Again we ask: In seeking legislation to restrict the availability of firearms to the law abiding, is a solution of the causes of the growing crime rate being sought? Or are the visible (and heretofore legal) effects of that crime rate being legislated into the realm of the underworld? We feel that the latter is the case.

IMPOSE AN UNREASONABLE OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE LAW ABIDING?

The stated purpose of this legislation could not be considered unreasonable. Surely a move to properly reenforce the States in their individual efforts to hait crime is reasonable. But the program recommended to implement those purposes departs, in many cases, from both reason and the spirit of the Constitution.

The portions which require shippers to keep records of shipments into another State are reasonable and appropriate. And those portions which work to restrict shipment of weapons from one State into another whose citizens have voted to control and restrict the use and ownership of guns, have much merit and are appropriate to the intent of all who seek to curb criminal misuse of firearms." However, those portions which work to impose blanket Federal regulations on the use and ownership of weapons are unnecessary and set a dangerously autocratic precedent.

Those portions of the law that employ taxation not to raise revenues, but to dispossess and stifle, go against a system of Western law established by the Magna Carta.

Those sections which allow the Secretary of the Treasury (in truth the Director of Internal Revenue) to make whatever regulations-which will have the power of laws he deems necessary, are clearly outside the intent of the Constitution which outlines the powers of the executive branch and the duties of the legislative.

To impose the complexities of highly urbanized States-and the rigid laws they require on all the States, is clearly a violation of those States rights.

To excuse these unreasonable and unconstitutional measures on the grounds that they only add "teeth" to laws already in existence is to give credence to the concept that two wrong, or unconstitutional, laws make a right one. Subsequent amendments to both the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act have extended their jurisdiction further than was originally intended. It should be of scant comfort to pardon the objectionable features of this present program on the basis of what is already law according to those acts.

CAN PROPOSED LAWS BE ENFORCED THROUGH WILLING SUPPORT ?

If the measure reported out by this committee were to concern itself solely with protection of existing State laws, and not set about establishing a Federal law as to who may purchase a firearm from whom, then it will receive support and be enforcible. If those portions which dictate who may and may not purchase, directly, firearms from whomever they wish are left in as a part of the law, then it is predictable that the citizenry will not willingly obey such a law or cooperate in its enforcement. Those who have a hand in the passage of such a bill must be willing to share in the infliction of still harsher laws to enforce these,

IS THERE A BETTER WAY?

It is not our intent to criticize without offering constructive alternatives. We are not against something in this case; rather we are for an effective anticrime

measure.

Thus we recommend the following: That questions of importation of foreignmade surplus weapons be removed from this bill and reintroduced on their own merit; that no taxes be imposed except those needed to raise revenue; that the counterinsurgency provisions seeking restraint on crew-served military weapons be promptly introduced as a separate measure and not be deceptively tied to an anticrime bill; that the citizen of no State be inflicted with a Federal law infringing upon his right to purchase and own a firearm; but that his State have recourse to a Federal law forbidding any gun shipments into the State in contra

8 Despite the vicious smear efforts of antigun cartoonists and editorial writers, it shee Nẵ be perfectly clear to the public that while they who indulge in such immaterial distortions have done nothing as a class or as individuals to promote constructive programs to end criminal misuse of firearms and to develop programs of firearms safety, both the run industry and the sportsmen using guns have been unexcelled in developing self-regulatory practices to accomplish both ends.

vention of that State's laws; that the States judicial systems be protected in their efforts to impose meaningful punishments for criminal misuse of firearmsprotected from Federal courts which have in the past so consistently overruled them in favor of the criminal.

Such a Federal measure would be both constitutional, and within the traditional framework of individual and State responsibility. Liberty Lobby would support such a law for it would be seeking to cure the cause of the problem at its root. Sincerely, K. J. CULLINANE,

Research Director.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. RORSCHACH

My name is Harold E. Rorschach. I have resided in Tulsa, Okla. for the past 45 years. I have lived in Oklahoma 65 years and have enjoyed the use of various types of firearms in training, instructing, and target shooting. I have been a member of the National Rifle Association for more than 25 years, and am at the present time an endowment member of that association. I have served as an instructor in many junior rifle clubs, giving instructions in the handling of firearms, safety measures, and sportsmanship to more than a thousand juniors and many adults. Several of my trainees have qualified as expert marksman upon entering the U.S. armed services.

My grandfather came from Switzerland to the United States in 1858 and served during the War Between the States, from Ohio; two uncles served through the Spanish-American War; I served in World War I; my two sons in World War II; and another son in the Korean conflict. All of our family were taught to use and respect firearms for defense, as well as sportsmanship.

The Swiss are a liberty loving people whose government does not prohibit firearms, but on the contrary, requires all adult male Swiss citizens to possess a military rifle and at least 100 rounds of ammunition in his home, and be expertly trained in their use and safety. Homicide by firearms is practically unknown in Switzerland, and its crime rate is the lowest in the world.

England, by law, prohibits the possession of practically all firearms by its citizens, including most law enforcement officers. Possession of firearms and their use by criminals and criminal homicide by firearms are not uncommon. The crime rate in England ranks with the highest in any country. Note the recent major English train robbery by firearms and the loot of more than a million pounds.

If a gun prohibition law is the solution to crime, then New York State under the provisions of its Sullivan law, should be crime free; instead, we find a 15percent increase in New York armed robberies and assaults in 1964. The U.S. News & World Report, May 24, 1965, issue, reports armed robbery has reached an alltime peak in Washington, D.C. Has more laws regulating the possession of firearms been of any benefit here? Texas has a law prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, but crimes by the use of such firearms continue. See attached from the Houston Post issue of May 26, 1965.

Senators, the answer to the criminal use of firearms by juveniles and adults is not to prohibit their possession and use by the law-abiding citizen, but rather to bring about the strict enforcement of laws already on the statute books. Softhearted judges who seem to look for ways and means of letting the accused go free, or escape with light penalties, are a major factor in this situation. It will be a step in the right direction when Congress, and the judiciary, which has concerned itself so much of late with the rights of the accused, start showing more interest and sympathy for the civil rights of the victims and public safety of law-abiding citizens.

I consider S. 1592, as drafted, quite objectionable for the reasons which I shall enumerate:

(1) It seeks to control the possession, use, or acquisition of firearms and ammunition by all law-abiding citizens, but skips over the control and exportation of firearms to revolutionaries which are proper sources of inquiry by the United States.

(2) It delegates unwarranted authority to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, to make regulations have the force of civil and criminal law.

(3) It increases the license fees, registration fees, and occupational fees to such an extent as to actually place a prohibition on the sale, possession, and use of firearms by all law-abiding citizens.

(4) It seeks to disarm all law-abiding citizens and to set up a registration system so that location of the guns of all law-abiding citizens may be known. (5) It seeks to prohibit the sale of firearms to anyone but the resident of the State where the purchase is made.

(6) It does not adequately prevent the use or possession of firearms in the commission of a crime.

(7) The provisions of the bill practically prohibit, or at least make it difficult. for the law-abiding citizen to load ammunition for his own use or that of a companion or associate.

(8) The effect of the bill as drafted penalizes law-abiding citizens without adding adequate provisions preventing an armed criminal from possessing or using firearms in the commission of a crime.

The bill delegates authority to the Secretary of the Treasury, or to his delegate. to make and promulgate "regulations," and there is no restriction on his authority to delegate the authority which is proposed to be delegated to him. This is delegation of authority gone rampant and is objectionable, as well as unconstitutional. See Schechter Poultry Corporation v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495; 79 Law Ed 1570 In the present form, the bill delegates authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to such an extent that he, under the terms of the bill, has authority under regulations to be promulgated by him or his delegate to require the registration of all firearms.

The license fees established under the bill with respect to a dealer, manufac turer and importer, are unreasonable. It would appear that it is aimed to make this bill a bill to raise revenue, or make the fees so exorbitant as to be prohibitive rather than to regulate. If Congress feels it is necessary to establish a gun licensing measure, then the fee should be reasonable, ranging from $1 to $10 a year.

The bill, in defining the term "firearms," is so broad as to embrace toy air guns and other toys of a similar nature, since some of these toys "expell projec tiles by the action of an explosive," that is, the release of air or gas under explosive pressure.

The provisions of this act make it very difficult for a person residing in one State to go hunting (or target shooting) in another State unless he first registers with a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury and comes within the purview of such regulations as the Secretary, or his delegate, may promulgate. The same applies to the transportation of any pistol or revolver. It would appear that the aim of the bill is to disarm all law-abiding citizens, or make it so difficult for them to obtain arms that target shooting, hunting and other sports activities would be practically eliminated.

The provisions of section 2(b) (1), (2), (3), put such a burden on the firearms dealer that for all practical purposes, he sells a firearm at his risk, unless he first establishes the purchaser's age (by a birth certificate?) identity, and place of residence. Section (c) places the burden on the firearms dealer to determine if the purchaser is under indictment or has been convicted in any U.S. court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or longer, or is a fugitive from justice.

Section 2(f), (g), (h), (i) places carriers and persons at their risk to determine whether firearms or ammunition have been stolen before accepting or offering the same for transportation. Section 6 delegates unwarranted authority to the Secretary, or his delegate, to try certain classes of cases arising under the act, granting him judicial authority to make determinations with respect to the bill's violations.

All of these provisions are subject to regulations to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate. Thus, the Secretary may promulgate such regulation as to make an act criminal that Congress has not specifically provided shall be a crime. This is objectionable from a constitutional standpoint. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 386–388; 79 L. ed 446.

If the committee believes that legislation is needed to attack the causes of crime, then the bill could be redrafted so it will not disarm the law-abiding citizen. Congressman Bob Casey's bill, H.R. 5642, places a real penalty (25 years imprisonment) on gangsters and dangerous criminals who carry firearms while committing armed robbery, assault, rape, and murder. A provision of this character goes to the heart of the misuses of firearms.

There have been a number of statements made by news authorities and others with respect to Oswald securing delivery of a gun through the mail which was

used in the murder of President Kennedy. I do not know the facts in connection with this situation, but there is a law at the present time which prohibits the sending of both firearms and ammunition through the U.S. mail. One might order a gun by sending a letter to a dealer through the U.S. mail; likewise, he might place his order by long-distance telephone or Western Union telegram, or he might have delivery of the order made manually. But the present statutes prohibit the delivery of firearms by mail. (Title 18, p. 1715.)

The law violator who intends to use a gun in the commission of a felony will pay very little attention to whether the firearms that he intends to use is licensed or unlicensed, but if there is a severe penalty imposed on his possession of a firearm when committing felonies, then the possession and use of firearms in the commission of such felonies may in fact be discouraged.

If Congress intends to require firearms registration and thereby penalize sportsmen, hunters, antique gun dealers, collectors, and target shooters, then it ought to provide explicitly for such drastic regulation and not conceal this purpose by delegating authority to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, to set up such regulations as will have the effect of taking guns away from lawabiding citizens, sportsmen, hunters, antique gun dealers, collectors, and target shooters.

McNeil said:

[From the Houston Post, May 26, 1965]

SLAYING SUSPECTS

"I got on the bus and when I got to the driver I pointed the pistol at him. He asked me what I wanted and I told him the money changer and the green box."

He said the driver gave them to him and he handed them to Ballard, then ordered the driver to stand up and give him his wallet and the money from his shirt. Then he started to leave the bus, he said.

"As I was getting off the bus this colored lady said to me, 'Are you really going to keep that money?' I turned and looked at her and this was when the bus driver grabbed my arm that I had the pistol in," McNeil said.

"The driver and me started to tussling and I fell off the bus and the driver fell on top of me. The gun went off one time in the bus and once outside when the driver was on top of me.

"When the gun went off, the driver was on top of me then the man stopped tussling."

McNeil said he pushed the driver off him, then ran.

"I didn't know I shot him until this morning when I saw the paper," he said. Asked what he thought when he heard Edwards was dead, McNeil replied, "I just started shaking."

Ballard's statement said he was at a grocery about 8 p.m. Monday when McNeil approached him and asked if he wanted to make some money.

Ballard said McNeil told him that he (Ballard) would have to find a gun because McNeil did not have one. Ballard borrowed the .22-caliber pistol from a friend, he said.

Ballard said they waited for a bus to come along but passed up the first one because McNeil said it had too many people aboard.

About 10:30 p.m., Ballard said, another one came by and stopped.

"I told Burnie to be sure and not hurt anyone and he laughed and said he would not hurt anybody," Ballard said.

Then, he said, McNeil boarded the bus.

Ballard said that when he saw Edwards stand up and reach for his pocket, he did not know whether the driver was going for more money or a gun, so he set the box and money changer on the ground beside the bus door and started toward the back of the bus.

"I saw the bus driver and Burnie wrestling and I heard a shot and I broke and ran," Ballard said.

He said both he and McNeil ran south toward a construction site for Interstate Highway 10, then hid the green box under a railroad bridge.

Ballard said McNeil gave him two rolls of nickles, two half dollars, and 10 dimes. He said he heard nothing more until he was arrested at his home at 4 p.m. Tuesday.

Homicide Capt. L. D. Morrison, Jr., said the arrest came after police received information that two boys answering the descriptions of Ballard and McNeil were involved in the hijacking and murder.

Juvenile Officer Thomas Blake arrested McNeil as he walked along Lavender Street after using about $13 of the $14 taken in the hijacking to purchase a pellet gun.

Homicide detectives J. A. Pierce and Charles Lynn arrested Ballard.

Ballard told police he had never been involved in a hijacking before, but McNeil talked him into it.

McNeil, who said he has been handled by the juvenile division 11 times in the past for "just about everything," was also arrested by Blake on February 20, 1965, for a bus robbery, also of Edwards, which netted the hijackers $100.

McNeil denied any connection with that hijacking, however. He was turned over to the probation department, then released. Two older youths were charged in connection with the earlier hijacking of Edwards.

STATEMENT OF G. MARVIN SHUTT, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL SPORTING GOODS ASSOCIATION

My name is G. Marvin Shutt. I am executive director and secretary of the National Sporting Goods Association, 23 East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to present the following statement:

The National Sporting Goods Association is an organization with both regular and associate members. Our regular members are sporting goods retailers and other retailers selling sports equipment, located in all of the 50 States. Our associate members are manufacturers and importers of all types of sports equipment normally sold through sporting goods stores. Our associate members do not have a vote.

The National Sporting Goods Association was founded in 1929 and is one of the largest associations in the sporting goods industry. We are vitally concerned with all phases of hunting and shooting in the United States. The association is engaged in all of the normal activities of a retail trade association. Among other things we put on the industry's largest sporting goods convention and trade show and have done so since 1930. Included in this show is the largest display of hunting equipment and accessories anywhere in the United States or in the world. The National Sporting Goods Association works with nonprofit organizations interested in all kinds of sports, recreation, and conservation.

Associate members are interested in manufacturing and importing all types of firearms, ammunition, accessories, hunting clothing, boots, and everything for the hunter and shooter. Our regular members are, of course, the final link in the distribution of this equipment to the sportsman.

The National Sporting Goods Association has met with this committee and its representatives for a number of years in an attempt to work out reasonable legislation. The record will show that the National Sporting Goods Association has always been in favor of what it considers to be reasonable firearms legislation. In fact, during the past few years it has supported many of the proposals which have been advocated by Senator Dodd and the members of this committee.

The National Sporting Goods Association and its members at the local level have always supported legislation that would attack the causes of crime.

Upon careful consideration, the board of directors of the National Sporting Goods Association has gone on record in favor of legislation to control the traffic in guns by mail, which in many cases has lead to circumvention of existing local laws and regulations.

The National Sporting Goods Association would have been able in all good conscience to have supported most of the provisions of the previous bills introduced by Senator Dodd on this subject. However, it is the feeling of the board of direetors and its members that S. 1592 goes far beyond the controls needed to achieve the desired ends and as it now stands would place undue restrictions on millions of responsible citizens. Virtually everyone concerned with the bill has indicated that it is not intended to curtail the ownership of guns or to deprive people of guns used either for sports or for self-protection. The preceding statement is a paraphrase of Attorney General Katzenbach's statement on May 19, 1965, before this subcommittee.