private citizen should a subversive power infiltrate our police systems or our enemies occupy our country." If these groups are really concerned about this eventuality and expect the country to share that concern, we should expect them to have emergency plans to destroy their own files if enemy occupation threatened, and to propose that similar plans be in readiness to dispose of the files which gun producers and dealers maintain under existing legislation, as well as the records of hunting licenses. An efficient enemy army of occupation would probably not take the time and trouble to seize the files of all the police departments and game wardens of the country but might prefer a quick single trip-to 1600 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, D.C., the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

If the rifle association has taken steps to insure destruction of its files if enemy occupation threatened, and gun manufacturers and dealers have done the same, it should not be too much to expect similar arrangements to be made by local government agencies which exercise licensing controls over the sale of firearms in their localities. The practicality of such concern over enemy occupation in today's world-taking into account the size and location of our country and the probabilities dictated by today's weaponry-is a matter on which I shall not comment at this time.

I would like at this point to list some of the additional provisions I would like to see considered as amendments to the November 27 version of S. 1975. I am still in the process of refining my thinking on these, but it may be of some value to the committee if I mentioned them now.

1. The police authentication of the applicant's affidavit should include police certification-without which the transaction should not proceed-that the applicant's purpose appears sound and that he shows minimum evidence in his record that he knows how to use firearms. As every veteran of the Armed Forces knows-and, I presume, every person who uses a gun for legitimate civilian purposes-use of a gun should require knowing how to use it properly, how to maintain it, and how to secure its safety. Membership in a gun club, or recent honorable discharge from military service, or similar experience, might be adequate prima facie evidence of this capability. The emotional qualifications of the applicant should also be considered a difficult standard but one that should be adequate to deal with someone like President Kennedy's assassin, whose record and peculiarities were known to the authorities.

2. Provision should be made for certification (a) that the gun is for the personal use of the applicant and/or for other specified use under his control and responsibility, and (b) that it will not be made available to anyone the applicant believes to be unqualified by Federal, State, or local law-or technically or emotionally incompetent-to use it.

3. Provision should be made for the application of these controls to all shipments of guns in interstate commerce, not just when purchases from manufacturers or dealers are involved.

4. Provision should be made requiring (a) the report to the same police department of the sale, gift, or loss of the particular mail-order gun; and (b) the reporting of the gun to the police department of the new area to which the applicant may later move.

5. Provision might be made for licensing a legitimate gun owner permitting him to obtain guns in interstate commerce with a minimum of redtape. Such special provisions would require particular care in their formulation and administration.

6. Public advertising of guns other than technically descriptive text should be prohibited. All gun advertising in comic books and other pulp literature should be banned.

7. Dealer licensing should be tightened to require investigation of the business intentions of the applicant. It should require bond and some indication that the applicant recognizes the responsibilities of a bona fide gun dealer. The dealer fee should be many times higher than the proposed increase to $10. Attention might be given to prohibiting interstate gun transactions by pawnbrokers.

8. Since guns are useless without ammunition, ammunition should be included in the prescribed controls, despite the testimony offered that no need for such restrictions has been documented.

9. The requirement that packages in which guns are shipped in interstate commerce identify their contents should be applied to private persons as well as to manufacturers and dealers as now proposed.

10. The applicant should mention the name of the dealer or manufacturer from whom he wishes to purchase the gun, thus insuring that the sender will comply with the law inasmuch as police will know his identity.

As a conclusion of my brief remarks this morning I would like to emphasize the importance of seeking greater uniformity in the myriad laws on this subject throughout the country. Impressive action by the Federal Government would go far to achieve this. It should be accompanied by carefully drawn explanations by the Congress as to its intent in such legislation, broadly what it expects the local police officials to do with their responsibilities under the act, and the kind of attention it would like to see the States give to this problem. Your committee should consider holding hearings on this subject every year to make sure that the legislation is meeting national needs.

To the extent that the ability and freedom to use firearms are important to the national interest, it is gun proficiency, not the largest possible number of gun owners, that would best serve the national interest. The National Rifle Association and other gun groups play a major role in this respect, and their programs will not be weakened by the controls here proposed.

As in every use of power, police discretion may at times be abused. But efforts to explain to all law-enforcement agencies the purpose of such controls and the standards that ought to be applied in their administration would go far to minimize such abuse. Local governments might be urged to establish appeals boards involving no cost and a minimum of redtape.

The bill before you, with or without the additions I would like to have considered in some form, will not by itself solve the problem that concerns us all. There are many imperfections, just as the operation of our democratic system has many inevitable imperfections. If we waited to remove them all, we would get nothing done. And something must be done. Our task is to minimize the imperfections without retreating from the urgent needs of public safety.

We do have another witness, Mr. James J. Vaughn, representing the Suffolk County Fish & Game Association, Huntington Station, Long Island, N.Y.

Mr. VAUGHN. With your permission, may Mr. Linford speak for me? He has it all written out and I think he has a better voice than I have.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Will you be seated with him, Mr. Vaughn, and give your name and identification to the reporter and proceed in your own manner.

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. LINFORD, CHAIRMAN, FIREARMS LEGISLATION COUNCIL, SUFFOLK COUNTY FISH & GAME ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES J. VAUGHN

Mr. LINFORD. Honorable Chairman, the Senate Committee on Commerce. I am Jim Linford of the Suffolk County Fish & Game Association. This is Mr. James Vaughn of the same organization.

This delegation represents the Suffolk County Fish & Game Association of New York. Through its club affiliations and individual memberships this association speaks for approximately 6,000 individuals. In addition we feel that the views that we are about to present are in accord with those of New York State's half-million hunters, sportsmen, and responsible gun enthusiasts.

We are in complete agreement with the statement of December 10 made by the chairman of this committee, the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson.

We respectfully submit that the bills before this committee in their present form, are the product of hysteria, dictated by emotion and not by reason. They will not prevent the possession and use of firearms by the irresponsible. But, to the contrary, will unduly inconvenience and burden the law-abiding citizen. Senator Magnuson's words are quite applicable to the proposals before this committee.

Especially the phrase concerning legislation destined to futility; a very apt choice of words.

We are not in favor of the indiscriminate sale of firearms to the criminal, the narcotics addict, the mental incompetent, or the juvenile. This belief holds firm whether we are discussing the sales of firearms through the mails or over the counter. However, there are already Federal statutes applicable to the transportation and sale of firearms across State lines. Additional redundancy will only serve to make ineffective and confuse the present laws. The additional requirements in the proposal bills would render the Federal Firearms Act subject to possible misinterpretation and discretionary misuse. And finally, the proposals carry the threat of registration of every firearm purchased by mail.

The Federal Firearms Act presently in force forbids the interstate shipment of firearms and ammunition to persons convicted of a crime punishable by more than 1 years in prison, or persons under indictment for such a crime, and/or fugitives from justice. As a constructive suggestion, why not expand this portion of the act to preclude the shipment of firearms to mental incompetents and juveniles. We submit this would accomplish the aims of the sponsors without unduly inconveniencing and burdening the responsible.

One of the alleged purposes of these bills is for the prevention of crime. We submit that no legislation can change the criminal mind nor deter the criminal from his ultimate purpose. History is replete with examples that failed. One of the most infamous areas of our failure is in the control of narcotics. Numerous pieces of legislation have been tried but statistics prove that the criminal sale and use of narcotics have increased rather than decreased.

Another such example can be found in New York where the diligent registration of concealable firearms has not resulted in any reduction of crime. This is especially apparent in New York City where crimes of violence have increased. The facts are that the criminal will steal a gun if he feels he needs one, rather than be ensnared by laws such as the Sullivan law or the proposals before us here today. Will the additions to the Federal Firearms Act aid in the apprehension and conviction of the criminal after the fact of a crime? We seriously doubt that it will. In the case of the amateur, first-time criminal or the spur-of-the-moment culprit, it will offer a possible source of investigation. However, in neither case is any additional legislation warranted on just the strength of these crimes alone. The hardened or professional criminal would never trip over such easily evaded laws. The Federal Firearms Act already provides very stiff penalties to those found in defiance of the law. Let the suggestion offered above serve to add the mentally deranged and the juvenile to the list and then let us see to the punishment of the guilty.

The reference to redundancy, confusion, and additional requirements above are very obviously involved in the proper working of the law. The first result of these detrimental legal "gremlins" is the possibility of misinterpretation. Once again let us look at New York's Sullivan law as an example. Through multiple contradictions and seemingly endless repetition, this section of New York's penal code became one of the country's most often misused, misunderstood, and maligned laws. Its constant amendments and continual chang

ing seemed only to serve the criminal. As an actual example of the misuse that this law has resulted in, we cite the case for the target pistol shooter. In New York City the number of carry permits has decreased by one-third, while nationally the number of registered target pistol shooters has multipled 39.1 times during the same time period. Another instance shows one law-abiding citizen, adhering to the strict letter of the law, being subjected to a wait of only 13 months for his pistol permit. And this is not an extreme case, it is merely average for New York State.

Second, and perhaps more important, the addition of unnecessary and redundant chapters to the Federal Firearms Act will serve to make this an even more unpopular law than it is now. Unpopularity breeds contempt. Disrespect is followed by disregard. Our country does not need another "noble experiment."

The final point we wish to elaborate on is the one of registration. The evils of gun registration have been presented to all of you at one time or another in the past. The National Rifle Association's booklet on "The Pro and Con of Firearms Registration" deals quite competently with the subject. We respectfully submit that this booklet be made mandatory reading for anyone considering changing our present gun laws.

We mentioned the National Rifle Association. They have publicly stated that they are not opposed to the passage of the Dodd bill. However, in that same public statement, they also stated that they are traditionally opposed to gun registration of any kind. In their own digest of S. 1975 they state *** and a description of the firearm being purchased shall go to the local law enforcement officer." We submit that whatever regulatory body is chosen to interpret this requirement and draft the applications or forms involved will most assuredly ask for the serial number of the firearm involved. We submit that this is registration. A copy of this presentation has been sent to the National Rifle Association asking that their position be changed.

To summarize, we feel that only the responsible gun owner will ever be affected by what is proposed here that the law-abiding citizen whose hobby or leisure time activity revolves about firearms would be subjected to inconvenience, delays, and redtape that are quite obviously unnecessary. Does the responsible citizen deserve such treatment? A look at the constantly increasing number of hunting licenses being issued each year, as compared to the constantly decreasing number of accidents involving firearms, would seem to indicate that this particular citizen is doing considerably better in his chosen sport than most.

Despite the approximately 20 million hunters afield in 1963 there were only 2,000 accidental deaths involving firearms. And this 2,000 included accidental deaths in the home and from dynamite, bombs, grenades, and so forth. Deaths involving firearms have decreased nationally by about 25 percent during the last 12 years. Can any other area of activity boast such a record? Are we then to be subjected to further suspicion, abuse, harassment, and inconvenience? Finally we submit that the firearms dealer and quite possibly thẹ firearms industry, will be seriously affected by what we have proposed here. Think back to 1939 and the plight of Great Britain without fire

It would appear that there are those amongst us who would put us in the same position today.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Linford and Mr. Vaughn. Is your organization one whose members are primarily concerned with hunting or do you have competitive target shooting or what type of activity?

Mr. LINFORD. We have garden clubs, cocker spaniel clubs, German short-haired pointers, target shooters, fishermen, exclusively fresh water fishermen, exclusively salt water fishermen, and even beach buddy associations involved."

Senator YARBOROUGH. You mean in this Suffolk County Fish and Game

Mr. LINFORD. Yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. In your association?

Mr. LINFORD. In addition to an individual membership, better than 2,000 individuals are not in any way affiliated with any of the clubs mentioned.

Senator YARBOROUGH. In that capacity, are they primarily collectors or do they take part in target shooting or hunting?

Mr. LINFORD. Just about and some are just fishermen who don't know the first thing about a gun.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You have quite a cosmopolitan group then in this association?

Mr. VAUGHN. Yes; we do. In addition to that, we have affiliated clubs. Some of the clubs are not members of the association itself. You see, we are affiliated with various clubs and the association is more of a central organization. That is why we come here today, representing not only the exact membership, but the affiliated clubs.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I was noticing in your first paragraph that it says affiliations and individual memberships. Now you are speaking for all of them? Your position here represents the position of those garden clubs and all affiliated clubs?

Mr. VAUGHN. Affiliated clubs, that is right; yes, sir, Mr. Senator. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for the condensation that you have in the statement here.

Mr. VAUGHN. May we thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear here today. We really consider it a privilege.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Does counsel have any questions?

Mr. BEEKS. No.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Then the committee will stand in recess until next Thursday.

(Thereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned to reconvene on Thursday, January 30, 1964.)