We understand that the committee has under advisement a modification of mail-order sales to individuals, which in the first instance many felt that the design of the legislation was to remove completely all mail-order transactions. This would make it extremely difficult for the farmer or rancher or any other inhabitant of remote areas to obtain a particular firearm of his choice. It would seem therefore that this would be penalizing an area that is not subject to high crime rates relative to urban areas which generally do have high crime rates. The Citizens Committee on Natural Resources has always abhorred the availability of World War II and some later weapons such as grenades, bombs, bazookas, etc. It is difficult to envision any legitimate use to which these weapons might be put. Some of the detailed descriptions, however, in efforts to outlaw these weapons of war, would also exclude muzzle-loading rifles, most of which are involved as collector's items. There are areas in the United States where particular types of hunting is limited to only muzzle-loading firearms. We would hope the committee changes the specifications in order not to include this particular piece among those weapons that would be outlawed.

Mr. Chairman, we want very much to impress upon the committee that the vast majority of sportsmen have disported themselves in a most responsible fashion. The overwhelming percentage of money, in each State, for enforcement of rules and regulations of its wildlife in addition to many other programs which enhance fish and wildlife are provided from the sale of hunting licenses. Also, the 11-percent manufacturers' excise tax levied upon sporting arms and ammunitions ultimately impinges upon the sportsmen and hunters and has amounted to between $15 and $20 million which is allocated in matching grants to the States for wildlife enhancement.

We sincerely hope that the committee in their deliberations will not recommend legislation to the serious detriment of the sportsmen of this country. We additionally hope that whatever regulations are ultimately approved by the committee will be carefully detailed for the protection of all concerned.

We thank the committee for the opportunity of offering this statement.

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORP., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

Federal Cartridge Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn., expresses its appreciation for the opportunity to submit this statement on the subject of the firearms legislation presently before this committee. Certain provisions of S. 1592 would have a particularly adverse effect on the business of Federal Cartridge Corp., it dealers and their customers. We refer to the licensing and recordkeeping requirements imposed on ammunition dealers.

Since its organization in 1922, Federal Cartridge Corp., has been engaged in the manufacture of small arms ammunition, consisting of shotgun shells, rifle and pistol ammunition. Its principal customers have always been hunters, marksmen, and trap and skeet shooters, as well as local law enforcement agencies. It has also engaged in the peformance of ammunition supply contracts for the Armed Forces of the United States, and it is currently assisting in the develop ment of new products to fulfill developing military needs.

During World War II and the Korean war Federal Cartridge Corp. operated, under contract with the Government, a Government-owned installation known as the Twin City Arsenal, located at New Brighton, Minn. All types and caliber of small arms ammunition were manufactured there for the Armed Forces of the United States, the production during these periods of conflict being in excess of 10 billion rounds.

At the outset, we wish to make clear that this statement is limited to the impact of S. 1592 on sales of ammunition. We make no comment on those provisions of the bill restricting the sale of firearms, although we, of course, support any effort to prevent criminals and other undesirable elements of our society from obtaining firearms. We submit, however, and sincerely urge, first, that restrictions on the manufacture and sale of sporting ammunition will be of no value in connection with the purposes of the proposed bill; and second, that such restrictions will be a severe handicap to this company and imperil its value as a potential manufacturer of ammunition when required for our national defense.

(1) THE INCLUSION OF AMMUNITION IN S. 1592 IS UNNECESSARY TO CURTAIL THE CRIMINAL OR OTHER MISUSE OF FIREARMS

Testimony presented in these hearings, and in the hearings of the 88th Congress, failed to demonstrate a need for the control of the sale of ammunition under the present Federal Firearms Act or as contemplated by this bill.

On December 18, 1963, Mr. John W. Coggins, Chief Counsel's Office, Internal Revenue Service, Treasury Department, testifying before the Committee on Commerce in connection with proposed amendments to the Federal Firearms Act stated: "*** it has been found impracticable to effectively administer the provisions of the act" relating to ammunition (p. 69, "Hearings Before the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 88th Cong.," serial 45).

Mr. G. D'Andelot Belin, General Counsel, Treasury Department, in a statement dated November 14, 1963, and filed with Senator Magnuson, also stated that it was found impracticable to effectively administer the provisions of the Federal Firearms Act with respect to ammunition.

Mr. Belin explained certain proposed amendments to the act which completely excluded ammunition from its coverage. In the technical explanation of these amendments, attached to Mr. Belin's statement, the following appears:

"Ammunition is not serially numbered and is very hard to identify. These factors make those provisions of the act relating to ammunition impractical to administer. Further, we know of no instance where any of those provisions have been helpful in controlling the interstate flow of firearms or in law enforcement."

In view of the statements of these officials of the U.S. Treasury with respect to the inclusion of ammunition in the coverage of the Federal Firearms Act, we find no merit in broadening the definition of ammunition under that act as proposed by S. 1592. Rather, we agree with them that ammunition should be re moved completely from the coverage of the present law.

Certainly, broadening the definition of ammunition beyond the current provisions of the Federal Firearms Act would only have harmful economic effects without deterring the criminal misuse of firearms. We are sure that many local merchants who are law-abiding citizens-locally established and locally knownwould discontinue the sale of ammunition. Because of the nature of their business they could or would not assume the burdens of administrative regulation and recordkeeping, or of paying the $100 annual fee for the privilege of selling ammunition as defined in this bill.

(2) THE ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORP.

Federal Cartridge Corp. distributes small arms ammunition through distributors, who, in turn, sell the ammunition for resale to more than 38,000 retail outlets. Of this number, we believe that approximately 30,000 do not sell guns. Any modification of the definition of ammunition would have an immediate economic impact upon these outlets-totally unrelated to the regulation of the sale of firearms. There are two basic groups engaged in the distribution and sale of ammunition. One group sells both guns and ammunition on either the wholesale or retail level. The other group does not handle guns, but does sell ammunition. The inherent differences in organization and operation of the two groups are such that comment must be directed to each.

The sales volume and business organization of those distributors handling both guns and ammunition are such that most would probably be in a position to pay a reasonable licensing fee and to comply with limited recordkeeping regulations-particularly with respect to guns. On the retail level, the payment of a reasonable license fee would probably pose no problem, but recordkeeping requirements, particularly with respect to ammunition sales, would be such that we believe many of these accounts would confine their sales activity to unregulated ammunition. This is because, throughout the country, the retail sales of our ammunition are in small quantities and in small packages. The unit sale price of .22 caliber ammunition is less than $1. The unit sale price of center fire metallic ammunition is from $2.50 to $4. The recording of such sales in compliance with Treasury regulations could become so burdensome as to either require the assignment of additional personnel or the discontinuance or curtail ment of the sale of regulated ammunition.

The economic impact of this bill would be greatest with respect to both distributors and dealers selling ammunition but not guns. An annual license fee of $100 for the privilege of selling regulated ammunition is so large as to cause nearly all to discontinue sales of regulated ammunition. Even if the annual fee were reduced to a more reasonable amount, the recordkeeping requirements would serve to deter a large majority from selling regulated ammunition. The impact of the bill would be first experienced by the retail outlets and then the wholesale distributors would be directly affected by the curtailment of ammunition sales by those retail outlets.

In most instances these retail outlets are small family-owned establishments such as grocery stores, sporting goods stores, hardware stores, specialty stores, or gasoline service stations located in nonurban areas.

Many retail outlets carry ammunition as a customer service. For the sportsman it is a means of supplying him ammunition along with other items he needs in the field during hunting trips away from home. For the local residents it is ancillary to supplying him with his other daily supplies.

In rural areas the use of ammunition frequently represents food on the table for the family. Rabbit and squirrel are often the meat meal in rural homes. In many instances neither the customer nor the retail outlet is in an economie position to purchase or maintain a stock of any significant quantity of ammunition..

The rural service station or the rural general store that sells ammunition purely as a convenience item to sportsmen or as a necessity item to local residents is not in a position to maintain detailed records on sales involving le than $1, and to devote the time required to keep such records on a meaningful basis.

To the extent that any of these retail outlets would obtain a license, and pay any license fee, they would do so as a penalty in the interests of customer service or to meet customer need. For the majority, the $100 proposed fee would be too costly to justify their continued sale of ammunition subject to the act.

The simple economics of time and manpower combined with the risk of error or failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements are sufficient alone to cause most of these retail outlets to discontinue the sale of ammunition covered by the bill.

For further evidence of the impact that the license fee requirement S. 1592 would have on ammunition dealers we refer to the recent testimony before this subcommittee of Dr. E. C. Hadley on behalf of the Sporting Arms & Manufac turers' Institute:

66

'According to recent figures, there are about 120,000 dealers who sell ammunition in the United States, two-thirds of whom do not sell firearms. The average annual retail sales of ammunition of these dealers amounts to $1,800. This is an average, and many dealers have sales less than $1,800. Assuming a net profit of 5 percent, which is high for the average hardware or sporting goods store, this means that they earn less than $100 net profit on their sales. On the basis of such earnings, it is obvious that most dealers could hardly afford any license fee at all, much less $100. If ammunition is included in this bill, many of these small businessmen would have no choice but to stop handling it. This would make it difficult for many sportsmen to obtain ammunition, particularly in the sparsely settled areas of the country in which most hunting and shooting takes place."

We agree with Dr. Hadley that the typical small country merchant-whether located in Maryland, Minnesota, or Arkansas-whose total annual retail sales of ammunition are less than $50 to $100 can ill afford any large annual license fee for the privilege of selling that volume of ammunition. Moreover, even if the license fee were smaller, the recordkeeping requirements in and of themselves would cause him to discontinue the sale of those regulated items.

We reiterate our belief, supported by the statements of the Treasury Depart ment officials to which we previously have referred, that the provisions relating to ammunition in this bill serve no useful purpose in terms of its objectives. Their inclusion would, instead, impose a needless economic burden on the stakla retailer who has carried the item to provide a service to his regular customers or as a means of attracting the sportsman or hunter into his store.

The many who could neither afford the license fees, nor adequately fulfill the recordkeeping requirements of S. 1592 would be forced to forego the sale of a product which only the large retailer could continue to sell.

Surely it is not the desire of Congress to impose unneeded, unworkable, and expensive restraints on the manufacture and sale of ammunition-as well as on the small merchant, the sportsman, the farmer, and the rancher-when in doing so the economic cost is without any social or economic value.

STATEMENT OF JOYCE W. HORNADY

My name is Joyce W. Hornady, my home is Grand Island, Nebr., and my business is manufacturing. I am the president of Hornady Manufacturing Co., a small firm which since 1949 has produced bullets for sportsmen to reload. Reloading is a specialized and increasingly popular part of the shooting sports, and its growth has contributed to the overall health of the shooting industry. As a manufacturer I believe that S. 1592 holds serious implications for my own business, and as a shooter and private citizen I am opposed to the basic practical intent of the bill, eliminating all mail-order sales of firearms and severely restricting all interstate firearms commerce.

The Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency has demonstrated through its lengthy and thorough investigations that there is a need for new Federal firearms legislation to support State and local firearms laws. The easy circumvention of local laws by juveniles, addicts, felons, and the mentally incompetent through their purchase of firearms by mail from uncritical and noncurious-or totally unscrupulous-dealers begs for legislative action. owe the subcommittee a great debt for its work in bringing this situation to national attention.

We

The question now is, What legislation can best eliminate the abuses which currently exist?

Of the testimony this subcommittee has received on the bill presently under consideration, S. 1592, that of Senator Gordon Allott, of Colorado, May 20, 1965, is among the most perceptive. Like Senator Allott and others who have given the problem their full consideration, I endorse legislation (such as Senator Dodd's S. 14) intended to help the States prevent illegal access to firearms by eliminating interstate firearms shipments which violate State and/ or local laws.

But like Senator Allott, I see a vast difference in basic philosophy between S. 14 and S. 1592. The former bill affirms the legitimate use of firearms by taking a direct approach to restrict interstate shipments to prevent sales to criminals, juveniles, and the mentally incompetent. S. 1592, on the other hand, questions these legitimate uses by stringently regulating all firearms commerce, not just commerce opposed to the public interest.

I believe that mail-order sales of firearms, which S. 1592 would end, are and historically have been in the public's best interest. From a statistical approach, far and away the vast majority of such sales are legitimate. But rather than approaching specific and well-documented abuses with the goal of eliminating them, S. 1592 goes far beyond this purpose by eliminating private interstate firearms commerce.

I believe, too, that the bill's concern with surplus military firearms and their importation, the bill's import restriction provision regarding surplus small arms is not relevant to the purported anticrime intent of the bill. Surplus military small arms have a rightful place in our economy, and have had an important role to play in the growth of shooting interest in America. I believe that the elimination of military small arms imports-provided in section 2(e), 3-would be of no benefit to the general public, though it would afford some unneeded trade protection to our domestic producers.

Even after amendments to (1) eliminate antique firearms from the bill's provisions, (2) eliminate small arms ammunition from regulation by the bill, and (3) affirm specifically the right of sportsmen to carry rifles and shotguns between States for legitimate sporting purposes, S. 1592 is still objectionable in its basic provision. It is a trade regulation bill with serious commercial consequences for my own business, and for hundreds of small businesses throughout the Nation.

Basic to the purposes of S. 1592 is the definition, indentification, licensing, and regulation of firearms dealers, manufacturers, and pawnbrokers. As many have previouly testified, the license fee for dealers, $100, seems exorbitant. I firmly

endorse an increase in the present Federal firearms permit fee which. I understand, does not cover cost of issuance. This permit has long been used by many private individuals to obtain unearned trade discounts on shooting equipment and supplies. But bona fide dealers can be identified and nondealers can be kept from claiming dealer status for considerably less than $100. If the purpose of the licensing provisions of S. 1592 is to regularize firearms distribution by discouraging private and noncommercial citizens from claiming dealer status, then I believe the license fees can be reduced to more sensible levels such as those proposed in earlier legislation and suggested by the committee's interim Report No. 1340. The $100 license fee for dealers seems punitive-and designed to drive from firearms trade not only noncommercial private citizens but small and entirely reputable legitimate dealers as well.

It seems to me that overly stringent regulations such as the executive dealer fee discussed above-characterize much of the bill. S. 1592 proposes harsh measures far beyond those necessary to correct a problem or stop an abuse. Ostensibly, the basic purpose of the bill is to prevent individuals from obtaining firearms in violation of State or local laws. Practically speaking, the measure does more than is sufficient to give this aid to State and local authorities. It will eliminate a vast amount of legitimate commerce among the States and in so doing will not only inflict losses on hundreds of reputable small businesses, but will impose discriminatory regulations on thousands of law-abiding shooters and sportsmen.

S. 1592 does not discriminate between proper and improper, legal and illegal mail-order firearms sales; it begs the question by eliminating all of them. Many have spoken against mail-order firearms sales; I should like to defend them, for legitimate sales are entirely defensible, and there are dozens of proper reasons why firearms have been and should continue to be easily available from distant sources. No local supplier, however excellent, is ever able furnish all of the firearms that a shooter might want. Custom gunsmiths throughout the Nation specialize in exclusive types, styles, or models of guns, and the gunsmith who has earned a reputation for high quality, outstanding performance, and metieulous workmanship has in the past been able to expand his market as his reputation spread throughout the country. Eliminating mail-order sales will destroy the national market now open to the small custom gunsmith. It will destroy also the business of the specialized supply houses which have developed to serve special target shooting or hunting interests.

What anticrime purpose is served by eliminating dozens if not hundreds of completely reputable small businesses? None, I submit. Instead of addressing itself directly to the problem of unscrupulous dealers and manufacturers and their illegal interstate sales, S. 1592 proposes broad regulations which will destroy or seriously damage many small and legitimate businesses and leave them utterly without recourse. I suggest that the affidavit system, as proposed in S. 14 with only a few additions, if given vigorous Federal enforcement and if coupled with stiff penalties to individuals and firms which violate the law, will eliminate the abuses which should be eliminated without deleterious effects on legitimate

commerce.

The shooting sports have grown rapidly in the past two decades as more and more Americans have discovered the pleasures of hunting and of target and recreational shooting. One of the most important contributions to this growth has been the introduction into the American firearms market of surplus military small arms, especially rifles, available at attractive prices. Not only have these firearms introduced millions to shooting, they have also spurred domestic firearms production and resulted in the exceptional growth of related shooting supply and equipment companies.

The bulk of imports of surplus military weapons are those small arms which are readily adaptable to sport shooting; and the role of Mauser, Enfield, and Springfield military rifles in the growth of the shooting industry cannot be underestimated. In an article in the April issue of Shooting Industry magazine. a trade publication for this industry, Editor Bob Steindler reported a study he had conducted among gunshops on the importance of the military rifle. He learned that most surplus rifles underwent a 2-year transformation from their original condition into a sporting rifle. The owners were shooters who might not be able to purchase a new sporting firearm, but who could invest about the same amount over a long period of upgrade a surplus military firearm with scope. sporting stock, swivels, and other accessories.