is being spent on national defense and the sun never sets on servicemen stationed around the world.

The problems of crime are not related to firearms. They stem from unemployment, economic and social injustice, the commercial narcotics traffic, failure to provide a means of treating people addicted to the use of narcotics, disruption of home life by indifference and conflicting interests in business, pleasure, and diversion, failure of parents to gain and hold the respect and confidence of their children and give them the security they need, and other similar causes.

The Congress can do much in these fields to alleviate the causes of crime. It accordingly is suggested that all available time, effort and money be applied to eradicating these basic causes of crime instead of wasting time, effort, and money on the unrewarding process of restricting the ownership and use of firearms by respectable citizens, with the indefinite wish or hope, unsubstantiated by any evidence, that somehow the proposed restrictions on ownership and use of firearms would assist in disarming criminals. All experience shows that such restrictions on ownership and use of firearms work an unnecessary hardship on good citizens, but do not in any measurable degree assist in the prevention or detection of crime. I submit for your serious consideration that the good citizens of this country are not receptive to prohibition, whether it affects firearms or other items of general use.

Let us pass on now to what we expect from you, as distinguished lawmakers in this great Nation at a time when justice under law is the principal objective of any free people. We expect you to maintain and defend the great and perpetual truths embodied in the civil liberties we have and enjoy. We expect you to disapprove and defeat S. 1592 as an unnecessary and unconstitutional infringement of civil liberties.

In conclusion I wish to state and distinguish clearly between the kind of firearms laws I oppose and the kind I support so there will be no doubt that my position includes the affirmative as well as the negative of our mutual problems.

I am opposed to all proposals for the registration of firearms. Any laws necessary under the police power for the public safety should be aimed at the criminal and the misuse of firearms. The right of reputable citizens to own and use firearms should not be restricted by oppressive laws. A firearms registration law does not disarm the criminal. Such a law discourages reputable citizens in the ownership of firearms, by high license fees, inconvenience, police interference and time-consuming administrative procedures, which the average person finds an intolerable burden. Registration of firearms is a misguided step toward a police state which never should be taken in a free country such as the United States of America. Freedom from arbitrary police interference is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. There is no reason or justification for interference with the ownership and lawful use of firearms by citizens of good repute. I ask the support of all the members of this subcommittee in preserving our traditional right to own and use firearms without unnecessary restrictions.

I am aware of the problems presented by the mail-order sale of cheap guns, making them readily available for use by irresponsible persons. All of us are concerned about that problem. The assertions you have heard from the antigun forces about the position of the National Rifle Association and its affiliated clubs are incorrect. The members of the National Rifle Association and its affiliated clubs and millions of other law-abiding citizens do not oppose all proposed firearms legislation. They have recognized the problems of some local communities arising from the ready availability of concealable guns through mail-order purchases. They are aware of the occasional misuse of such guns by juvenile delinquents, criminals, and other irresponsible persons. They have supported legislation prepared and sponsored by the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency (S. 1975, introduced Aug. 2, 1963, applicable to concealable firearms, as mended to eliminate any requirement for police approval) to establish Federal controls over the transportation of concealable firearms in interstate commerce. They support properly drawn legislation to outlaw dangerous devices such as bazookas, bombs, and antitank guns. They support properly drawn legislation to control the importation of cheap foreign firearms into the United States. They support properly drawn legislation to impose heavy penalties for crimes involving the misuse of firearms. They support the strict enforcement of existing laws at all levels of government. The National Rifle Association of America supports properly drawn legislation that is proposed to accomplish these proper purposes but is opposed to oppressive antigun bills such as S. 1592 which is so drastic that it would virtually prohibit the private ownership and use of firearms in the United States.

I thank you for hearing me.

STATEMENT OF SENSIBLE FIREARMS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE OF DUTCHESS COUNTY BY RAYMOND TOMPKINS, CHAIRMAN

It must be made perfectly clear that S. 14, S. 1591, and S. 1592 must not become law whether they are amended or not. The whole philosophy behind_these measures appears to be the eventual disarmament of reputable citizens. Registration, prohibition, police interference, and concentration of power by a few Federal officials are provisions of these measures and this goes against the grain of the American ideal. These restrictive measures have been tried before and have not stopped or even slowed down crime or accounted for lives saved.

Other individuals and organizations have already amply pointed out the dangers of these bills so this statement will site only a few, of the many, objectional features of the proposals.

To give direction to sensible firearms legislation, positive proposals are included at he end of this statement.

In Senator Dodd's June 22 letter he stated that antique firearms would be eliminated from provisions of the bill. This would most likely refer to the over 50-caliber "dangerous weapons" clause. In the muzzleloading sport .30- to .75caliber firearms are used and many are modern made. Muzzleloaders make their own rifles and pistols and some buy the modern-made replicas. Two importers market a reproduction .58-caliber Zouave rifle. Also in the muzzle-loading sport, cannons, made to shoot cement-filled fruit juices, beer, and dog food cans, are used for team competition. Most of these cannons are modern-made reproductions of original Revolutionary and Civil War field and naval pieces.

How can these firearms, which not only provide an enjoyable competitive sport but also have educational value, be considered "dangerous weapons." Is it just because of their bore size? It is a well-known fact that an automobile dealer sells more dangerous weapons in 1 year than most firearms enthusiasts see in a lifetime. The very wording of this clause denotes the writer has a prejudice against firearms.

Senator Dodd also stated in his letter "clarification beyond question of the right of sportsmen to carry rifles and shotguns in interstate commerce for purposes of hunting, sport shooting, and so forth" will be included as an amendment. To further clarify the situation: reputable citizen should replace sportsmen, handgun should be added to rifles and shotguns and the purpose of protection be included in the amendment. If this statement is included in the proposed bills a dilemma is immediately presented to anyone voting on them, because this statement completely negates the present proposals of S. 14, S. 1591, and S. 1592.

If the subcommittee members are interested in a sensible firearms code they are urged to turn their sights not on the gun or the reputable citizens who use them but instead direct efforts toward penalizing the misuse of firearms. It is urged also that more firearms and range facilities be made available to reputable citizens through the Department of Civilian Marksmanship.

Serious consideration of the following proposed legislation is also urged. This proposal incorporates something new in firearms legislation-namely balance. Lopsided measures like New York's Sullivan law and proposals such as S. 1592 are not the answer to the firearms situation.

This proposal must not be used in part. If, for instance, the identity card idea were adopted without the rights statement becoming law first then it would just be another unbalanced law.

The firearms situation cannot be easy covered by writen statements, so the SFL of Dutchess County stands ready to be represented in a serious verbal dis-cussion of this or any other firearms legislation.

PROPOSED FIREARMS LEGISLATION

Whereas the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution under the Bill of Rights section states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;" and

Whereas the common law and thought among the people interprets this statement to mean they as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms without infringement as to keeping and possessing; and

Whereas many local, State, and Federal laws definitely infringe on the citizens right to keep and bear arms;

Therefore be it so enacted that all reputable citizens of the United States do have the right to possess and use firearms for protection and recreation without restrictions as to purchase, travel with, or use for legitimate purposes.

To balance the above broad and general law the following proposal is offered: Whereas it has been enacted into law that all reputable citizens of the United States have the right to possess and use firearms for protection and recreation without restrictions as to purchase, travel with or use for legitimate purposes; and

Whereas reputable citizens sometimes cannot be easily and quickly distin guished from persons of disrepute ; and

Whereas civil authorities and firearms dealers have need to quickly and easily identify citizens of unknown repute be it so enacted that:

All citizens who purchase or possess firearms shall be required to furnish reasonable proof of their respectability to civil authorities or firearms dealers; and Be it further enacted that a reputable citizen shall be any citizen including foreign born who have applied for naturalization who:

1. Has no serious recent criminal record.

2. Is not a drug addict or chronic alcoholic.

3. Is not affected by a serious mental disorder.

And be it further enacted that the U.S. Government shall provide at reasonable fee, identity cards to any reputable citizen who requests same. The authority issuing these certificates shall have a procedure for appeal if issuance is denied for any of the above reasons and that an executive board consisting in part of representatives of the National Rifle Association shall have final control over the authority.

The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice would be a logical choice for the issuing authority.

PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE AND USE OF "REPUTABLE CITIZENS CERTIFICATE AND OTHER EQUIVALENT IDENTIFICATION

Applications shall be available by request from the authority and any U.S. Post Office.

The application shall request vital statistics such as name, birthdate, military record, etc.

After providing the requested information and having his signature notarized the applicant will secure recent photographs and be fingerprinted at a recognized agency (local police, State police, FBI field office, etc.).

The fingerprinting authority shall be required to take fingerprints of applicants during normal weekday and weekend business hours.

After fingerprinting the applicant, the filled out, signed and notarized forms along with the required photographs shall be immediately forwarded by firstclass mail to the issuing authority by the fingerprinting agency.

The issuing authority shall have performed the necessary checks (FBI fingerprint record, etc.) and prepared the identity card for issuance within 4 to 6 weeks or sooner. The card will then be forwarded by first-class mail to the applicant. Renewals: A frequency for renewals will be established based on the individual's age (under 25, 2- to 4-year intervals and over 25, 5 to 10-year intervals). Within 2 months of the renewal date the individual may contact the authority in Washington requesting a renewal certificate be issued. The individual will list his card number and at what county clerk's office he wants to pick up the renewal card. A routine check on the individual's record will be made by the authority and if found clean the renewal will be sent to the named county clerk with issuing instructions. The county clerk will be required to identify the person who gets the renewal card as the original person who was issued the original card.

USE OF PROPOSED REPUTABLE CITIZENS CERTIFICATE AND OTHER IDENTIFICATION

A reputable citizen possessing or purchasing firearms will be required to reasonably identify himself to civil authorities. A RCC card, military, police, or Government ID card would suffice to fulfill this obligation. This positive identification is required only when a firearms dealer or civil officer are not positive of a citizen's identify.

Mail-order firearms: A standard firearms purchase form shall be filled out by the customer and presented along with his identification (RCC card, military, or police ID card) to a notary public who will notarize the fact that the purchaser possesses proper identification. Mail-order firms shall be required to sell fire

arms only to customers who send these notarized forms and penalties can be instituted.

Miscellaneous: The RCC card can also have space to list any recognized firearms instruction courses completed by the applicant.

NOTE. The lack of proper identification card such as the RCC, etc., will not be in any way considered violation of any law. The person possessing proper identification will simply be in a better position to quickly and easily identify himself to firearms dealers and civil authorities and thus help an already burdened law enforcement officer.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CRAIGHEAD WALKER, C.E.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in view of the limited time available to me today, I ask the privilege of extending my remarks in a written statement to be filed at a later date with your subcommittee.

I am in full accord with all of the provisions noted in your Senate bill 1592 in its original version, and wish to suggest the strengthening of item (4) as summarized in Secretary Fowler's statement to absolutely prohibit the importation of any and all foreign military rifles and handguns and all other weapons, with the exception of custom-built sporting shotguns and rifles.

It would probably be advisable to concurrently prohibit the exportation of all similar weapons of U.S. manufacture, except through the Department of Defense, to accredited allies and I am quite sure that responsible manufacturers in the United States would be pleased to accept such restrictions, as foreign imports of obsolete, inferior and surplus weapons now cut seriously into the domestic market for sporting rifles, shotguns, and target pistols.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST P. WHITE, JR.

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee I wish to state that I am unalterably opposed to S. 1592, the omnibus firearms bill on which you are now holding hearings.

You have heard most eloquently from the Attorney General of the United States as he, according to the press, gave vent to a diatribe on the stand of the National Rifle Association. Our late President's brother, Senator Robert Kennedy has given his approval to the bill. The emotional value of his appearance was far greater than any words he spoke in support. You have also heard from the attorney general of my home State of California. This learned gentleman, when he hears the words, "armed citizen," it seems, conjures up a vision of millions of insurrectionists ready to take over the Government at any time. All of these appeals were very emotional in nature. In opposition you have heard from two learned Senators and the executive secretary of the National Rifle Association. I am not sure what their testimony contained as it was glossed over so hurriedly by the press, radio, and television.

Sadly lacking in all of the testimony that has appeared in print, through the courtesy of the wire services, is the very fundamental question of how this bill stands in line with the Constitution. My opposition to this bill is a very personal one. This bill would infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. This infringement is in direct violation of the second amendment to the Constitution. I am surprised that the highest ranking law enforcement officer of our country overlooked this in his statement to the committee.

This man, just as yourselves, has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rights of all of the citizens under it. Gentlemen, if the Congress should bend this right contained in the second amendment in any manner, there would be no limit to how far future Congresses could go in the field of private arms control. Either the citizens rights are paramount as we have been taught to believe or the desires of the executive branch of the Government are. The question before you is as simple as that. So far as constitutional principles are concerned there can be no question of being partly right. This makes as much sense as saying a woman is partly pregnant. The entire Congress is now in a great dither to pass as soon as possible an omnibus bill to strike away any and all opposition to the right of a minority to vote. This in spite of the fact that the right of any of us to vote, per se,

is only implied in the Constitution and not spelled out. The right of all citizens to keep and bear arms without infringement is spelled out in plain simple language. You cannot apply one form of rationalization to the rights of the people on one issue and then another form of rationalization on the rights of the people on another issue as we appear to be doing here. I only ask that the same consideration be given to my right to keep and bear arms without infringement that is being given to the rights of some of our citizens to suffrage.

As you learned gentlemen ponder this matter, I am sure you will come to the only American conclusion possible. You will report "no bill" on S. 1592 and once again uphold the Constitution. If our times make infringement necessary, let's do it in the proper manner by amending the Constitution, not by bending it.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE R. WHITTINGTON, AMARILLO, TEX.

I am in the investment business and a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and the State of Texas. I am a past president of the Texas State Rifle Association and of the National Rifle Association of America, and also a civilian member of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice. I am a qualified competitor with .22 and .30 caliber and the handgun, and am the holder of national records. I am also a gun collector. I feel I am qualified to speak about and against Senate bill 1592.

In past years in hearings before the Congress and governmental agencies. which I have been privileged to attend, I have heard a person of high place in our society today, a former Congressman and Senator, declare, "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

Senate bill 1592 reaches for a utopia which it cannot attain inasmuch as its success and enforceability are based upon criminal cooperation, a cooperation it will not receive. It has many objectionable features that have been or will be covered by witnesses before this committee. One of the great objections I have is to section 1, subsection 14, which reads: "The term 'Secretary of the Treasury' means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate." This is an amendment to the Federal Firearms Act, and the agency of the Treasury De partment which has been administering that act is the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Treasury Department.

Senate bill 1592 does not spell out in detail the procedures for its enforcement. It leaves it to the Secretary or his delegate. This is asking the Congress to abdicate or forfeit its right to legislate and place in the hands of an administrative body the power that constitutionally belongs only to the Congress.

You gentlemen know better than I the procedures that such agencies follow in making rulings that have the same force and effect of a law passed by the Congress, so I won't go into that.

I will, however, call your attention to some of the past actions of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Treasury and the records thereof.

First, let's look at the proposed regulations which this agency sought to get through, and would have gotten through had not the people of the various States acting through their respective representatives in Congress and for themselves so vigorously protested that the whole thing was so finally watered down, it was without meaning. The hearing I speak of was that held by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service, in Washington on August 27 and 28, 1957. Many Members of Congress spoke against the proposed regula tions, none for them. From the State of Texas two Senators and at least five Members of the House opposed them. I believe it would be well for this committee to obtain the record of that hearing and to study it very closely, for the objections voiced then are still valid today. Some of those objections were given in person, some by administrative assistants, and some were filed with the clerk of the hearing.

Another example of the thinking, of shall we say "the delegate" is the case from California.

Filed: April 1956.