Since this is the intent, then it is our recommendation that the subcommittee consider either rewriting the bill as it currently stands or substituting a new bill. Surely the Members of Congress and of this subcommittee are not interested in penalizing sportsmen, antique gun dealers, collectors, reloaders, and target shooters. There have been a number of statements placed into the record covering the technical aspects of the bill and we do not feel it necessary to go over these, other than to say that in this regard the National Sporting Goods Association supports the statement made on June 2, 1965, by Howard Carter, Jr., on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., before this subcommittee. We do feel that if the Congress decides that certain regulations should be Established governing the control of shipment of guns of all types, the conditions and regulations should be set forth in the bill itself and not be left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. Although this subcommittee might be very sure as to just what it meant and what it felt should be done in the administration of this bill, it still is necessary for the bill to spell out these provisions or else it can be a matter of administrative interpretation. There is always the possibility that such could go far beyond the purposes or the intent of the bill as it is written.

The National Sporting Goods Association does agree with Senator Dodd that "fly by night" operators should be eliminated from the sale and distribution of firearms and ammunition. As a result, it supports an increase in the Federal firearms license fee. However, a flat $100 fee would be excessive for a small retailer in firearms and ammunition, particularly in a rural area or a small city or town. As a result, it is the recommendation of the National Sporting Goods Association that this license fee on the retailer be scaled from $10 to $100 based upon population.

The National Sporting Goods Association feels S. 1592 includes many restric tions on responsible sportsmen and uses many vague definitions and leaves much to be spelled out later by regulations to be issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. As a result, we feel that the bill in its present form is objectionable. We shall, as in the past, be very pleased to work with the subcommittee in developing a bill which would provide an acceptable solution to the problem at hand.

STATEMENT OF RABBI HAROLD P. SMITH OF CHICAGO, ILL., REPRESENTING
RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA

As national chairman of the Commission on Legislative Matters of the Rabbinical Council of America, I represent approximately 900 orthodox rabbis. As cochairman, also, of the Legislative Committee of the Chicago Board of Rabbis, I speak for 150 rabbis of Chicago-reform, conservative, and otrhodox-who have authorized me to represent them here.

They have asked me to express here our strong endorsement of Senate bill 1592, proposed by the Honorable Senator Dodd, of Connecticut.

I have a strong feeling that I express also the conviction of millions of American citizens who are deeply convinced that this kind of legislation is a critical necessity for our Nation's welfare, but who simply are not oriented to the idea of taking pen in hand and writing to a Senator to let him know how they feel about any particular issue at hand. They don't write simply because they don't write. In the meantime, certain organized groups who mistakenly in our judgment deem it to their interests to oppose this legislation, have been quite vocal in their opposition.

However much we honor their right to express such views, we cannot remain silent and fail to express our distress at, and dissent from, such views, which, in our judgment, are not to the overall good of our great country.

There is a moral and religious issue here, and it involves no less than the sanctity and protection of human life. As such, we can hardly permit this to be decided on the balancing off of vested interests-real or imagined-of those who weigh the possible effects of this legislation on their vocations or avocations.

Tragedy, remorse, broken hearts, and shattered lives have needlessly been the lot of many in the past-and are still needlessly in store for many others in the future because some irresponsible person-whether a criminal, madman, or immature youth-will have found it possible to purchase a deadly weapon by mail order procedure; unless such a bill as this one will prevent it from happening.

I make the categorical statement that in our judgment no conceivable consideration whatsoever can constitute legitimate cause for opposition to this bill. All the business interests-all the sporting interests-all the rifle associationsall must morally accept and affirm that the next child's life to be snuffed out by the irresponsible hand of an immature or unbalanced trigger puller of a mailorder gun which this bill would have kept from him, is, in itself, a far stronger argument for this bill than all the possible arguments that can be mustered against it.

We have read letters and statements in our newspapers charging that the assassination of our beloved President Kennedy is being used to whip up supercharged emotions for such a bill as this. Indeed it should. It would constitute a moral disgrace to our country if it were not so.

Are we being asked to forget, and to overlook one of the main causes for, such a national tragedy, such a frightful world calamity? Are we asked to believe that there is any consideration in the world weighty enough to warrant our failure or unwillingness to prevent such shocking tragedy from befalling us again?

We strongly concur with Attorney General Katzenbach's contention before this committee that insufficiently regulated sales of guns by mail makes murder indefensibly easy.

We feel, also, that the words of Senator Robert F. Kennedy merit the emphasis of reiteration-those meaningful words which he uttered before this committee and which came from the depths of an aggrieved heart:

"It would save hundreds of lives in this country and spare thousands of families all across the land the grief and heartbreak that may come from the loss of a husband, a son, a brother, or a friend. It is past time that we wipe this stain of violence from our land."

Yes, indeed.

The next time some stricken mother holds a lifeless child in her hands, killed by a bullet from a gun that should never have been in the possession of the irresponsible person who fired it-and brokenheartedly asks the question: "Why didn't somebody do something to prevent this terrible thing from happening?"there will be no morally satisfactory answer if Senate bill 1592 shall have failed of passage.

We pray that this will not be the case. As clergymen, we contend that while the U.S. mail delivers every kind of service, one service it ought not to deliver is a funeral service. It is our judgment, honorable gentlemen, that the bill of Dodd is the will of God.

Please pass it. Thank you.

ADDENDUM TO THIS STATEMENT BY RABRI HAROLD P. SMITH

If my position on this matter needed any bolstering it was provided with precisely that, when I recently sent a letter to the Chicago newspapers endorsing this bill and urging all my fellow citizens to do likewise.

I suddenly started to receive fury-saturated letters from people with fire in their "correspondential" eyes and a stream of invective having flowed from their pens, completely convinced that I wanted to "sell out" our country to the Communists and was merely trying to prevent the patriotic citizens from defending the United States from such a conspiratorial takeover. Somewhere along the line they have unpatriotically-failed to remember that we have an Army. Navy, Marines, and Air Force, and that we are not completely depending on them. to defend our country, and that in time of emergency, should they be drafted into service, the U.S. Government would provide them with arms. Still other letters come from people who, pathetically, are obviously possessed of disturbed minds. I am now more convinced than ever that such people should not be hav ing guns; yet they are apparently among those who do, or the subject would not have so thoroughly aroused them.

This is not to imply that all or most gun and rifle enthusiasts are irresponsible or dangerous. It is merely a recognition that some might be; and this is more than sufficient reason for the type of control which this bill so admirably advocates.

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. STEINBERG

I respectfully present this testimony in support of S. 1591 and S. 1592. I do so as a member of the general public with no personal interest in the sale, purchase, or ownership of firearms or in any organization active in this field. My interest is rather a longtime concern with the need to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible people and of otherwise responsible people who lack the technical competence which those who buy and possess firearms should be expected to have. The fact that no airtight way to achieve this objective is possible can hardly be regarded as a convincing argument against the need and practicality of some measure of effective control. I have studied all sides of this highly controversial issue with great care-its constitutional aspects, the imperatives of public welfare and safety, and the rights and privileges of those who use guns and those who do not.

My interest in this issue does not stop with study and reflection. I have debated this question over radio, and before the criminal law section of the American Bar Association. I testified twice before the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Va., which last year, awakened by a succession of local tragedies, enacted minimal controls over the sale of handguns in the county. I urged the adoption of S. 1975 early last year in hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee-a bill which clearly did not go far enough but which, with all its shortcomings, would at least have gone a little way toward slowing down the dangerous proliferation of guns into the hands of those who should not have them. (My credentials also include college service in an ROTC infantry unit, wartime military service, and military certification as a sharpshooter with the .45.)

THE NEED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROLS

As a supporter of the administration bills to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act and the National Firearms Act, I have no illusions about the extent to which they can help solve the Nation's increasingly serious crime problem. Much more is necessary, including measures to solve the economic and social problems that beset our society. Nor is there any way absolutely to prevent crimes in which guns are used. But these bills are essential to equipping a responsible, civilized society to bring under reasonable control the criminal potential of its most destructive weapons, thereby lessening the potential of criminal violence and increasing society's respect for legally constituted authority.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of respect for legally constituted authority and for Government's ability to enforce the law and protect the public welfare. The failure of Congress and most State, county, and city governments to adequately protect the public interest with respect to firearms proliferation invites increased danger to public safety. It has allowed irresponsible elements of our society to bypass existing laws by capitalizing on loopholes in our Federal system of government. These irresponsible elements are protected against effective law enforcement by legislative negligence at all levels of government, reflecting lack of interest on the part of some legislators and the vulnerability of others to the strong pressures of highly organized groups focusing their sights on narrow self-interest rather than on the broad dimensions of the public interest.

The public interest includes the right of responsible users of firearms to purchase, possess, and transport their guns for lawful purposes. The bills before your Committee would not deny that right; they would only place it in the framework of a policy of firearms control that protects the interests of society as a whole. The person buying a gun will be slightly inconvenienced. But there is no justification, in constitutional or other terms, for placing his convenience above the "convenience and necessity" of the general public.

Just as the failure of government to provide adequate control over firearms proliferation invites disrespect on government's ability to enforce the law, so the continuing, all-out opposition of large numbers of gun organizations and gun-owning individuals to such proposals tends to generate hostility toward these interests, and in a sense toward the gun itself. Relatively uncontrolled firearms proliferation, and its unfortunate consequences, tend to reduce whatever distinction attaches to gun ownership. Thus the opponents of these bills appear shortsighted about their own special interests as well as the public interest.

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS OF SOUND LEGISLATION

I would have preferred a stronger bill than the proposed amendment to the Federal Firearms Act now before you. In view of the need for tighter State and local government controls, consideration should be given to requiring the federally licensed dealer to report to his local police department certain details of over-the-counter sales or intrastate mail order (name and address of purchaser, and type and specifications of purchase) if State and local laws do net already require such information. What these authorities would do with such information would depend on State and local laws. The bill might also provide that no gun shipped in interstate or foreign commerce may be resold cor otherwise disposed of) by the over-the-counter consumer in intrastate or interstate commerce except in accordance with the laws of the States in which he and the new owner reside. Although I understand the reasons the bill treats the movement of rifles and shotguns across State lines differently than handguns, I believe no such distinction should be made. Special arrangements might be provided authorizing the regular transportation of hunting firearms across State lines without redtape.

I shall not go into the other elements I regard as necessary components of sound firearms legislation, except to mention that guns should not be sold to anyone who cannot show prima facie proof of technical ability to use them and properly secure their safety. To the extent that the ability and freedom to use firearms are important to the national interest, it is proficient and responsible gun ownership, not the largest possible number of owners, that would best serve the Nation's needs. The National Rifle Association and other organizations have programs in developing firearms skills; these programs would not be weakened by either the bills now before this committee or by the additional measures I would advocate.

In supporting the bills now before you, I believe it would be useful, without in any way adding to the extent of these controls, to give the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to provide equitably for special local situations in which the bill may cause serious and unanticipated. hardship. The bill might also require the Secretary to send Congress an annual report on the effect of this legislation and on his stewardship in its administration.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY

In the interest of national understanding of the purpose of such legislation. Congress should make very clear, perhaps in a special statement, its purpose in approving such amendments. It should also ask the President to give full effect to his declared intention to urge States and localities to reassess their firearms laws to insure that they meet the needs of the Nation's drive against crime.

The Federal Government and the State and local governments have a joint responsibility to put the Federal system to work in establishing a sound and reasonable policy advancing the Nation's stake in responsible gun ownership. One level of Government cannot succeed in this without the other, and each State and local government is heavily dependent on the degree of responsibility exercised by other State and local governments. Because this is a national problem the Federal Government has to take the lead. It has to define the need and set the example. The administration has presented its legislative proposals. The bills now before you will test the readiness of Congress to do its part.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. SARGENT, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I am Raymond I. Sargent, chairman of the legislative committee of the Texas State Rifle Associa tion. I reside at Sugar Land, Tex. I appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement to this committee, in opposition to the proposed firearms control legislation under consideration.

The Texas State Rifle Association is a statewide organization of patriotie. sportsman-citizens, organized in 1919 for the promotion of the education and training, of law-abiding citizens, in the safe and efficient use of small arms, notably rifles and pistols, with a view of training in peacetime those who might

be called upon to serve in the Armed Forces in the event of war, and to instill in these citizens a spirit of patriotism, self-reliance, and competition, and a respect for law and order and love of country.

The worthy objectives of the Texas State Rifle Association have earned for it much widespread respect, which I think is both wholesome and justified. The association is mindful of its obligations to all citizens, especially when firearms legislation under consideration is not, in its opinon, in the best public interest. The enactment into law of the bills, as presently written, and under consideration by this committee, will not in my opinion, be in the best public interest.

It is to be expected that, when problems arise involving the criminal use of firearms, legislation, which hopefully will cure the ill, will be introduced. To expect, in view of the failure of legislation attempting to limit the ownership of firearms in the past, that such legislation as is now under consideration will be successful, is not being realistic.

The infamous Sullivan law of New York State has not prevented the acquisition, by criminals, of firearms-as evidenced by the fact, as recorded in the New York State Police report to the Governor, that the New York State Police confiscate many thousand "illegally" owned guns per year. I doubt that they find all illegally owned guns in the State. The Sullivan law, or that part of the criminal code of New York State pertaining to firearms has, in one form or another, been "on the books" for over 50 years. Half a century should, I think, be long enough to establish the futility of passing still more laws, with which the criminal will not comply and which has the net effect of making the criminal's actions safer and easier for him.

In my opinion, the legislation now under consideration by this committee will not deter the criminal in his unlawful use of firearms, and that is the announced purpose of the proposed legislation. Are any so naive as to believe the criminal will comply with the provisions of the proposed legislation? If the proposed legislation does not deter the criminal use of firearms-and there is abundant evidence that it will not-then what will this proposed legislation do?

It will do several things. It will, by requiring all firearms purchases to be made within the State of the purchaser's residence, create local lists of lawabiding, patriotic citizens-but not criminals.

It will, because of excessive fees required for dealers in firearms, discourage many merchants who might otherwise find it profitable to sell firearms.

It is an attempt, as stated by one of its supporters, to "discourage the traffic" in firearms. And, while not so stated, it certainly follows that decreased "traffic" in firearms may ultimately result in a decreased number of people owning and being familiar with firearms-and this, gentlemen, I am not convinced is in the best national interest. Recall, if you will, that not a single piece of "international real estate" has changed hands since 1945 as the result of the employment of nuclear, or other highly sophisticated, weapons; instead, small arms are the weapons that have been employed. To suggest, in view of the kind of war our troops are presently engaged in, both in Vietnam and Santo Domingo, that the private citizen owning and being familiar with his personal small arms does not contribute to an overall improved defense posture, is to suggest that which is not realistic and is not true.

I am sure that this committee, as well as I, believes that only the illogical can deny the need for reasonable, enforcible, and effective legislation to deal with our ever-mounting crime problem. But granting to the "Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate" such broad rulemaking authority as prescribed in the proposed legislation before this committee, is to invite another fiasco such as occurred in 1957 when the "Secretary's delegate," when proposing new regulations for the administration of the Federal Firearms Act, went far beyond the intent of Congress when it created the act. This is evidenced by the recorded testimony of many Members of Congress and others who opposed the "new" regulations. Many of the attitudes and actions of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Treasury Department, employed in the administration of the Federal Firearms Act, have resulted in what can only be described as harassment, so far as many sportsmen and gun collectors are concerned. To permit the "Secretary's delegate" to prescribe the rules under which the proposed legislation will be administered would, in my opinion, be a wholly unjustified expression of confidence in this Government agency. It would appear prudent to write, into any firearms legislation passed into law in the future, sufficient detail and evidence of intent so as to make unnecessary the nearly unlimited