UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTRAL DIVISION No. 18450-PH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LIBELANT v. ONE MINNEAPOLIS PALM PROTECTOR PISTOL, SERIAL No. 1100, ETC., RESPONDENTS Finding of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment The above case having come on regularly for trial on the 26th and 27th day of March 1956, in the above entitled court, before the Honorable Peirson M. Hall, judge, presiding without a jury, the libelant being represented by its attorneys, Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. attorney, Max D. Deutz and Volney V. Brown, Jr., assistant U.S. attorneys, and the respondents being represented by its attorneys Meyer Litenberg and Carl C. Cowles; and evidence both oral and documentary having been introduced and received, and the court having considered the same; and the court having heard the arguments of counsel, and having rendered decision in favor of the respondents in open court on March 27, 1956; and the court being fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment: FINDINGS OF FACT I. That Martin B. Retting is the owner and operator of the premises and business known as Martin Retting's Gun Shop at 5851 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, county of Los Angeles, State of California, in the Southern Judicial district of California and within the jurisdiction of the honorable court. II. That on or about the 3d day of January 1955, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of Internal Revenue Service seized from the premises of said Martin B. Retting the following described property: One Minneapolis palm protector pistol, serial No. 1100; One Chicago palm protector pistol, serial No. 956; That said seizure was allegedly made under the provisions of the National Firearms Act, being section 5848 of title 26, United States Code, subsections (1) and (5), and section 5682 of title 26, United States Code, and section 5812 (3) of title 26, United States Code. III. That said Martin B. Retting as the owner of said guns denied that said guns were required to be registered and further denied that he was obliged to pay a tax upon said weapons and contended that said weapons were and now are pistols and/or revolvers as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 26, section 179.35, as amended, and that said weapons should be returned to him and that said seizure was wrongful and had not become forfeited to the United States of America under the internal revenue laws of the United States or any other law or laws whatsoever. IV. That the evidence adduced by the respondent established that said weapons were and are pistols and/or revolvers and that said weapons did not have to be registered under the National Firearms Act or under any other regulation or law of the United States; that said weapons were an exception to taxation under the National Firearms Act and that the amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations effective November 1, 1955, do not alter the status of said weapons for they are pistols and/or revolvers under said amendments. V. That the United States of America, libelant, has failed to prove that said weapons, either at time of seizure or at any time of the trial, were other than pistols and/or revolvers, and further did not prove that said weapons, or any of them, are a "gadget device," a gun altered or converted to resemble pistols, or was a small portable gun erroneously referred to as pistols. VI. That at the time of the seizure of the weapons from Martin B. Retting, two were in operating condition and one was inoperative, but that at the time the Government presented said pistols, at the trial, two were in inoperative condition and but one in operative condition. VII. That in order to stop the United States by and through the U.S. Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, from declaring said weapons forfeited to the Government, said Martin B. Retting caused to be filed with the regional commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service at San Francisco, and later with the above entitled court, in affidavit form, a claim for return of seized personal property, accompanied by a bond for costs under sections 7325, Internal Revenue Code, which bond was issued by the Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. This court has jurisdiction of the within action and subject matter. II. That the Minneapolis palm protector pistol and the Chicago palm protector pistol are pistols and/or revolvers as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 26, section 179.35 and section 179.37 as well as is so commonly known and considered in the weapon trade and industry; that the said weapons, and each of them, are not required to be registered, nor are they taxable under the provisions of the National Firearms Act; that said weapons are not "gadget devices," but that on the contrary are recognized established pistols and/or revolvers. III. That Martin B. Retting of 5851 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, county of Los Angeles, State of California, is the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of said weapons, to wit: One Minneapolis palm protector pistol, serial No. 1100, one Chicago palm protector pistol, series No. 500, one Chicago palm protector pistol, serial No. 956, and the said three described weapons be and they are hereby ordered returned to claimant, said Martin B. Retting. IV. That judgment should be entered in favor of the respondents, and against the libelant, denying the relief prayed for in its complaint and granting the relief as is prayed for by respondent in his answer, and that the bond heretofore filed by respondents and issued by the Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, as respondents' surety, be exonerated and discharged from any liability. Let judgment be entered accordingly. V. JUDGMENT In accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed: I. That judgment be entered in favor of the respondents and against the libelant, denying the relief prayed for in libelant's complaint. II. That libelant is ordered and directed to immediately return to Martin B. Retting the following weapons in its possession: One Minneapolis palm protector pistol, serial No. 1100, one Chicago palm protector pistol, serial No. 500; one Chicago palm protector pistol, serial No. 956. Dated: March 31, 1956. Approved as to form: PIERSON M. HALL, Judge, U.S. District Court. LAUGHLIN E. WATERS, By VOLENY V. BROWN, Since the judgment, the chief enforcement officer of the ATTD states that it has been advised to ignore this judgment in all districts except the Southern District of California. It readily becomes apparent if this Division of the Treasury Department assumes this kind of an attitude toward a judgment of a Federal district court, then how can a mere individual hope to uphold his rights except at great loss in time and money? There are many other examples of this kind. At the beginning of my statement, I gave the quotation, "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." Gentlemen, the foregoing statement and quotation were made by the now President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson. I thank you. U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, GENTLEMEN: On page 52 of the May 1956 issue of the American Rifleman, you announce that, as the result of a decision rendered on March 27, 1956, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern Judicial District of California, a device identified as the "Chicago palm pistol" is not subject to registration and taxation under the National Firearms Act. The court decision to which you refer affects the classification status of the device mentioned only within the jurisdiction of said court, specifically the Southern Judicial District of California. Revenue Ruling 55-44 published on January 24, 1955, in Internal Revenue Bulletin No. 4 (Rev. Rul. 55-44, C.B. 1955-1,129.), takes precedence elsewhere. To avoid any misunderstanding which may result from your published article, it is suggested that you consider the propriety of clarifying this important point as a public service. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. DWIGHT E. AVIS, Director, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. STATEMENT OF BOYD R. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF WILLIAMS GUN SIGHT Co., DAVISON, MICH. My name is Boyd R. Williams. I am the secretary-treasurer of the Williams Gun Sight Co. My comments on S. 1592 are in response to a telegram received July 27, 1965, from the Honorable Senator Thomas J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency indicating that additional statements would be accepted for 2 weeks, and my reply dated August 2, 1965, indicating that a prepared statement would be submitted. My statement will be brief compared to most of those that have been submitted, at least those I have seen, but from what I have been advised, there has been reams of material supplied. I certainly do not want to burden this committee with a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant views. The Williams Gun Sight Co. consists of Mr. Harvey A. Williams, Sr., president. and the six Williams brothers who are officers and entire stockholders of this corporation. The Williams Gun Sight Co. wishes to extend our fullest cooperation and effort in helping the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency compile the necessary materials so that improved legislation can be had. First, I must give you a little background on our firm because it is rather unusual and unique. Most of the firms that have appeared before the subcommittee seem to cover one phase or another of the firearms industry. Their views expressed, understandably so, were channeled in a manner for their own selfpreservation. Our firm is a little unique in that because of the scope of its business it is more or less effected by practically all facets of the firearms business. This is because it grew from a very small company, doing only retail and service work on firearms, to a company that is doing national and international trade in the manufacture of firearms accessories and the distribution of firearms and shooting accessories of other manufacturers to dealers and jobbers throughout the United States and some foreign countries. The Williams organization has worked very diligently over the years in training for the handling of firearms safely and properly. Each year we conduct shooting schools for many hundreds of youngster. Through our service department annually we repair and service approximately 14,000 firearms that are sent into our plant from all parts of the United States, Canada, and other countries. Our retail store is one where individuals will sometimes drive hundreds of miles in order to get the type of firearms equipped in the manner in which they wish to have it equipped for the type of sporting purposes they intend to use it. Records would indicate that we are one of the larger distributors for some of the leading arms companies including Winchester, Remington, Savage, etc., while on the other hand, we also distribute what we like to call the better grade of surplus military rifles. A little later in this statement we will attempt to point out the relationship between the military surplus field and the commercial field of firearms. In our own manufacturing plant here at Davison, Mich., we have what might be classified as diversified industry, located in the "backyard" of the auto industry area. We provide employment for quite a few persons from this area. In this manufacturing plant we manufacture approximately 500 different accessories that are used in the sporting firearms field that are distributed thoughout the United States, Canada, and the world on sporting firearms. These are sold through both dealers and distributors, and in some cases direct where service is not available. In view of our operation dealing on the retail level, on the service level. on the wholesale level in both commercial and surplus field, in the manufacture of our own products, and also the distribution of hundreds of other types of accessories manufactured by other firms and sold to dealers throughout the United States, we get a fairly wide view of the entire picture. In filing this statement, I must apologize in that this is a layman's report. I don't have the finesse or legal lingo for preparing a statement. Probably this is good because it is apparent that your committee does have and if we can put together some of the things that the many hundreds of thousands of sportsmen throughout the country want, in the form of a sensible bill, then the whole country will benefit. In browsing through bill S. 1592, there are several things that puzzle me and probably puzzle and confuse most laymen. For instance, what is a dealer? This is always one of our problems in establishing dealerships throughout the country. Now we have approximately 15,000 dealers on our addressograph plates, or at least what we call dealers. As far as we are concerned, just because a person buys a Federal permit doesn't make him a dealer. As you know, the Federal firearms license number only costs a dollar. At the price of a dollar, if that made a person a dealer, then it would pay everyone to buy one at a dollar and in that way they could buy everything wholesale. This is ridiculous. In setting up our own dealerships, we think that the main criterion is that the bulk of the merchandise being purchased is being purchased for resale to make a profit and not necessarily being purchased for one's own use or the use of a few friends. To change the dollar value of a Federal firearms license number by increasing the cost of it is not the answer either. Throughout the country there are hun dreds, yes thousands, of very small operators. The firearms industry in many of these remote places is pretty much a seasonable business. You might be in a small town in North Dakota, Wyoming, Texas, or other areas, and the local fixit shop is also the local gun repair man. He doesn't get enough gun work during the course of a year to make a livelihood so during the rest of the year he does everything from blacksmithing to repairing kitchen utensils. If you increase the cost of the Federal firearms license to a great deal, you will be putting this man out of the gun business and create a real problem in servicing of firearms. Firms, such as ourselves, have to service these small operators. We screen them very carefully to make sure that they are dealers, but you can't put that small man out of business because he doesn't do a large sales volume. Most of his livelihood may come from service work, but still and all, he augments that livelihood by the sales of an occasional firearm, a telescope, or the other types of accessories. In any of these areas, service is not generally available. Herein you run into your problem on interstate trade. It would appear that the target of many of the proponents of firearms legislation are the handguns. It is doubtful if anyone on your committee would want the actual registration of all firearms. Let us take one of the very fine line of handguns, the Smith & Wesson line. Our sales volume in the Smith & Wesson line will exceed $100,000 a year. It should actually be close to a quarter of a million dollars except for the inability of Smith & Wesson to ship a sufficient amount of the handguns because of their Army contracts, etc., that are currently existent. In furnishing these handguns, we supply them to police departments, dealers, and when individuals cannot find the type of handgun that they want they have to seek out a source of supply that carries a large inventory. To do approximately a quarter of a million dollars worth of business in the Smith & Wesson line annually a firm would have to carry close to $50,000 worth of inventory. To carry a complete line of Smith & Wesson handguns, with all the types of target accessories and the combinations that they would have if you had one of each model, you would have close to 2,500 guns in inventory, handguns alone. There are not many firms throughout America that would carry that type of inventory. Certainly you couldn't find one in each State, though in some States you would probably find several. When you don't permit interstate commerce, then you are creating a real hardship on the person that wants to get a specific gun which most likely is not available in his own State. It appears to the writer that the rural areas certainly will be discriminated against as far as service and availability is concerned. Any time a national law is put through, where most of the data for compiling this law is obtained strictly from the urban areas, then the law works a great hardship on the less-populated areas. Earlier in this statement I indicated that there was a certain correlation between the sales of commercial new firearms, such as manufactured by Winchester, Remington, Savage, etc., and the sales of the surplus rifles. Our firm distributes a large volume of Winchester and Remington and other new firearms. We also distribute a large volume of what we would classify as the "better" military surplus rifles. These would include the Springfields, Mausers, Enfields, and others. We never have felt that the military surplus field actually hurt the small arms industry here in the United States, but rather felt that it helped it and we know that it helps. It helps the hundreds of small dealers and small manufacturers of shooting accessories. If the small dealers and the manufacturers of shooting accessories had to depend just on the commercial new firearms for a livelihood, most of them would fold up. As an example of the 500 odd items that our firm manufacturers, better than half of these accessories go for installations on military type surplus firearms that are being sporterized by some persons into a very fine rifle. It has been our experience that the new firearms are sold, in the main part, as seasonal business. There are some of them that are sold in the off season, but the sporting goods store, the gun shop, and firms handling firearms throughout America, in general, live off the fall season, prior to hunting, in the sale of new firearms. There are a lot of new accessories such as telescopes, recoil pads, and hundreds of other little items that are sold on these new firearms or added later. In the case of the better surplus firearms, which have been imported by such firms as Interarmco, actually create a market that is far beyond the belief of most persons and associated with the firearms game. It is not uncommon for a person to buy a surplus rifle at $20 and then go ahead and do in excess of $200 worth of work on it in order to make it into a first class sporting firearm. It 49-588-65-55 |