counter sale. would be made responsible that the consumer had not violated any provision of the act or would not be likely to. Any person mailing or shipping by common carrier any firearm would have to give written notice to the Postmaster General or carrier. It would be unlawful for a common carrier to deliver in interstate commerce any firearm to any person who does not exhibit a license under section 3 or who is not exempted under section 4. This would cause a hardship for many sportsmen. It would be unlawful for any person to ship or receive any firearms or ammunition which might have been stolen, or which he might have reasonable cause to believe were stolen. There is no definition of "reasonable cause." An innocent transactor could easily be subjected to entrapment depending on a court's decision of "reasonable cause." SECTION 3 Application for firearms and ammunition dealers' licenses would be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary would prescribe. Another ease of unlimited power to the Secretary of the Treasury. A dealer's license would be increased 100 times the present amount of $1 to $100. This discriminatory license would force more than 8,000 small dealers and stores to quite handling fireams and ammunition. It would work a hardship on hunters; in remote areas they could not go to "crossroad" stores for extra ammunition. The dealer's license might not work a hardship on large city dealers but would force rural stores to quit handling ammunition and firearms. It is another example of urban laws being forced on rural America. This increased costs of licenses would be passed on to the consumer. Small reloaders would have to pay a license fee of $1,000 a year. Clubs that were reloading for resale to members would have to pay $1,000 a year. Individuals, many of whom sell to a few neighbors, would have to pay $1,000 a year. There is no provision protecting the welfare of more than 2 million individual reloaders in America. A sportsman bringing a gun back into the United States, after hunting in a foreign country, would have to satisfy autthorities that he was bringing the same gun back. This would harass the thousands of hunters who go to Mexico and Canada each year. Also, a hunter going to another State, and shipping his guns, would be subjected to delay and redtape. "Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, and sale and other disposition, of firearms and ammunition at such place, for such period and in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. This provision could be tantamount to registration. Under (g), the Secretary could set up a central registration bureau which would harass the more than 20 million lawabiding recreational shooters in America. Dealers, in addition to being checked by city, county and State officials, would he checked by delegates of the Secretary. The Secretary could make dealers keep records on as small a sale as a box of .410 shotgun shells. SECTION 4 The Secretary would be given authority to prosecute anyone who intended to violate any provisions of the act or any regulations promulgated by the Secretary. STATEMENT OF FRANK H. DUNKLE, DIRECTOR OF THE MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT AND SECRETARY OF THE MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION (This action authorized by a motion unanimously passed by the Montana Fish and Game Commission on May 18, 1965) The Montana Fish and Game Commission and the Montana Fish and Game Department wish to go on record as opposing S. 1592, by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, of Connecticut, as well as any other proposed legislation which would require, or permit by administrative order, the registration of firearms or which would require any kind of Federal license or document in order to buy or possess them. The avowed purpose of this and other such bills is to reduce the crime rate in the United States. It has been shown (as in the case of the Sullivan law in New York) that restrictive legislation will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Statistics further prove that guns are used in only a small percentage of aggravated assaults. We do not oppose all gun legislation. In fact, we would very heartily favor legislation directed against the criminal who uses firearms. An example of such a bill is the one introduced by Congressman Bob Casey, of Texas (H.R. 5642), which provides a mandatory 25-year prison sentence for anyone who uses or carries any firearm during the commission of "any robbery, assault, murder, rape, burglary, kidnaping, or homicide." We feel that the Dodd bill, if passed, would be detrimental to Montanans in many ways. It would effectively prohibit the mail order purchase of rifles and shotguns. This would work a hardship on many people in rural Montana who have habitually done a large share of their buying through legitimate mail-order houses. It would increase the annual license fee for a dealer in arms and ammunition from $1 to $100. This would effectively put many small stores out of the business of selling firearms and ammunition as their volume of sales is not such that they could afford to pay $100 per year for a license. Gun collectors who actively buy and sell in order to improve their collections would doubtless come under this licensing law also as they could, of course, be classed as dealers. Under this law, gun clubs who reload for their own members, or individual reloaders who sell to neighbors and friends, without profit, would be required to pay such an exorbitant license fee that they could not afford to continue producing reloads. This bill, like many other Federal laws, makes no provision for the vastly differing situations in different areas. The same restrictions would be imposed upon farmers and ranchers in Montana, to whom firearms are tools in their daily work, as would be imposed upon residents of large cities. IN SUMMARY 1. The Dodd bill attacks the firearm and the legitimate user of the firearm rather than the criminal user of the firearms, thus defeating the avowed purpose of the legislation. 2. It imposes unnecessary and burdensome restrictions upon the manufacturer, dealer, and legitimate user of firearms without achieving control of crime. Experience has shown that criminals are able to obtain firearms regardless of restrictions. 3. The Casey bill (H.R. 5642) provides a reasonable and desirable substitute for the Dodd bill and would help to control the criminal in his use of firearms. GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, Hon. THOMAS J. DODD, DEAR SENATOR DODD: The Wyoming Game and Fish Department wishes to register in opposition to S. 1592, introduced into the 89th Congress to amend the Federal Firearms Act. Please enter this letter into the record when this measure is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Committee and in the House hearings. We feel that the provisions of this bill as they will apply to Wyoming sportsmen and dealers in firearms and ammunition are unduly restrictive and would tend to impose unnecessary hardships on our law-abiding citizens. Further more, we feel that crimes with firearms should be punished by way of additional fines or prison terms. Honest citizens who happen to own guns should not be penalized through this type of registration and restriction. Guns don't kill people people kill people. Sincerely yours, Chairman, Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR DODD: I am sending you 30 copies of the testimony that would have been presented to your committee had the opportunity been available. In the interest of expediency and as a convenience to you, this testimony has been combined with that of Mr. Harold W. Glassen, who is respresenting the International Association of Fish, Game & Conservation Commissioners and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Your suggested amendments give the appearance of making your bill, S. 1592, more palatable; however, I still think the philosophy underlying this bill is wrong. Explanation of this statement is made in the accompanying testimony. Your bill seems to assume that all who wish to buy a firearm of any type are potentially guilty and must first prove themselves innocent. I can see no way short of abandonment of this legislation to make it acceptable. Please believe me, Senator, we have no desire to take the easy way out and just be "anti" to legislation restricting the use of firearms. But by the same token, we are completely opposed to this philosophy of legislation and government, in general, and to this bill and its intent, specifically. Therefore, we respectfully suggest the simplest thing might be to abandon this legislation and start again. Conservationists, I am sure, will reluctantly but willingly accept restrictions on those sports requiring guns if these restrictions are necessary to do the job. I am confident, Senator, the carefully and thoughtfully designed legislation could greatly alleviate the antagonism developed for S. 1592 and, perhaps, even generate modest support from conservationists. Sincerely, RALPH A. MACMULLAN, Director. COMBINED STATEMENT OF RALPH A. MACMULLAN, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND HAROLD W. GLASSEN, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH, GAME & CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS Gentlemen, Mr. Glassen is the appointed spokesman for the International Association of Fish, Game & Conservation Commissioners and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Dr. MacMullan has been designated the representative of the Michigan Department of Conservation and the Association of Midwest Fish, Game & Conservation Commissioners. Mr. Glassen is an attorney by profession, a former chairman of the Michigan Conservation Commission and has been an active member, director, or an officer of a large number of local, State and National conservation and sportsmen's organizations. Dr. MacMullan is director of the Michigan Department of Conservation. Since the organizations we jointly represent are concerned with the conservation and management of natural resources, we will speak primarily on the effects that firearms control could have on these matters. We believe that this is an aspect which has not been properly stressed or considered in other testimony. We feel that it is also appropriate to point out that State conservation departments have an obligation to their hunters to protect them against unreasonable regulations which may prevent hunters from freely enjoying their sport, but which may completely fail to accomplish the primary purpose of the regulations; i.e., lower the crime rate or protect game resources. Hunters have contributed more toward outdoor recreation programs at the State level than any other group. Their tax and license dollars have provided many projects of lasting benefit, not only to game, but to the general public as well. We would like to emphasize that this money has been available from no other source, and no substitute revenue appears forthcoming in the foreseeable future. The last Congress was properly known as the conservation Congress. No previous Congress had given as much consideration to, or accomplished so much in, the field of conservation and recreation. Since hunting and shooting are an integral part of the overall recreation program, the organizations for which we speak offer their help and assistance to the present Congress toward preventing it from taking any action which would nullify any part of the fine advancements which have been made. Any legislation which inadvertently reduces the sales of sporting arms and ammunition may not only depress license sales, but also significantly reduce collections of excise taxes which are the source of revenue for the highly important Pittman-Robertson program for wildlife restoration. Since 1955, the taxes on sporting arms and ammunition have yielded an annual average of $14.8 million, which is reallocated to the States. Since the beginning of this act in 1937, there has been collected and disbursed for conservation practices $268, 401,966 which represent sales of more than $2 billion in sporting arms and ammunition. The accomplishments of the Pittman-Robertson program are noteworthy. During its first 25 years, 680,000 acres of hunting lands were acquired in the Midwest. Most of this is in areas where public hunting grounds are at a premium. This land has been developed primarily for the hunter and at his expense, but fisherman fish the impoundments, nature enthusiasts enjoy the wildlife, photographers film the birds, campers and picnickers enjoy the freedom of the areas. Nonhunting uses of these areas in southern Michigan alone amounted to over 1,600,000 man-hours in 1962. This was 1.6 times as great as the time spent by hunters; and the nonhunting use increases annually. It follows that State conservation departments are universally short of funds because public demand precedes planning for recreation and conservation, and planning always seems beyond available monetary means of accomplishment. This is as it should be, because it would be a sad day if income caught up with and exceeded planning. Even though hunters provide much recreational opportunity to the general public, benefits to the hunter are provided wholly from his license fees and arms taxes. The thinking sportsmen would have it no other way, for he knows he could not hope to secure an equal amount from general tax funds. And he realizes, too, that management of the game which is his primary interest is a complex matter, dependent upon many interrelations: economic, biological, and social. In practically every conservation department hunting license fees furnish an important part of all funds, not just for hunting, but for fishing, conservation education, law enforcement, and frequently the administrative expense for all activities of the department. In many States hunting is a potent force in shaping the sociology. Michigan is an excellent example. Combined sales of small game and big game licenses have totaled over a million annually since 1950. One out of every five adult males in the State is a deer hunter. One out of every twelve persons hunts deer at least once every 5 years. The hunter's total contributions to Michigan's resource management and recreation programs amount to over $5 million a year. Surveys show us that the Michigan deer hunter pumps about $30 million into the economy each year. The small game hunter generates another $40 million. Nationwide, hunters expend about $1.5 billion on all the things they do in connection with their sport. However, in spite of the popularity of hunting and the considerable sums of money involved, the loyalty of many hunters is a fragile thing. It is the fickle ness of the first-day hunter and the competition from other types of recreation that concern us. There is evidence at hand to warn us that the inconvenience caused by unwarranted firearms regulation could result in a significant decline in hunter numbers. The more than 20 million persons who buy hunting licenses each year are not all dedicated or even enthusiastic sportsmen. In Michigan we find that of our hunters who seek pheasants, far and away the most popular game bird. 43 percent hunt not more than twice during the annual season. We also find that 7 percent of the deer hunters hunt not more than 1 day, and another 15 percent not more than 2 days. The days hunted are not necessarily the opening days, and the hunting is not limited because of success or its lack in killing game. We have an annual turnover of 30 percent in deer hunters. These people jus mentioned are the undedicated minority who, if subjected to any added incorvenience, will stay at home and watch TV or take their wives to Aunt Martha's A conservative estimate in the Midwest is that one-third of the hunters are casuals, and that any fetters placed on them will discourage a substantial number from buying a license. Legislation pertaining to acquisition of a gun is a most sensitive area because most hunters, even the most indifferent, usually buy rather than borrow their guns and other equipment. The organizations for which we speak oppose legislation which is likely to cause any potential hunter not to indulge in his sport and hence not to buy a license. We hold no brief for the cheap weapon, and we do not support the sale of cheap handguns at any level, but we cannot say that all guns sold by mail order are unsuitable for hunting because we known otherwise. Game hunting in this country, as distinguished from Europe and other foreign countries, has not been confined to the rich but appeals to members of all economic levels perhaps more to the lower income group because hunting has been more ready available to them. We know that many firearms, especially those used in deer hunting, are of the mail-order variety. |