Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

is such a right as that existing under the State constitution. But then they append to it this additional provision:

Provided, however, That nothing in here shall in effect infringe upon the police power of the State to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons.

And that I say, gentlemen, is, in the main, the real turning point in this matter that we now have before us. That would therefore mean that if anything is done here, it must move in the direction of the concealable. Now to that extent, the things tha I am saying here righ now, may be slightly different from the categorical endorsement of the Dodd bill as amended, and I have given considerable thought to this and I think that is the trend-it is my candid opinion that is the trend-in which this committee, if you enact anything, will probably have to go if you expect to stay within the adjudicated cases as they now exist.

I realize that where that puts us is this: This legislation, up until, well, say, August of this year, was headed exactly in that direction. The CHAIRMAN. The original Dodd proposal stems from a serious and honest effort to do what you could in this field.

Mr. PORTER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Against juvenile delinquency-people 18 years and under. And then the terrible tragedy of Dallas brought other aspects into focus.

Mr. PORTER. That is the reason that I am touching on that point, because I think the effect of the last amendment is to blanket in all firearms and if that is done, then it is my candid opinion that you begin to get over into the proscription that is set out in the second amendment insofar as nonconcealables. And if, therefore, you adopt, and the Congress passes the Dodd bill as amended, I think it is a very serious question about its constitutionality; even assuming that this committee wants to get into the question of moving into the police power field that is reserved to the States.

I realize that this problem exists of attempting to back up and perhaps have some uniformity of firearms legislation. I think your suggestion is good of at least exploring that field and attempting to do so. I do not agree with Mr. Bennett's statement that the mere fact that one State's failing to go along with the uniform statement would completely emasculate this situation. As the gentlemen of this committee know, and Mr. Bennett should know, the American Bar Association has sponsored many uniform measures, not every one of which has been adopted by all of the States-but a substantial portion have been adopted. For that reason, if you do have a uniform treatment of this problem, I do not agree with the theory that if you had failure to adopt it in only one State, two or three States, it would tend to sabotage the operation.

The CHAIRMAN. I would think that you might have some problem there.

Mr. GOODWIN. It would be desirable.

The CHAIRMAN. But, for example, the District of Columbia has different problems than those of, say, Nevada. You might have a different approach but still act within the same basic framework. It wasn't long ago in this country that everybody carried a gun. Senator CANNON. A lot still do.

The CHAIRMAN. But not for unlawful purposes.

Senator CANNON. Right.

Mr. PORTER. I would like to make a comment on one or two other suggestions of Mr. Bennett-I believe you asked Judge Rummel his comment about this matter. I do not believe that it is to best interest of the majority of the law-abiding citizens as a whole for any of those suggestions that have been made by Mr. Bennett be added to the legislation that is before the committee. I think the fact that you talk in terms of increasing the fees that are suggested there to $300 for the manufacturer to $100 for the dealer and $200 to the pawnbroker, begin to get into an element of unreasonableness that where you attempt by indirection to proscribe some activity which would otherwise be not subject to regulation or a matter that is really not competent for the Federal Government to be in.

Another suggestion that has been incorporated in-I don't think it has been mentioned up to now-is that you would restrict all interstate transportation of any sort of weapons as defined in that act to those which have been lawfully acquired. Now, that would probably open up, every time a person went from one State to another, you could be subject to some sort of unlawful search and seizure or at lease a search and seizure to determine whether or not you have lawfully acquired it and if you move from one State to the other on a hunting trip or something of that sort, you hardly would have evidence available to determine whether or not, to the satisfaction of some inquiring officer, as to whether or not that weapon was lawfully acquired. You certainly wouldn't have the bills of sale that came from the lawfully authorized dealer, whether or not that dealer had acquired it in proper form, whether he was licensed, and many other items of that

sort.

Consequently, it merely again illustrates the impracticality of opening up the Federal legislation to indulging in the exercise of police powers that should be rightly the functions of the State. And for that reason, and from what I have already said, Senator, I feel that it would be a mistake if you must do anything in this case, other than really adopt the provisions of the Dodd bill prior to its amendment-not the one that amends the section 4 of subsection 4, I believe it is, of the second section of that act to define firearms as including any and all types of weapons.

Now, there is one other thing that I believe needs to be said here, and I believe, Senator, you may have touched on it. Certainly one of the other witnesses did. It is a question of not only the safe handling but the encouragement of safe marksmanship practices. As a member of the National Board for Promotion of Rifle Practice, I have said it on many occasions in those board meetings and I have said it to other committees here, the Armed Services Committee on Appropriations particularly. In my judgment, if any thing is to be done to solve this problem all over the United States, it should be to encourage the safe handling and the competency and proficiency in the handling of firearms. And I say that up to now the Congress has not squarely faced up to that issue in the real implementation of that marksmanship program and I will tell you why.

About 4 or 5 or maybe 6 years ago, this board, the National Board for Promotion of Rifle Practice, insisted that we get statistics from the Selective Service people on all men who are presently being inducted as to what training, if any, they had in marksmanship up to

the time of their induction. And I feel negligent, as a member of that board, in having to state to you that up to the present time that percentage runs approximately 7 percent. That means, therefore, that 93 percent of the young men that come into the Armed Forces have no idea of marksmanship training at all.

It is my judgment that high gap that exists in the young people's lives today, not only affects the character-the basic character of our people, but it also affects the basic ability of this country to defend itself in time of war, And I say that if we do anything here, from my point of view, it would be advisable to correct the real basic issue by encouraging marksmanship instead of attempting to discourage it and disarm the people continually. And for that reason I cannot appear before a committee of this sort or any other sort without pointing out the very defect that exists in the basic marksmanship situation. The NRA, of course, has done a tremendous job in the encouragement of the safe and proper handling of firearms all around the country. I should commend also the tremendous increase in effectiveness that the marksmanship training units in the Armed Forces have done in bringing the United States from a position where it used to dominate the marksmanship, that it lost it during the twenties, during the thirties and forties. Now we are, I think, recapturing the position that the United States once held in the field of marksmanship. That has been accomplished largely because of the devotion to duty and the strict application of top-notch principles in weapons and ammunitions and training methods that have been developed in the marksmanship training units of the Armed Forces.

I say, without hesitation, that there is no reason in the world why that same type of approach to this marksmanship training problem shouldn't be done on a civilian level to cure the deficit that we are now getting into. And once that is done, this question of the so-called basic fear of the improper use of firearms will, in my opinion, vanish and the people will be strong.

I think it is to our advantage, both morally and on a national defense level, to accomplish that fact.

Senator, and gentlemen, I appreciate very much this opportunity to appear here. Many other things perhaps could be covered, but if there are any questions I would be glad to submit to them and I will thank you again for this opportunity.

Senator CANNON. You realize, Mr. Porter, that this committee does not have jurisdiction that would extend into this matter of education and safe handling of arms and marksmanship programs. Our jurisdiction is limited to aspects involving interstate transportation.

Mr. PORTER. I understand that entirely. I felt though, because of this position on the national board, to give you that additional background information, because it does relate to the problem of attempting to cope with juveniles, of attempting to cope with the training of the youth. I merely point that out as one of the things that must sooner or later be given attention to.

Senator CANNON. Certainly, it is a very valid point you make and a very important one, although the thrust of this effort is directed not toward teaching juveniles or others the safe handling and proper care of weapons, but rather to try to get at this problem of those using the weapons in an unlawful manner. In other words, the thrust of your effort is directed more toward the safe handling in a legitimate

activity. If there is a thrust to this bill, it seems to me it is directed toward the unlawful act; that is, not permitting juveniles to get the guns and to be used for unlawful purposes. I think that is where the issue first goes in Senator Dodd's bill, and secondly, to try, if there is some method of doing so, to prohibit convicted felons and persons of that kind from getting weapons that could be used for unlawful purposes.

Mr. PORTER. Of course National Rifle Association, and certainly the national board takes the position that we do not condone the illegal use of weapons for unlawful purposes. This question of training to a certain extent does touch on that. It is a preventive and corrective type of approach to the problem, rather than a preventive type. Admittedly it will take a long period of time to cover the educational aspect of it, but in the long run if it is done and done properly, I think it tends to eliminate this other issue that we are continually plagued with.

As many of us older people here realize, that when you get into the question of bank robberies and things of that sort on which some of the statistics have been indicated, a good many of those bank robberies do not occur if the perpetrators understand when they go into a given area they are likely to get shot at. It is like the old saying, that there wouldn't be so many duck hunters if the ducks could shoot back. That still has its practical application, and we think that lawabiding citizens should not only have the right to have the weapons, but that they ought to also be instructed in the safe and competent handling of them.

Senator CANNON. Your position, as I understand it, is that Federal laws should not be substituted for State laws, and weapons control is actually a responsibility of the State.

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. If the States fail to carry out that responsibility, that would not necessarily justify Federal law?

Mr. PORTER. Senator, I believe that you can legitimately get into the field of concealables, if you ultimately judge that there is some necessity for legislation. That may be a hard decision. It is actually a hard decision for me to-I differ slightly from the colleagues that have appeared here before. But in my judgment, the line of demarcation, not only from a constitutional but from a policing standpoint, is at the concealable as against nonconcealable point of view. I think if you pass legislation here which covers nonconcealables, it is entirely possible that you may be in difficulty.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no further questions.

Senator CANNON. The next witness is Mr. Woodson D. Scott, lawyer, of Lord, Day & Lord, attorneys at law, New York. We are happy to have you. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF WOODSON D. SCOTT, LAWYER, LORD, DAY & LORD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. Scorr. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Woodson D. Scott. I am a resident of New York City and am a practicing lawyer with the firm, Lord, Day & Lord, corporate law and international law.

I am a member of the bar of New York and of Kentucky. I am a member of the American Bar Association, New York State Bar Asso

ciation, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers Association, Federal Bar Association of New York, New Jersey & Connecticut, the Association of Interstate Commerce Practitioners, and I am a member of the National Lawyers Club in the District of Columbia.

My home is at No. 1 Stuyvesant Oval, New York City; my office is at No. 25 Broadway, New York City, where I went from Columbia Law School in 1928 and have been continuously, except during absence in the military service in World War II. I have a wife and three children, ages 7, 15, and 17, all of whom are life members of the National Rifle Association; and consequently I believe I have as much interest in public safety and the future of this country as anybody you could find.

I am an endowment member and a director of the National Rifle Association and a member of the committee on firearms legislation. I am a life member of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and a director in charge of legislation for the association.

I am a member of the Roslyn Club in New York, the Teaneck and Big-T Clubs in New Jersey, and the State associations of New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

I have been handling and using firearms all my life as a civilian and in the military service, in training, in the field, and in combat operations.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today before this committee to oppose the enactment of restrictive firearms legislation which would impose an unnecessary burden upon the several million lawabiding citizens of this country who own and use firearms for lawful purposes; including security, hunting, target shooting, and other recreational purposes.

I am opposed to the enactment of any general registration law for firearms and the hardships and injustices which would result from it. The only possible excuse for such statutory interference with the ownership and possession of private property would be that under the police power it is necessary to prevent crime and preserve good order. There is no acceptable evidence of such necessity. We look in vain for evidence that any general registration law would assist in the prevention and detection of crimes of violence.

We all are aware that the criminal would not register firearms and would not accept the restrictions of this or any other law which would frustrate his unlawful purpose. The good citizens of this country who own and use guns for lawful purposes are the people who would suffer from the hardships and injustices of a law requiring the registration of firearms.

I assume that whatever consideration is being given to the proposal of a registration law would be for a Federal law applicable throughout the country. I suggest that it is not the proper function of the Congress to enact such a law. Whatever regulation is required would, in my opinion, properly come under the police power of the several States. In this connection, I quote from a letter of John Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dated June 1, 1963, to all law-enforcement officials in which he states:

No one blanket proposal or universal regulation will meet the needs and requirements of all communities. The numerous facets and ramifications of gun control are so varied and complex that regulatory measures must be at State and local levels. It is only at these levels that effective enforcement efforts can be undertaken.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »