rulemaking authority sought in the present proposed amendments of existing law.

Inasmuch as the present national firearms laws, to which amendments are being sought, have fallen somewhat short of being reasonable, enforcible, or effective, insofar as reducing armed crime is concerned (crime is increasing six times faster than the population and much of it, unfortunately, is armed crime), is it not time to consider a different approach other than approaches which have proven ineffective in the past? I would like to suggest that this committee inquire as to the number of convictions which have been obtained under the national and Federal firearms acts in the nearly 30 years they have been on the statute books. A measure of the usefulness of these acts may be thus obtained.

The approach I have reference to is that incorporated in the proposed legislation introduced by Hon. Bob Casey (H.R. 5642), which I recognize is not a proposal being examined by this committee. I am sorry that there has been no indication of consideration for the imposing of additional, preferably mandatory, penalties on those who employ a firearm, that has moved in interstate commerce, in the commission of a crime of violence. It appears that no one likes this approach to the gun law problem-except the people.

I suggest that no other proposed gun law submitted to the Congress has had the support that H.R. 5642 now enjoys and which evidences a desire on the part of many citizens to do something to curb the criminal use of firearms and, further, that no other proposed amendments to existing Federal firearms law have evoked as much opposition, by those most affected, as those now under consideration by this committee.

It is the hope of the Texas State Rifle Association that, in the wisdom of this committee, there will be indicated a recognition of the desires of your constituents and of the fact that further amendments to a law already proven ineffective are not as desirable as a new law, which puts the penalty on those who misuse a firearm, which does not discourage law-abiding citizens from owning, using, and trafficking in firearms, and which helps maintain our superior defense posture.

Gentlemen, this concludes my statement. I again thank you for the opportunity of submitting it.

STATEMENT OF H. L. THOMPSON, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WHOLESALE HARDWARE ASSOCIATION

I. INTRODUCTION

My name is Henry L. Thompson, Jr. I reside in Perrysburg, Ohio, but conduct my business in Toledo, Ohio, where I am president of the Bostwick-Braun Co., a wholesale hardware firm with sales of over $20 million. I am representing the National Wholesale Hardware Association as president of this associa tion. Either Thomas A. Fernley, Jr., who is managing director of the National Wholesale Hardware Association, 1900 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pa., 19103, or I shall be very happy to answer any questions that you may bring up. Within the wholesale hardware industry, there are more than 600 hardware wholesalers, and it is estimated that the combined sales volume of this group amounts to over $2 billion. The business of our members is conducted in every State of the Union. These wholesalers sell not only hardware, but sporting goods of all types to retailers of hardware and sporting goods in communities of all sizes from rural crossroad towns to large metropolitan areas. It is estimated that there are approximately 50,000 hardware and sporting goods retailers that are serviced by these wholesalers.

II. THE SALE OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION

These small retailers sell guns and ammunition as just one part of their overall sales. The volume of any one dealer is generally not very great, but by having the merchandise available in so many retail stores, it makes it readily available for the sporting hunter. Anything that would restrict the broad distribution at retail of sporting guns and ammunition would be most harmful, in my opinica to the sportsman who takes a day or an afternoon off to go hunting.

Furthermore, such legislation would handicap farmers who require arms and ammunition for rodent and pest control. Lack of available dealers would be a

real inconvenience to them, and a detriment to our agriculture and farm products of all types.

To impose an annual licensing fee of $100, we feel, would be most harmful in that a great many of these small retailers would feel that they could not afford an annual charge such as this to enable them to handle and sell arms and ammunition. I might add at this point that the type of dealer I am referring to is generally a mainstay in his community, and knows practically all of the customers that come into his store. It is not the type of store where you would find some gangsters sneaking in to buy either firearms or ammunition. In other words, we would be hurting probably the most stable individual in the whole sale of guns and ammunition.

At the present time there is a dealer's license fee of $1. To us this seems to be entirely adequate, taking into consideration that the very large majority of retailers of firearms and ammunition are small businesses.

III. DELIVERY OF FIREARMS

Members of the National Wholesale Hardware Association use both common carriers and U.S. mail for the purpose of shipping firearms from distribution houses to the thousands of dealers who sell these products. We are specifically concerned with that provision of S. 1592 (section 2(f)) which purports to make it unlawful for any person knowingly to deposit, or cause to be deposited for mailing or delivery by mail, or knowingly to deliver, or cause to be delivered, to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, any package or other container in which there is any firearm, without written notice to the Postmaster General or his delegate or to the carrier (as the case may be) that a firearm is being transported or shipped.

There is, of course, no such provision in the existing Federal Firearms Act, and we are without reason at this moment for the inclusion of this prohibition in the proposed legislation. It also concerns us because it is not clear whether the Secretary of the Treasury will promulgate regulations regarding the form and method of giving such written notice. Or is it possible that the Postmaster General might prescribe regulations in the case of the use of U.S. mail? As a matter of fact, if the other provisions of the proposed legislation regulating the sale and distribution of firearms are enforced, we can see no specific reason for the inclusion of either this specific section or section 2(g), which makes it unlawful for any common or contract carrier to deliver, or cause to be delivered, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm to any person who does not exhibit or produce evidence of a license obtained under section 3 of this act or who is not exempted by section 4 from the provisions of this act (except a firearm transported under regulations prescribed under section 2(a) (1), (2), or (3) of this act).

We are also concerned with the broad regulatory responsibilities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in various sections of the proposed legislation. We are, of course, aware of the fact that such executive authority is governed by the procedures embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act. We are concerned with the fact that most of the small dealers would find it not only most inconvenient, but costly, if required to follow the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. We would prefer to have certain safeguards, specific criteria, appeal procedures, and time limits written into the proposed legislation wherever the Secretary of the Treasury has been delegated responsibility for regulations that will take into consideration not only the interest of the dealers and our members, but the legitimate interests of the millions of American citizens who enjoy the hunting and shooting sports.

IV. OTHER POSSIBLE LEGISLATION

It seems to me that, as the legislative body of our country, you are really interested in controlling the misuse of firearms rather than restricting the rightful use of the firearms by sportsmen. If this is true, why not legislate in a manner that would prohibit the misuse of any firearm rather than proposed legislation that would restrict rightful use, but probably would be ineffective in preventing gangsters from obtaining firearms, either by stealing or otherwise? If penalties were made sufficiently severe for any misuse of a gun in homicide, burglary, or others, wouldn't this have a much stronger deterrent effect than by just attempting to make it a little more difficult for a gangster to obtain a gun?

V. CONCLUSION

It is the firm belief of the National Wholesale Hardware Association that the legislation under consideration could be extremely harmful to small retailers, to sportsmen, and to farmers, unless the provisions on which we have commented are considered. We do hope that your committee will act upon these suggestions objectively, and will not report favorably on any legislation that does not take these matters into consideration.

It is our further belief that the commendable objectives of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and gangsters would not be accomplished by Senate bill 1592. As indicated previously, passage of this legislation would be unduly restrictive of the needs of farmers and sportsmen, and that the requirements on retailers would be harmful to them, as well as to the entire sporting goods industry.

Gentlemen, I thank you for having been granted the time to present our feelings in this matter. If you have any questions, Mr. Fernley or I would be most happy to answer them.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. SCHOOLEY

My name is John M. Schooley and I reside in Denver, Colo. I was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Missouri in 1929 and am also a member of the bar in Colorado. Prior to my semiretirement in 1963, I had spent the immediate past 30 years of my life in the law enforcement profession, working at every level from that of the arresting officer to the head of a large police department and as sheriff of the county. The opinions I express are based on this experience.

In my career I have both faced and used firearms. This is not pleasant and I would like to be able to say I thought there was some simple legislative prohibition against the criminal use of all dangerous weapons that would be so persuasive as to enlist criminal cooperation. My 30 years' experience causes me to know such is impossible, and the most we can reasonably expect from any leg islative "thou shall not" is that the law abiding will honor the law and criminal use will be reduced to an enforcible minimum through application of the penalty section. The problem is how to accomplish this desired goal without serion-ly interfering with the activities of the law abiding or without infringing constitutional rights. The solution is anything but simple, for we have many divergent points of views as to what constitutes reasonable regulation.

The existing Federal Firearms Act was passed in 1938 and had as its avowed purpose the elimination of interstate transportation of firearms by persons who had been convicted of certain crimes of violence, fugitives from justice, and certain persons under indictment. The act contained, of course, several other provisions intended to support this basic premise. For some 19 years I investigated or caused to be investigated alleged violations of the act. I can honestly say that I think the act never persuaded any criminal from such interstate transportation and think the most anyone could say for the effectiveness of the act would be that conditions might have been worse had the act not been in effect. This is, in my opinion, poor justification for any legislation, for it at best pure speculation.

I think one of the reasons for lack of effectiveness of the Federal Firearms Act is the very nature of the legislation and the method of enforcement. Let me illustrate: A person is arrested in Denver and at the time of arrest is in possession of a firearm. It is determined that he came to Denver from Cheyenne; and when his criminal record is checked, it is discovered he has been convicted of a crime the punishment for which is imprisonment for more than 1 year. In those cities where there are Treasury Department agents charged with investigation of the Federal Firearms Act violations, the agents are as a rule notified. They then investigate, and if it can be determined the person arrested did in fact transport the firearm in interstate commerce, a repert is written; or, in some jurisdictions, the U.S. attorney is consulted to determite if Federal prosecution will be had. In almost all cases, the person arrested is wanted for a State violation and he is tried for this State violation and Federal prosecution is refused. Since this pattern has been so closely followed and the punitive section of the act so rarely applied, it would be exceedingly difficult to say the penalty section has had any deterrent effect. Further, sibre so many acts of interstate commerce transportation have been investigated, it

is evident the criminals have paid little or no attention to the prohibition against such interstate transportation. I see nothing more persuasive in the proposed amendments to the act but do see considerable possible harassment to the law abiding, even to the point of outright prohibition of heretofore lawful acts by law-abiding citizens.

Section 2(b) (3) prohibits a dealer from selling a handgun to anyone not a resident of the State wherein the dealer is licensed. Although Senator Dodd in his opening remarks on May 19, 1965, to the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency stated: "An important provision in the legislation before us today would prohibit a federally licensed dealer from selling firearms to a person from another State." While this may well be the ultimate goal, the proposed amendments only prohibit such sales to handguns. There are no exceptions (to individuals). Such a provision would prohibit the chief of police of Cheyenne from purchasing a revolver for his own, but official, use in Denver. Since such a prohibition would close the source of official weapons to many peace officers, I think it is highly restrictive. I fail to see why any law-abiding citizen, be he police officer or not, should be so restricted when another section of the proposed amendments provides that the purchaser must establish his identity and place of residence to the satisfaction of the dealer in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Is a dealer in Denver considered less able to comply with such regulations in connection with a nonresident than with a resident, or is the real reason for such a prohibition the imposition of restrictions not contained in the proposed legislation? Regulations which would impose burdens on the law abiding not here being considered? One of the proposed amendments seems to have been copied from the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, which act was the outgrowth of the National Recovery Act declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I refer to that portion which states a license application shall be disapproved and the license denied "if the Secretary finds that the applicant for such a license is, by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connections, not likely to maintain operations in compliace with this act." Does this mean an elaborate license section will be set up as is set up (basic permit section) for wholesale liquor dealers under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act? Will applicants for firearms licenses have to go through the same complicated procedure to obtain a firearms license as is required by a person seeking a basic permit under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act? Will form 1632 be revised to fit the Federal Firearms Act and will hearings be held under the same sort of rules and regulations? If hearings are held in connection with such applications will applicants be required to travel long distances to present their side of a question raised by the Treasury Department? Why such proposals are necessary is hard to understand when a dealer is required under existing law to maintain accurate records of the receipt and disposition of all firearms moving in interstate commerce. I have read the testimony of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue given to the House Ways and Means Committee on this same subject, and it is easily understood why an increase in license fees are requested, for if such requirements are enacted into law the Treasury will require considerable more men, and many man-hours and miles of travel will be required to check each license application. This could well develop into a bureau sustaining activity.

A common method of going hunting in the West is for one person to transport the camping equipment and firearms in one vehicle (a truck) with the other hunters going to the campsite in other vehicles. The proposed amendments would require those persons "causing their firearms to be transported" to secure permission or comply with any regulations the Secretary might prescribe, and what these regulations might be, no one at this time knows. Such a provision, imposed on the law-abiding hunter is, in my opinion, entirely unjustified.

There are other provisions of the bill, S. 1591, which have nothing whatsoever to do with juvenile delinquency nor with the mail-order sale of firearms, and yet this has been the publicized purpose of S. 1592, and it seems to me the general public has been led to believe this is the only purpose of the bill.

You have been asked to approve this legislation because one man with murder in his heart killed our President, when, if complete cooperation had existed between the several departments of government, perhaps this tragedy would not have occurred.

You have been told that if this act is approved, many thousands of lives would be saved, and the figures quoted (taken I presume from the uniform crime 49-588-65--54

reports) includes persons killed by police officers in line of duty, cases of justifiable homicide, and other deaths not surrounded with any criminal intent. Mention has also been made of the number of police officers killed, but nothing said about the number who were on parole at the time or the number (the murders) nor the second offenders who were the murderers. A deliberate attempt has been made to make a firearm objectionable per se and such use of statistics is unethical.

You have been told that any minor inconveniences which might accrue to the gun owners by reason of the enactment of these proposals is a small price to pay for progress in the campaign against crime. The many small business men who will be put out of business by these proposals would not consider this a minor inconvenience. Those who state dealerships could be set up to take care of this problem must be completely unfamiliar with this type of business operation, and law-abiding citizens who, from necessity, use the mails to transact most of their business, would not consider this a minor inconvenience. Having spent 30 years of my life enforcing the laws of our country, I am not unmindful of the criminal use of weapons: but I am convinced the criminal has never been, is not now, nor will he ever be denied the tools of his profession by mere legislative prohibitions. It is my firm conviction the only effective method that can be employed to reduce criminal use of firearms (reduced to an enforceable minimum) is to put the cost of such use so high few will be willing to pay the price. I fully realize no penalty, regardless of its severity. will ever eliminate all crime or criminal use of any tool. I also realize such a philosophy is contrary to the expressed beliefs of some innkeepers of convicted criminals, but I submit the softhearted attitude toward lawbreakers has not reduced crime in the United States. I would refer you to the testimony of the Commissioner of Narcotics before a committee of the House of Representatives on the effectiveness of stiff penalties and also to the statement of President Johnson when he signed the so-called pep pill bill. The deterrent vehicle in the pep pill bill is bigger fines and longer sentences for bootleg pill peddlers. If penalities are of no value, why has a committee of this Senate approved the death penalty in connection with the bill covering murder of our President?

The millions of law-abiding citizens who own and use firearms for recreational purposes will give enthusiastic support to any legislation directed toward the criminal misuse of firearms and will oppose with equal vigor any legisla tion which is directed against the law-abiding or against the article and not the misuser. Such legislation has a history of only harassing the law abiding without contributing materially to the reduction of crime. This is not to say we reject or oppose control measures which have a reasonable chance of denying access to firearms by persons who have already demonstrated their contempt for the rules of society, or by persons not mentally mature enough to appre ciate their capabilities, provided such measures do not place harsh and burdensome restrictions on the law abiding and provided such measures do not place in the hands of hired public servants the discretion to deny to the law abiding the exercise of their constitutional rights.

Senator, I was disappointed that I was denied the opportunity of appearing in person and testifying and request this statement be included in the record of these hearings.

STATEMENT OF WOODSON D. SCOTT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Woodson D. Scott. I am a practicing lawyer with the firm of Lord, Day & Lord, New York City. My office address is No. 25 Broadway, New York City, 10004. My home address is No. 1 Stuyvesant Oval, New York City, 10009.

I am a member of the bar of the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal courts in the southern district and eastern district of New York, and the Supreme Court of the United States. I am a member of the American Bar Association, New York State Bar Association, the Kentucky Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York County Lawyers Association, the Federal Bar Association of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and the Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioners.

I am grateful for this opportunity to come here and speak to you for the purpose of furnishing whatever help I can in relation to the proposed legislation be fore the Senate of the United States, S. 1592, which would unduly restrict and