Senator DODD. This figure of 131 persons is only from June, as I pointed out. In Los Angeles, five homicides have been committed with mail-order guns since September.

And so it goes on across the Nation.

To the extent to which the criminal element participates in this mail-order traffic can be demonstrated easily by police records in a typical metropolitan area.

The Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, in collaboration with local police, conducted an intensive survey of mailorder gun recipients in the District of Columbia. This is what we found:

Twenty-five percent of all recipients of mail-order guns had criminal records. In the precinct with the highest percentage of crime, 80 percent had criminal records. And these figures are not unusual. Chiefs of police from Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, from all over the country, have told us that what we found in Washington is typical of their own communities.

The question before us as a nation, then, is whether this interstate mail-order traffic in murderous weapons should continue completely uncontrolled, or whether reasonable controls should be instituted. I think it is as simple as that.

Some people are so out of touch with reality, so unwilling to be slightly inconvenienced, or so financially involved in the gun traffic as to hold that no regulation whatever should be imposed upon this commerce in deadly weapons. But any reasonable, objective person, looking at this problem from the viewpoint of public safety, will agree that some form of control must be achieved. The type of control is a question that is open to legitimate controversy by people of good sense and good will.

For more than 2 years, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, I have been conducting investigations into this problem and negotiating with the various groups principally concerned, seeking a legislative solution. The subcommittee has sought the advice of, and consulted with State authorities, law enforcement officers, bar associations, gun dealers, gun collectors, gun manufacturers, and trade organizations. We have consulted with the Departments of State, Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and the Post Office. The product of this joint effort is now before the Congress and this committee in the form of Senate bill S. 1975 with amendments. I believe this bill will solve or help to solve the mail-order gun problem. I add "help to solve." I don't suggest that this is a cure-all and that the passage of this bill will put an end to all this killing and crime. But I think it will help solve the problem and I think we can do better with it than we are doing now.

The purpose of the amendment which I have introduced, and which I introduced after the tragedy of President Kennedy's death, is, first, to broaden the measure to include all firearms and not just handguns. I point out that the bill, as originally drawn, did include just handguns. But we have amended it to include all firearms; and, second, to put more teeth into the affidavit provision. This legislation, as amended, contains the following provisions:

It prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of guns to persons under 18 years of age.

It bars mail-order weapons to those who have been convicted of a felony.

It tightens up licensing requirements for manufacturers and sellers of guns in a manner designed to discourage fly-by-night mail-order houses and others who operate on the fringes of law.

It requires one seeking to buy a gun through the mails to State in an affidavit his name, address, age, whether he has a criminal record and whether the purchase would be contrary to local or State law.

It further requires that this affidavit shall include the true name and address of the principal law enforcement officer of the locality in which the affiant resides and that the affiant shall deliver the statement in duplicate to the seller, who must forward a copy of the statement to the law enforcement officer named in the affidavit by registered mail with a return receipt requested.

Upon receiving that returned receipt, the dealer may then lawfully execute delivery of the firearm. I point out here that this particular section gave us the most trouble in our discussions with the various authorities, particularly with the officials of the National Rifle Association-who, by the way, have been very helpful to us, not only lately but throughout the period of time when we were conducting this investigation, this seems to be, among those of us who are primarily concerned with this particular bill, a provision by which all hands can agree. I thought that would be of interest to the committee.

Since there are many misconceptions abroad about this legislation,

I would like to spell out what the bill does not do.

It does not involve a violation of our constitutional rights.

It does not pose a threat to the sportsman who knows how to handle a gun properly.

It does not adversely affect those legitimately entitled to bear arms or the responsible companies which make and sell them.

It does not outlaw the mail-order gun business. It will merely require the proper identification of purchasers.

It does not require the licensing or registration of weapons. That is a matter of local concern.

It does not place in the hands of police authorities any discretion as to who should and who should not obtain weapons. It merely gives the police information that will assist them to carry out local and State laws.

There are other questions raised about the bill which arise, not from ignorance of its provisions, but from concern over its effects.

It is contended, for instance, that this bill would place an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, who will comply, but will have no deterrent effect on criminals, who will evade. I contend that where the purchase of a dangerous weapon is concerned, it is not an undue burden on any citizen to fill out a brief affidavit.

It should be remembered that the person who feels he is unduly burdened by the provisions of this bill can always purchase his weapon over the counter at the local gun store. There is a good chance, however, that he will run into stricter controls at the local gun store than those in my bill.

Almost every community has local ordinances governing the sale of weapons. The following State regulations are, in effect, with respect to concealable weapons. Seven States require a permit for the purchase

of a concealable weapon; eight States require a waiting period between the purchase and the delivery of a weapon, and this is within the State, so that the police may check the identity of the recipient. The 17 million citizens of the State of New York must obtain a license for the purchase of such a weapon.

The 2 million citizens of South Carolina may not purchase a handgun under any circumstances except via mail order, through which State law can be easily circumvented.

In that connection, on November 8, 1963, the Honorable M. Steed Stackhouse, judge of district 6, Dillon, S.C., reported that he had knowledge of the delivery of 10 German-made handguns on a single mail route on a single day. Thus does the uncontrolled mail-order traffic in lethal weapons make a mockery of State and local laws--in this case, a mockery of the laws of South Carolina, which has a total prohibition against the sale of guns in the State. The officials of the State of South Carolina can't do anything about the traffic through mail order in these dangerous weapons.

As far as criminals are concerned, this bill will close off one more avenue to lethal weapons. That is all. I repeat what I said earlier. I have never thought, never suggested, that this is a cure-all, or that this bill, if passed, will put an end to all our problems. All I have said is that it will help some.

If criminals violate this law, they open themselves to investigation by the Treasury Department and to prosecution by the Federal Government. This is a strong deterrent factor for any criminal and it will be of valuable assistance to police in putting more criminals where they ought to be, in my judgment, behind bars.

Some maintain that the second amendment to the Constitution prevents any regulation by Congress of the citizen's right to purchase weapons. I have a case on this, the only one I could find. First of all, let's look at the clause itself. It reads as follows:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) stated that the purpose of the amendment was to insure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of a militia.

That case, by the way, was on appeal from a criminal conviction for violation of the National Firearms Act. It went to the Supreme Court, and that is the decision. I think it is well worth reading. There is dicta in it that is, I think, helpful to a thorough understanding of the background of this constitutional provision.

Since there is no relationship between the mere regulation of mailorder purchases covered in the bill which I have submitted, and the maintenance of a militia, the law would not be in violation of the second amendment. So says the U.S. Department of Justice and, of course, I agree.

S. 1975 is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It merely prescribes minimal controls over the purchase of firearms shipped in interstate commerce. It doesn't prevent anybody from owning a gun or keeping a gun.

Some are concerned that these controls may open the door to Federal regulation of other products which could conceivably be put to

harmful use. This seems a bit farfetched. It seems that those so concerned are reaching for trouble.

A firearm, as we all know, is a unique product. It has one objective and that is to put a bullet through something, whether that something be a target, an animal, or a human being. I believe that the special nature of this product calls for special regulation. That is the only use it can be put to. I don't know what else you can use a gun for. I suppose sometimes you can hit a fellow over the head with it, but you don't have to buy a gun to do that; you can get a club.

Some contend that my legislation would deter men from developing the proficiency in firearms which is necessary to the national defense in time of war. This is a strange argument, it seems to me, in this nuclear age when the training of a soldier is a highly intensive process taking months and years. Even if we were not in a nuclear age, it would not be a valid argument. If we were still in the age of traditional warfare, it would seem to me to have no substance to it.

In the first place, this bill involves no real obstacle to any law-abiding citizen-as I have repeatedly said this morning-who wishes to purchase a weapon. He can still do so. It is no more of an obstacle than that required to operate a bicycle in many places-just about as much-and far less, by the way, than that required to operate an automobile, in about every State in this country.

My faith in the responsible approach of sportsmen and marksmen is so great that I cannot believe they would object to such mild regulation. I don't believe they do. I own guns myself. My acquaintance with sportsmen and legitimate gun enthusiasts leads me to say without any fear of criticism that the vast majority will not object to this type of regulation. These are the people who use guns legitimately and you know they are the first to insist on the responsible, safe use of weapons.

They know their destructive power. They know the tragedies that can be caused by accidents. They know the danger of a weapon in the hands of an unqualified person.

The typical sportsman will spend hours and hours instructing a no vice in the safe and sane use of weapons. I cannot believe that such a man would object to a minor inconvenience, and that is all that is involved here, which seeks to prevent weapons from easily falling into the hands of criminals.

Some have gone to the ridiculous extreme of weeping nostalgic tears over the memory of Daniel Boone and the pioneers, and declaring solemnly that a great American tradition will be destroyed by this bill. I say this is absolute nonsense, and I cannot repeat too often that my bill does nothing to prohibit the responsible citizen from obtaining the weapons of his choice.

Daniel Boone could have easily purchased a mail-order weapon under the provisions of this bill.

But we are not living in the days of the pioneers. We are not required to protect our homes from Redcoats or Indians or from wild beasts. We are now a highly complex nation of 188 million people. Many of these people are mentally disturbed, many are drug addicts, many are children who have no concept of the responsible use of weapons. And some are criminals who seek weapons only to rob, assault, and murder their fellow citizens.

Every community and State in the Nation is going to have to face this problem. Many communities and States have already done so.

The bill which I have introduced seeks to place reasonable controls on the interstate commerce in deadly weapons. It does not pretend to solve the gun problem in the United States. It will not make it impossible for undesirable people to obtain guns. As I said earlier, no law ever drawn is foolproof. This one certainly is not. But it is a solid step, I think, in the right direction; it is a responsible step, and a long overdue step.

I urge anyone who resents the trouble of filling out an affidavit, such as will be required under this bill, and dropping it in the mail, to ask himself one simple question: "Am I willing to put up with a little inconvenience in order that I and my children or my neighbor's children will have some protection from mail-order weapons wantonly used by criminals and depraved persons?" That is all there is to it.

And I have no doubt that the answer of every thoughtful and responsible American citizen will be "Yes."

This legislation has the support, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, of the administration. It has been approved by the Justice Department, by the Treasury, by the Commerce Department, by the State Department. And I am very happy to say to the committee that it has the support of the National Rifle Association, which is a very fine organization in this country. We have conferred many times with officials of the National Rifle Association. I don't know how many times altogether, because there have been many meetings, both in the course of our investigation and hearings on this bill, which took almost 2 years, and as recently as last night, and during this week. And we have their support.

I say, with their permission, that they approve of this bill.

You know the National Rifle Association is made up of men who know most about guns in this country. And they are responsible people,

It also has the support of the arms industry. In my own State we have quite an arms industry. We have the Colt Co., we have Winchester, we have Remington, we have HI-Standard. It is quite a factor in the State of Connecticut.

And I have talked with all of them, and I have talked to other manufacturers of firearms. We have their support for this measure. And perhaps most importantly, we have the support of law-enforcement officials all over this country.

There are many police officials who appeared before our committee and testified to the need for legislation of this type. There was no dissent. They came from just about every part of this country, and they were unanimous in asking for something that would get some control over this heretofore practically uncontrolled situation.

Mr. Chairman, that is the statement I wanted to make. I am grateful for the opportunity.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Senator Dodd, for appearing here this morning. On the first page of your statement you set forth the case of a 14-year-old boy who was recently murdered with a mail-order weapon by a teenage friend who was mentally disturbed. In your investigation in that case, would this bill have prevented the sale of the weapon in this particular case?