is why he wanted the law. In any event, the law stands as a monument to ineffectuality and stupidity, as New York has a staggering crime rate and criminals have no difficulty whatsoever procuring weapons. And, several articles have been written about how criminals with political influence even have the Sullivan act permits.

Another stupid law, from the point of reducing crime, is the National Firearms Act. This law restricts machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, and short-barreled rifles primarily, but again look at the history: the law was not adopted until 1934, at which time the Capone-style machinegun slaying was out of style due to public wrath. Crime had already gone underground as it is today, where the public could conveniently ignore it. If a criminal really wants a machinegun today, though, he can get it. They are easy to obtain or make. Generally, though, a criminal would prefer a sawed-off shotgun, and to obtain that all he needs to do is walk into a hardware store and buy a shotgun and a hacksaw.

Senator Dodd should know the facts stated, but he seems blind to them in light of the problem. Also, he claims the law enforcement officials are clamoring for more antigun laws, but this is untrue. The International Association of Chiefs of Police is on record as opposing strict antigun laws, and when one Congressman Anfuso, from New York, tried to get a law passed requiring the registration of all firearms with the FBI, the FBI said they did not want it. Incidentally, the FBI lists in its Uniform Crime Reports for the United States a number of factors which affect the rate of crime, including population of the city and adjacent areas; composition by age, sex, and race; economic status and activities of the population; climate (believe it or not there is more crime during a full moon); facilities for education, recreation, and religion; police per capita; police appointment standards and the policy of the prosecutors and the courts; the public's attitude toward law enforcement; and the efficiency of local law agencies. Guns and gun laws are not even mentioned.

The Senator's bill becomes even more ineffectual when one considers that there are between 50 million (the most conservative estimate seen) and 200 million firearms of all types in the United States. The amount of ammunition would have to be estimated in the billions of rounds. With this many weapons around it is doubtful if criminal sources would ever be caught short, but if they were, a gun or ammunition is simply not that difficult to make from scratch, or smuggle. Prohibition rather graphically demonstrated that people can get what they want, if they want it enough, law or no law.

In essence, what Senator Dodd is proposing is a preventative intent law, and however laudable such objectives might be, preventive laws are not feasible. He proposes to look into a man's mind and determine by statutes on lawbooks whether the person's desire for a gun is lawful or not. Our laws are customarily and of necessity punitive action in nature; that is, if you rob a bank, you will get 5 years in prison; if you murder someone, you will get life imprisonment or death, etc. By the Senator's reasoning, why not regulate matches and eliminate pyromaniacs?

The only sort of preventive law that would be of any effectiveness would be one which flatly banned all firearms. But to be effective at all, it would have to entail extreme regulation of the military (for many, many guns used in crimes are stolen from the Government); rigid policing of every machine shop, lathe, garage, forge, file, and basement workshop, controls over brass, steel, copper tubing, lead, and various chemicals which could make gunpowder; an iron curtain of armed guards and barbed wire surrounding the country to keep any guns or materials from being smuggled in; and in a State police with extraordinary powers to search every house, barn, garage, attic, cellar, warehouse, automobile, and possible burial site. In short, complete confiscation would be impossible without the surrender of freedom as we enjoy it today.

The first part of this article has been a general broadside against antigun laws; this is only fair as Senator Dodd's article was largely an antigun piece. But what about his bill to regulate mail-order guns?

To be sure, there is a problem existing today, and gun enthusiasts do not minimize it. But the Senator overemphasizes it, and he incites opposition with stupid statements; for example, he quoted an ad for a 20-millimeter antitank cannon: "Get that rabbit with the first shot or near miss ***" Senator Dodd quoted the ad out of the surrounding context of other ads, which are similarly written. They are not written that way to appeal to the imbecile mentality the Senator depicts, but rather to inject a note of satirical humor in ads to

sophisticated collectors who know full well what such weapons are capable of doing.

Senator Dodd portrays a composite picture of gun collectors as mentally defeetive 3-year-olds whose arms hang down to their knees, and who, when not shooting up their neighbors for pure spite and letting their children blow one another's heads off, are running around in their Nazi uniforms and shooting themselves in the leg as they practice quick draw. "Gun collectors"-and the term is used to include all the shooting sports-are human, too, and they deeply resent being mislabeled.

Senator Dodd dwelt quite heavily on the death of President Kennedy with a mail-order gun (and also the police officer). President Johnson has also come out in favor of a law banning mail-order guns. In fact, so has Mad magazine. Well, mail-order guns may be a convenient scapegoat, but they are not at fault. Oswald could and would have obtained a weapon from some other source had the mails not been open to him. Why not ask why Oswald was allowed back into the country after renouncing his American citizenship? Why not ask why wasn't he being watched as a known subversive? Why did President Kennedy make the trip to Dallas when an attempt had been made just a short time earlier on Major General Walker? Why was the President allowed to ride in an exposed vehicle? Why was the exact route published so far in advance?

President Kennedy's death was a deep and tragic loss for our Nation, but he was a man who believed and fought for freedom and stripping the American citizen of a basic right hardly seems a fitting testimonial. And making political hay over a great man's grave is abominable.

Sepecifically, let us look at the five points Senator Dodd proposes, and the ones he forgot to mention :

1. Prohibit the shipment of firearms to persons under 18 years of age. No one objects to this provision. If a person is under age, their parents should order for them. Gun enthusiasts like to see kids with BB guns and boys with .22's, provided they are under parental supervision. The Senator's method of preventing them from obtaining weapons is wrong, however.

2. Increase the fee for a Federal firearms license from $1 to $10 a year. This will be resisted. Many collectors also deal on the side, and this will hit them hard. Also, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service, which enforces the Federal Frearms Act, is aware that many of the persons holding licenses are not dealers in the true sense, but no qualifications are set up defining a dealer. Also, a person holding a Federal license can receive handguns in the mail, which results in a considerable saving of express shipping. This provision betrays the true intention of the act: harass ment, not regulation. Holders of Federal firearms licenses must, of necessity. be of good moral character and have no criminal record. Dealings among them should be encouraged, not penalized. In fact, Senator Dodd should eliminate all the provisions of his bill except the Federal licensing. The answer to his problem is a Federal license. A Federal license for all mail-order firearms would be aceptable to the majority of gun owners provided (1) such a license was free or at nominal cost and guaranteed to remain as such; (2) the issuance of such a license was mandatory to persons of good character (which would have to be specified in the act); and (3) the compulsory registration of firearms was not required. Such licenses could be of two types: dealer and general (for collectors, hunters, target shooters, and the like). A simple license like that would accomplish everything possible in the Senator's objectives, without the bad effects, for, in essence, the problem is simply one of identifying the purchaser. The license, or a photostat, could simply be enclosed with each order, thereby eliminating innumerable headaches for all concerned. Cost is important though, for if a license can be raised from $1 to $10, why can't it be raised to $100 or $1,000, thereby indirectly prohibiting guns.

3. A notorized affidavit, which the Senator claims to be a key provision, is out of the question. This would have to be enclosed with every order, and it would put untold expense and trouble on the honest gun collector, who wants to comply with the law. The license mentioned above would do the same thing. Besides, how would a notary know the person has no criminal record or mental illness? Is he a policeman or psychiatrist? Besides, it is rather senseless to make a man continually go to that expense and trouble to identify himself when he already has firearms. The second, third, and fourth guns do not make him that much more dangerous than the first.

3-A. The Senator neglected to mention that the affidavit would have to include the address of the local police, and 3-B, that the seller would have to inform the local police by registered mail with return receipt that John Doe was receiving a brand X firearm before he could ship it. This is not only more expense and redtape, but it gives every local police chief a de facto veto over every firearm a citizen might wish to obtain. Gun owners will really fight that provision. 4. Require that an applicant for a dealer's license be 21. The Senator probably would not get much of a fight on this point but it is unfair.

Persons under 21 can drink and vote in many States, marry without parental consent, buy guns, and join the Armed Forces. The age should be 18, the same as the draft.

5. Provide that manufacturers and dealers give common and contract carriers written notice that firearms are being shipped. And, 5-B (which the Senator omitted) prohibit delivery by a carrier of any firearm to a person under 18 years of age. Generally, guns are labeled as such on the package or bill of lading, but the second part would have to be very carefully worked out (if, indeed, it is useful) to not be unfair. It puts the onus of law enforcement on private companies and individuals, which is not their job. Besides, similar provisions are already in the Federal Firearms Act.

Senator Dodd would be much wiser to cooperate with gun enthusiasts. They are not only fighting for their right to keep and bear arms, but for Senator Dodd's and yours.

Women are generally concerned with the sweeter and gentler things of life, though their days can become extremely hectic. This article is not the place to list the myriad of things a modern woman is expected to know and do, but her primary thoughts are not about firearms. Generally, she thinks about guns only in distasteful areas: crime, accidents, and the horror of war.

But what if her husband wants a gun to protect her and their children? Would she deny her children and grandchildren the protection and recreation offered by firearms? Senator Dodd's bill, which is actually an amendment to the Federal Firearms Act, has a laudable stated objective: reduce crime by making it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons. To some degree, the irreducible minimum, this can be accomplished through sensible legislation, but the only real deterrent is stiffer penalties for their use by criminals. This would require an entire review of our present method of treating criminals, including juvenile delinquents. But harass the criminal, not the honest citizen.

The Senator also pointed out the need for more local legislation. This, too, is incorrect. One of the best things which could happen for the stabilization of the gun trade would be to standardize the multitude of State gun laws. A person traveling from Maine to California with a pistol in his luggage would break numerous State laws, even though the gun were unloaded and never left the suitcase.

A problem with firearms does exist, and, particularly with juveniles, it can be corrected. But it will require the calm understanding of both sides, and, unfortunately, much ill will has already been generated. The attempted bulldozing through of oppressive laws and name calling will not help anyone.

In all fairness to Senator Dodd, there are several bills before Congress which are considerably worse than his. Unfortnately, none would be any more effective, and most are a rehash of proposals previously defeated.

Frankly, if the gun enthusiasts of America chose not to submit to a law. who has sufficient power, weapons, and men to suppress 20 million individuals armed with 200 million weapons of all types? (This same deterrent confronts would-be dictators.)

But gun enthusiasts are not only willing, they are eager to help with any sort of responsible, fair, and effective laws. The safety of their loved ones is also at stake.

In the spirit of spreading cooperation and understanding, this article is submitted for your consideration.

AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

STATE OF TEXAS,

County of Dallas, ss:

Before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for Dallas County, Tex., on this 1st day of July, 1965, personally appeared before me, Paul H. Raines, personally known to me who deposes and says:

Attempts to control the rights of citizens to bear arms are not new. Shortly after Charles II of England came to the throne the right of Protestants to bear arms was abolished. This discrimination led to the sixth clause in the Bill of Rights of December 16, 1689.

The Bill of Rights of 1689 was the direct ancestor of the Bill of Rights adopted by the States at the time of the American Revolution and of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Many of its provisions directly affected the form and content of specific provisions found in those documents under which the liberties of the citizen of the United States are protected even today.

It should also not be forgotten that the American Revolution was opened by an attempt by the British Redcoats to violate colonists' right to bear arms. The Battle of Lexington, April 19, 1775, occurred while the British were marching to seize the arms and ammunition of the colonists at Concord. The seizure of the colonists' arms by the British was cited as one of the causes of the war in the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775, The right of the people to bear arms was secured by constitutions adopted in Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States was based directly on the earlier State documents.

During World War II, the German armies were able to prevent resistance in the low countries because they first seized all records of firearms registration and then confiscated the weapons, thereby immobilizing the civilian populace. The Swiss feel so strongly about this that they issue arms to male citizens to maintain in their homes.

As a boy, growing up in the southwest, I have owned and handled firearms since I can remember. I was taught that a firearm, regardless of whether or not it be a cap pistol, a BB gun, a rifle, a shotgun, or a pistol, was a weapon capable of inflicting injury, that as such it should be treated with proper caution. When I entered my training as a special agent of the FBI, I observed that familiarity with firearms was a tremendous asset to me; that there was much less expense and effort involved on the part of the Government to instruct me in the use of the weapons utilized by the Bureau. On the other hand, many of the men from Eastern States who had never had an opportunity to use weapons seemed to have difficulty in mastering their use. A young man who is familiar with a rifle certainly makes a better soldier and we are fighting a rifle war in Vietnam partially because weapons were denied the South Vietnamese by the French while the Vietcong have been trained to be expert riflemen. During the 16 years I spent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I ob served no instance in which a person purchased firearms for transportation in interstate commerce for the commission of a crime. True, a number of the fugitives apprehended had transported weapons in interstate commerce while fleeing, but they were carrying these weapons in violations of already existing Federal laws. I cannot see that additional legislation would deter the criminal from purchasing a weapon locally and utilizing it for an unlawful purpose. The rationale would hold true for automobiles, which have become the accepted means of getaway from the scene of the crime and even for intrastate or interstate travel to the scene of a crime.

During my years of service as a special agent of the FBI, I can recall four men who have threatened to kill me as the result of my having apprehended them. Of these, I can recall no names. I do maintain a revolver in my home and because of my love of firearms, regularly practice with it and carry it while hunting with other weapons. My daughter, who is 17, hunts with me regularly and has been instructed in the use of the pistol.

It appears to me that the emphasis in S. 1592 is misdirected. No weapon can of itself cause harm to anyone. The human being who pulls the trigger is the instrumentality which causes the harm and I would strongly endorse any legis lation which would provide more severe penalties for those who misuse firearms by utilizing them in the commission of crimes. I strongly urge the Congress not to enact any legislation which would interfere with my right to transport any weapon in interstate commerce, including pistols, for lawful purposes including the protection of myself and my family. Murder is most often a crime of unpremeditation; I have seen murder victims who were stomped to death, strangled, beaten to death with a bicycle chain or a pipe, and stabbed with icepicks or pen knives as well as having been shot.

I strongly feel that any attempt to amend legislation to control firearms in addition to that which is presently enacted, would work harm on the law-abiding citizen, with the exception of Senator Dodd's original bill to require the purchaser of a pistol by mail order to submit an affidavit before a person authorized to take acknowledgment as to his criminal record and age. Should a citizen who is traveling in interstate commerce be at the mercy of an individual who intends to rob or murder him simply because he does not have the right to carry a pistol in his car? A law which would attempt to do this would in my opinion be similar to the 18th amendment, to the extent that it would be flouted and become a laughing stock and many people who would not otherwise carry a pistol would carry one, just as many people who would not have otherwise been drinkers carried a pocket flask.

I again urge the Congress to pass legislation which would provide additional penalties for the persons misusing a firearm by the commission of a crime and not to act without proper consideration simply because a death has occurred. PAUL H. RAINES.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of July 1965. [SEAL]

FRANCIS T. FRUZE,

Notary Public in and for Dallas County, Tex.

My commission expires June 1, 1967.

RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF CRIMINAL LAW

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved, That the American Bar Association support the enactment of S. 1592, 89th Congress, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act, or similar Federal legislation.

Be it further resolved, That the section of criminal law be authorized to present the views of the American Bar Association on such legislation to the ap propriate committees of Congress.

REPORT

Federal action directed at the control of firearms originated, for modern purposes of criminal control, in the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, which is now set out in sections 5801-62 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. This act, passed in reaction to the gang wars of the prohibition era and the postprohibition crimewaves, was directed at preventing criminals from obtaining firearms, such as machineguns, cane guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and similar weapons, which were particuarly suitable for criminal use. The act provides for special licensing taxes on importers, manufacturers, dealers, and pawnbrokers dealing in such arms, imposes heavy transfer taxes on the transfer of such arms, requires the registration of such arms upon transfer, and the registration of persons possessing such arms. Although written as a revenue measure, it was clearly intended to control the criminal commerce in firearms of a criminal character and provided penalties of up to 5 years' imprisonment.

The Federal Firearms Act of June 30, 1938, 15 U.S.C. secs. 901-09, was designed to suppress crime by regulating the traffic in firearms and ammunition, and applied to all firearms. Its legislative history shows particular concern with "roaming racketeers and predatory criminals who know no State linesa situation beyond the power of control by local authorities to such an extent as to constitute a national menace." United States v. Platt, 31 F. Supp. 788, 790 (S.D. Tex. 1940); see hearings on H.R. 9066 before House Committee on Ways and Means, 73d Congress, 2d session (1934). The act requires a dealer to obtain a Federal dealer's license by filing an application with the Internal Revenue Service and paying a fee of $1. However, because of the simplicity of this requirement and of the other recordkeeping required by the law, this act has been called a "mail-order operation" in itself. Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Congress, 1st session, part 14, at 3209 (1963).

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, with a rifle reported to have been purchased by the accused assassin through the mails, brought public and congressional scrutiny to bear on the availability of