others, simply because they have different terms of definition and different ways of enforcement.

As we know, over in the field of civil law, there have been uniform probate codes, uniform codes dealing with negotiable paper, that some of these laws have been adopted by practically all of the States, and it has worked very successfully in the field of business and com

mercial law.

Now here is a suggestion that insofar as this is a State matter, and local crime is a State matter, that there be a uniform code so that the States would find it easier to cooperate with each other. What do you think of that suggestion?

Mr. SARGENT. In answer to your question, Senator, I can see no harm at all in trying to develop a uniform State law. We would certainly like to see everyone have an opportunity in its development, not just the Justice Department.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Of course, that suggestion of a uniform State law has applied to crime because firearms are freely sold in transport of interstate commerce.

Mr. SARGENT. I might point out the attempt has been made at one time and not too many years past to create a uniform firearms law for the entire United States and this met with a rather untimely end, and it proved to be rather a difficult thing to accomplish. I would say that such a project would be a difficult thing to accomplish, but I wouldn't say that it could not be done.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This right to purchase arms, you wouldn't extend that to mental incompetents?

Mr. SARGENT. I believe this is prohibited by most State laws at the present time.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Magnuson, who is chairman of the full committee, in his statement said that, in his opinion, mental incompetents, alcoholics, drug addicts, convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and similar individuals should not be permitted to use firearms.

Mr. SARGENT. This is, indeed, like motherhood. You can't oppose that, can you, Senator?

Senator YARBOROUGH. So, at least, some kind of regulation is essential here to keep people who are mentally irresponsible for a variety of causes.

Mr. SARGENT. This brings on a number of problems, Senator. As an example, today, I am of good mental state and I buy and am allowed to purchase a firearm. There is no guarantee that I will be of the same mental ability tomorrow or the next day.

This is rather a difficult thing to legislate. In fact, I think we are going to have quite a hassle in Texas at the present time to determine whether Mr. Ruby is indeed sane or insane.

Senator YARBOROUGH. There are many fields of legislation that are very difficult fields.

Mr. SARGENT. This is one.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I think the criminal law, confining that solely to criminal law, everything isn't just good or bad, or black or white. You have this grayed, shadowy zone there in between. It is very difficult, and the application of that legislation is difficult, but that doesn't, it seems to me, relieve the people or their representa

tives from the burden of doing the best they can in getting reasonable legislation that can be applied in most cases fairly simply. In some cases, when you reach that shadow zone, it becomes difficult in individual cases.

Mr. SARGENT. I certainly agree with that statement.

I would like to get this into the record, if I may. I have taken note that a comparison has been drawn between the firearms laws of Great Britain and the heavy restrictions that are applied to purchasers over there, even to ammunition, which is regulated to a certain extent.

This comparison has been made with the United States where firearms and ammunition are relatively easy to come by. And this has been pointed out as a possible cause for the crime situation that now exists.

I would like to draw the comparison between Switzerland and the United States where, by Swiss law, every male to age 60 must serve in the military and upon the completion of his military training he is given his particular weapon to take to his home, is given 200 rounds of ammunition, is expected to maintain his weapon, his ammunition, and his uniform in his home, subject to annual call for training and inspection.

He is encouraged to use that ammunition. It is replaced at Government cost at the least possible cost to encourage him to practice with his weapon.

Now these weapons are automatic bolt-action rifles, pistols, full automatic weapons, submachineguns, small arms. These are in the homes of citizens. Yet, Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world.

It is not the weapon nor the convenience of them that is a factor in crime. It is the disrespect of some people for law.

I think another important factor is that in Switzerland there is no such thing as a change of venue. You are tried promptly, the penalties are swift, severe, and sure. It was not the weapon, but the failure in our legal system to apply the penalties promptly, that has encouraged crime in our country.

This is why I bear down so heavily on the misuse principle. I think this can be made so severe that few of us would embark on a criminal act.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Of course, in legislating here, we legislate for the country as it is.

Mr. SARGENT. I understand.

Senator YARBOROUGH. We cannot legislate for Switzerland or for a foreign land. We legislate for America, with the society, with the customs, with the traditions, and with the way of life as they exist here.

We have to consider what happens in America each year, the statistical life of our people, and we legislate on our situations as we are, rather than in what Voltaire called "that best of all possible worlds." If we did that, there would be no crime.

Mr. SARGENT. I mentioned this to refute the statement of J. Edgar Hoover of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who stated that he felt the ready availability of firearms was a contributing factor to crime in this country.

I would like to disagree wholeheartedly and I point to Switzerland as an example to substantiate my claim. The weapon, as such, is not the cause of crime. It is an instrument used in crime and its misuse is what, I think, should be legislated against.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any questions by the staff?

Mr. BEEKS. Senator Magnuson expressed the thought that Federal legislation should perhaps be limited to that area involving the use of intrumentalities of interstate commerce-in other words, to prevent use of those instrumentalities to thwart local police efforts. Do you concur with that? I think this is the objective of some of the legislation which has been introduced.

If the local law or ordinances, say that you cannot possess a weapon, should you be able to thwart that local ordinance by using instrumentalities of interstate commerce?

Mr. SARGENT. We had a little informal discussion on this this morning before we came to the hearing. This would be rather stretching the interstate commerce clause, do you not think? Are you suggesting that the Commerce Committee suggest legislation for the States?

Mr. BEEKS. No, sir.

Mr. SARGENT. Possibly I misunderstood your question.

Mr. BEEKS. Using instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as the mails, could enable an individual in a jurisdiction to purchase a gun against a local ordinance. The objective is only to prevent the circumventing of the local law, not to substitute it with Federal law.

Mr. SARGENT. I don't think you could find any fault with that, sir.

Mr. BEEKS. The objective here, then, is to how to prevent people from using these instrumentalities to thwart local police efforts.

Mr. SARGENT. This, again, I refer you to the misuse principle. If you put the penalty high enough, you can discourage it. I point to the crime of kidnaping. Within the memory of all of us, kidnaping was very common in this country, and not until we made this a Federal offense and applied the death penalty did we discourage kidnaping in this country.

Mr. BEEKS. You have one statement which says "such legislation❞— referring to S. 1975-"should provide penalties for the misuse of a firearm." Again, are you talking about Federal or State law?

Mr. SARGENT. Again, I am suggesting that this is a matter of State concern, and not Federal.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Sargent. Your testimony is here. It has been given in full, and it is in the record to be considered by all the members of this subcommittee, and then by all members of the full committee before any legislation is reported. The Texas State Rifle Association, which you represent, is that completely civilian or military personnel members?

Mr. SARGENT. Some of each.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You have annual shooting matches, do you not?

Mr. SARGENT. You must affiliate with the association in order to compete in these events, and this does include military as well as civilian.

29-119-64- -13

''

Senator YARBOROUGH. In order to compete in the events? Thank you very much.

Mr. SARGENT. Thank

you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is A. L. Schmeig, chief of police, Highland Park, Ill. Is Mr. Schmeig present?

(No response.)

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is David J. Steinberg, Alexandria, Va. Come around, Mr. Steinberg. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. STEINBERG. No, sir. I want to apologize to the chairman and the committee for not having a prepared statement. What I have written out, which I was working on until very late last night, will not be very long and if I may get through it, I hope it might be of some value to the committee.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Fine. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. STEINBERG, ALEXANDRIA, VA.

Mr. STEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appear before the committee as a private individual who has been concerned with the subject under discussion here this morning for over a year, ever since the tragic death, or, rather, the tragic murder, of a 17-year-old boy in Falls Church, which you may recall took place in September of 1962. Senator YARBOROUGH. That was the boy murdered in the yard of his home?

Mr. STEINBERG. That is correct. It was this tragedy that unfortunately got me interested in this subject. I appear before your committee today to support the principle behind S. 1975, to endorse the bill as far as it goes, and to state that the bill does not go far enough in the direction of insuring the development of a sound, forward looking Federal law in the field of firearms control.

In presenting these observations, I want the committee to know that I understand fully the principles of the second amendment to the Constitution regarding the right to bear arms. In fact, I am a former instructor in the American constitutional system at the university level and I know a little bit about this.

I submit without qualification that even the stronger bill I would prefer to see adopted is fully consistent with that constitutional provision. The time has long since passed when the firearms control laws of the Federal Government and each of the States need to be tightened and given the kind of effectiveness demanded by rapid and in many respects frightening changes in population shifts, urban expansion, and explosive social situations.

Existing laws dealing with criminal conduct should be vigorously enforced and penalties imposed that match the enormity of the violation. I agree fully with a similar point that was made by the previous witness from Texas. Such action may well dampen criminal activity, but society can no longer afford to witness in many respects the anarchic proliferation of guns of all kinds.

The argument has been made before your committee and earlier before the House District Committee and in debates on this issue at all levels of government that tighter controls seriously inconvenience the law-abiding citizen, some say even disarming him, without having

much effect on the criminal who has no qualms about breaking the

law.

This, in my judgment, is not only an exaggeration of the effect which tighter controls would have on the law abiding citizenry. It is

of guns of all kinds in the hands of
the emotionally and technically incompetent.

a laissez faire view which countenancy on widespreage

DA

proliferation and in the hands o

of

It is argued that guns don't commit crimes, it is the people using those guns. Controlling access to guns, it is said, would only hurt if would only hurt the legitimate user; so let us direct our attention to the objectionable users. But how this is to be done consistent with the needs of public safety does not come through with clarity and consistency. There can be no disagreement that the economic and social cancers the standards of social responsibility in so many areas must be raised to a level demanded by by

in our sota usurpe eradica TROTI ASHOU pressed

and States and imperatives of law and order in the respective cities

BI

I by the national interest as a whole. But the gun problem which committees of the Congress have studied so closely in the past year cannot be left to resolve itself in the natural course of events 21 noitizog, a noitsioozes odt mort, vtilidibero que tent The major organizations whose, supporters have resisted tighter controls in every forum where these have been proposed have cooperated with the congressional committees in the development of the hill now before your committee. They are to be commended for their efforts, but there are at least two serious deficiencies in their position til grote 2920qqo noitsioon ot to Y

ears

W

9

One, the bill they support will not have adequate teeth, a shortcoming of the existing firearms legislation which they helped draft menyents ago, and which could not cope with the problem the country now faces in this field og er 991 and doid moldog Secondly, the supporters of these organizations around the country continue to oppose the efforts being made to bring the firearms controls of the Nation up to date and give the American people assurance that a serious problem of law and order is under control, ris Some of these local efforts, as in Fairfax County, Va., over a year ago, are little better than innocuous, yet they have invited strong opposition on Constitution and national security grounds, which often look like a smokescreen to hide the personal objections of the misinformed protagonists. The objections are so homogeneous that the national headquarters of these organizations must be their fountainhead.qorib, uind toeti, apingstilong eid, layupoba The need to adopt stricter controls in all States and localities, at least the relatively strict controls found in a mere half-dozen States, is an important dimension of the effort that must be made and which the bill before you attempts to make to strengthen Federal controls on the sale of firearms in interstate commerce. Federal controls of this kind are necessary to enhance the effectiveness of local controls of whatever magnitude. On the other hand, since we live in a Federal Union that bars restrictions on the movement of indi viduals ls across State lines, a leveling upward of State laws to higher levels of control in this field is needed to insure the effectiveness of 960me the proposed amendment to the Federal Firearms Act, the bill now before the committee., gere gus megrel te olduq ed to gir oldeñoileni odt dtiw