Thomas Dodd, of Connecticut, the principal sponsor of this bill and the members of Senator Dodd's staff have worked long and hard in an effort to come up with a constructive piece of legislation. And much that has gone into this bill before the recent tragedy constitutes a definite improvement in the wording of the Federal Firearms Act.

Actually, this bill, if the copy I was furnished for study is correct, has only two bad spots. One was enacted in the October 3, 1961, amendment, and the other is the amendment now under study aimed at curbing sales of firearms by mail.

I would like to take up the 1961 amendment first, and explain why, in the opinion of the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Governor of Arizona, and every American citizen I have explained this provision to, feels that it is bad.

The 1961 amendment, in my opinion, violates the spirit if not the letter of many State constitutions, and comes under the heading of one of convenience to the law enforcement officer and makes law-abiding citizens unwitting violators contrary to NRA policy stated as follows:

The NRA is opposed to legislation which denies, or interferes with, individual rights of our citizens or is designed purely for the convenience of law enforcement officers or for the purpose of circumventing the due process of law in order to obtain convictions more easily. The desire to see our laws adequately enforced is not justification for any law which makes a prudent, law-abiding citizen an unwitting violator, or which denies the right of self-defense.

The amendment changed the scope of the Federal Firearms Act from applying to a specific group that included fugitives and persons that had been convicted of a crime of violence, which was defined in clear terms as

murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, housebreaking; assault with intent to kill, commit rape, or rob; assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault with intent to commit any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year.

In the place of that definite and reasonable statement of scope, the amendment extended the law to cover fugitives, and persons under indictment for or who had been convicted of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year."

Gentlemen, our Constitution attempted to protect the citizen from an all-powerful police. The principle that every man is innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of our individual freedom, but the 1961 amendment, and this bill as it is written would destroy this principle. Under the bill, a person under indictment, even though a year or 2 years later a jury might find him not guilty, would be subject to prosecution, conviction, and the full penalties of the law for receiving a firearm he might have ordered even before the indictment. Therefore, I plead with you to eliminate the words "who is under indictment or," wherever it is used in the bill.

As for the all-inclusive

any person who has been convicted by any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year

gentlemen, I cannot believe that this language has been given careful study, though I note that it has been given some study since the 1961 amendment when it first was adopted, because you have excepted

offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.

Apparently someone from the business community has appeared to argue for businessmen.

I would like to put in a word for the ordinary citizens of America. People may overdraw their checking account or in desperation write a bad check. During the great depression I know of a good many_who resorted to theft when their wives and children were hungry. I am sure that all of us know of cases within our acquaintance of young men who made mistakes, pleaded guilty to charges involving car theft, embezzlement, or other such crimes, and were granted probation and without spending a single day in jail, lived down their mistakes and became respectable citizens. Arizona had a State attorney general who once pleaded guilty to a bad check charge and actually served 30 days in California at a time when this charge was a misdemeanor, but today it is a felony. What would be his status now since the penalty for that crime is different?

I would like to urge the committee to return to the previous language, and make the basis of the scope of this bill crimes of violence that are specifically enumerated. They could be expanded from the previous list if necessary.

In this regard also, there should be some limit on the number of years a person should continue to pay for a mistake. In our State, indeed under most jurisdictions, the statute of limitations forbids prosecution of a person committing an ordinary felony unless prosecution is commenced within 5 years after the crime is committed. But under this law a person would wear the label felon to his grave, even though he paid the full penalty imposed by law 40 years ago and led an exemplary life.

As a practical matter, it is a common practice for persuasive prosecutors to talk accused citizens into entering guilty pleas as a means of avoiding publicity and expense of trial by promises of light sentences or even probation, when the accused might have won acquittal.

So I appeal to you for fairness for all of our citizens, not just the business community. If any law you enact is to be enforceable and of any benefit to the Nation it must be fair.

I commend you for taking out the presumptive evidence of guilt that is associated with mere possession in the present law, as this was a definite step toward fairness.

Now for the second bad feature of the bill-the requirement that the chief law enforcement officer in the purchaser's community be sent a copy of an affidavit that must contain a description of the firearm coupled with the purchaser's complete description.

I have checked with our local law enforcement officers to determine if this would be a workable law. They are unanimous in saying it would be of no benefit in preventing delivery of firearms to persons not legally entitled to receive them. They concur with me that it would only provide the beginning a foot in the door, if you please for firearms registration in America. Under Arizona law, written consent of a parent or guardian is required for delivery of a firearm or ammunition to a person under 18. Our law prohibits possession of pistols by persons convicted of crimes of violence as defined by the Federal Firearms Act prior to 1961 until they are pardoned. They say that the enforcement of this new provision would require sending an officer to check each purchaser. They already are shorthanded and need their men for more important duties.

Our law enforcement officers do not believe in registration, but they declare that many would use these affidavits to start a registration file on firearms purchased in their area, and they are certain that it will only lead to demands for more amendments to make it stronger and more complete. So, it would only be a foot in the door for complete registration and police permits to purchase firearms.

This law has effectively disarmed the British people.

This provision is dangerous from another standpoint. For two years now in Arizona we have had a law permitting service of summons, subpena, or other legal notice by registered mail, return receipt requested. Our sheriffs have asked this year that it be changed, because so many merely refuse to accept delivery of such letters. Any chief law enforcement officer who might get the dictatorial desire to prevent delivery of firearms to citizens in his jurisdiction could do so merely by refusing to accept such registered letters.

At a meeting with legislative representatives of our Arizona Association of Sheriffs and County Attorneys in connection with a statute we are working on to impose mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes in which firearms are used-last Friday we discussed this problem. It is our feeling in Arizona that if Congress merely required common carriers to comply with State laws when delivering packages containing firearms, the Federal Government's role would be accomplished.

Regulation of the use of firearms is a State matter. In Arizona, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit of the Treasury Department has two men, Murray White and Al Reed. It is from this office Arizonians would have to obtain this affidavit form. But these two men have the whole State to cover and most of their work deals with other laws. I have been trying to reach them for several weeks but have never been able to find either one in the office, and they do not even have a secretary. In the whole country, I do not believe enough arrests have ever been made under the Federal Firearms Act to justify its existence. And, as is always the case with such laws, someone is always trying to make them stronger so they will accomplish something that is usually impossible to accomplish by statute anyway. In this case I mean keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals by statute.

In my years of experience as a police and court reporter for newspapers, I don't think I ever saw a criminal who would bother filling out an affidavit as prescribed by this bill, sending it in with an order accompanied by money he could be spending on his girl friend or on booze, then waiting to get the gun he ordered to pull a robbery, or commit any other crime. He would either use some other weapon, steal a gun, or buy or borrow one locally. And there is no law you can enact and enforce that would stop him.

We tried a law in Phoenix once that required a police permit to purchase a pistol, a 48-hour waiting period, and prohibited sale to criminals and other so-called undesirables. It was in force for a year, and we had one case where a robber caught in California admitted that he got a police permit in Phoenix to buy his gun 3 days before. At the same time, however, the police abused their authority so flagrantly to turn down honest citizens, that 1 year after the ordinance was enacted, the chief of police, Earl O'Clair, recommended that it be repealed, and it was. And Earl O'Clair, now retired, told me that I could assure

you that the law did not keep pistols out of the hands of a single criminal in his considered opinion.

I apologize for the length of this statement. But from the bottom of my heart as an American, I want to say a final word. I have just read the latest poll by Dr. George Gallup purporting to show that Americans want a law requiring a police permit before a gun could be sold to anyone. The poll was taken during the emotional upheaval following the assassination of President Kennedy; following 4 tragic days during which TV commentators intoned every hour or so: "The time has come when we must stop this needless sale of guns to just anyone." And they made much ado of the fact the gun was purchased by mail. I did not once hear a single commentator comment on how it was possible to trace this gun within 3 hours from present sales records kept under the Federal Firearms Act, even though it was purchased under an assumed name. Two things have caused much of our problem today. One is the exaggerated western the TV networks show, that make killing an act of heroism in almost everyday life contrary to every principle of law. And the other is the dumping of literally millions of castoff military guns of foreign countries along with a staggering array of cheap pistols made with cheap labor overseas in our country. And this has been done despite efforts to get Congress to pass a law limiting such imports.

Let us regain our perspective. There is no member of the National Rifle Association who would not like to curb the use of firearms by criminals, but it cannot be done in this manner. All such laws as this will accomplish, in the long run, is the disarming of the American people.

If Dr. Gallup had taken his poll in America right after Dunkirk, when the brave but disarmed British people dug trenches on their beaches, waved only pitchforks and shovels, and appealed to American sportsmen for guns-what do you think the answer would have been?

Or what do you think it would have been if he had asked this question in 1942 after Pearl Harbor, after a handful of heroic Americans finally gave up Wake Island, after Gen. Douglas MacArthur had slipped out of Corregidor and was trying to find the men and the guns to defend Australia?

Have we forgotten Pearl Harbor? Have we forgotten that American chaplain who stood on a pitching destroyer's deck and shouted, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition," as he braved the withering fire of Japanese Zeros? I don't think President Kennedy would want us to forget, and start down the path that disarmed the British people, merely because one enemy bullet finally found him. What a ridiculous monument to his memory.

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, I have some other statements here by rifle clubs in our State, and one from the president of our State senate, which I would like to have entered into the record.

Senator CANNON. Very well. They will be received and made a part of the record.

Mr. AVERY. The first is a statement by the Mesa Gun Club, in which they oppose the registration and licensing of all firearms. I have another from the Miami

Senator CANNON. You say they opposed registration and licensing. That, of course, is not required in the bill.

Do they take a position on the bill that we are considering or not? Mr. AVERY. Sir, they didn't know what was in the bill. They were honestly trying to express their opinion.

I have a letter from the Miami Arizona Rifle and Pistol Club. Another from the Coconino Sportsmen of Flagstaff. Then another one from the statewide sportsmen's organization, the Arizona Game Protective Association, in the form of a resolution adopted at a recent meeting. Then I have a letter from the Arizona Gun Collectors Association.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statements follow :)

Mr. BEN AVERY,

GILA BEND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS PISTOL CLUB,

Arizona Republic Outdoors Director

December 27, 1963.

(Attention: Mr. Glenn Taylor, Arizona Rifle & Pistol Association).

DEAR SIRS: I am writing this letter to you so that it may serve as a vote of confidence to Mr. Taylor when he makes his trip to Washington to appear before the Commerce Committee on antigun legislation, January 20, 1963.

As citizens of the United States, sportsmen, and law-enforcement officers, we are very much against any type of antigun legislation.

As citizens and sportsmen we do not want to be denied the right to protect our homes and loved ones. We want to be able to teach our children to use and respect firearms and to be able to enjoy all of the adventures of the great outdoors.

As law-enforecment officers we do not want to see the citizenry denied the right to bear arms. In the recent case involving the shooting of Sheriff Tarr, of Kingman, we feel sure that there might have been more bloodshed had not the agriculture inspector had access to his hunting rifle which he had in his car. Having access to this gun put an end to the shooting and caused the apprehension of the subjects involved.

As law-enforcement officers we ourselves have had the occasion of having been in a jackpot and have been readily assisted by a citizen who had access to a firearm.

Our pistol club is made up of members of Gila Bend city police, Maricopa County sheriff's deputies, Arizona highway patrol, Arizona game and fish wardens, and U.S. border patrol officers.

I am sure you understand that this letter cannot be used as an official statement by any of the organizations mentioned but may be used as a consensus of opinion of good American citizens who cherish their right to bear arms.

Your truly,

JAMES R. YOUNG,

Patrol Inspector, U.S. Border Patrol, Gila Bend, Ariz.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE L. CARPENTER, PRESIDENT OF THE ARIZONA STATE SENATE, TO THE U.S. SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE OPPOSING S. 1975

Gentlemen of the committee, I have studied the provisions of S. 1975 and I urge you to amend it so it will not conflict with and nullify the State laws of Arizona, and, I am sure, of many other States.

We feel strongly that the regulation of the possession of firearms is essentially a State matter and must be a State matter because the constitutions of the various States differ in this respect. And we also feel that regulation of the use of firearms must, of necessity, be a State matter, because no two States are alike. Arizona and other Western States, even your eastern State of Maine, has great open spaces, and the rifle or shotgun still stands behind the kitchen door. The rifle, the pistol, and the shotgun is widely used for legitimate purposes in the West such as hunting, killing predators and varmints, protection against rabid animals, and even the criminal or killer that would invade the home, and for target shooting.

We have, we believe, a model body of statutes regulating who may possess, carry, and use firearms, and a separate statute to govern the problem in