Mr. BEEKS. How difficult would it be for a determined criminal to purchase a weapon, say at three or four times the actual price through one channel or another?

Mr. REISMAN. It would depend. If he is a beginner in crime, he would not know the places to seek it, and he would have a great deal of difficulty. With the more experienced criminal, perhaps his sources would be much wider, including the occasional theft of a shipment of guns designed or destined for overseas from the docks, which occurred some years ago in the famous Schuster killing case.

But there is no unlimited supply even for the criminal, as evidenced by the fact that they have resorted to rifles and shotguns and only last December in Brooklyn a 19-year-old boy had his back blown out by a shotgun and he died-a shotgun in the hands of an armed robber, who had lined up a group of people in a supermarket and when this boy moved too slowly, he blew him to pieces.

Now I would submit that if it was that easy to get the more efficient and concealable weapon; namely the pistol or revolver, he would not have used a shotgun, which is more sensitive to police supervision on an open street.

Mr. BEEKS. Does New York have any requirement that one demonstate his proficiency in the safe use of firearms?

Mr. REISMAN. Not as yet, where our civilian licenseholders are concerned. It is a matter which has been understood for a substantial period of time. Indeed at the present time there are bills in the State legislature which would require, as an additional element before a license could be issued, that the applicant display proficiency as evidenced by a certificate obtained through some organization, including as the bill is written the National Rifle Association, similar to our socalled hunters' proficiency tests at the present time.

In the city of New York, the police department has not as yet engaged in that type of a procedure, because of limited range facilities. In the future, with our additional ranges being built and our new police academy and with the availability of other facilities, we are considering whether or not we should go into that area.

As we see it, under the law at the present time, we have no requirement to test as to proficiency. But in our judgment, it is wise to consider the problem and we are now considering it.

Mr. BEEKS. Do you have any statistics in New York, as to the number of accidental deaths due to firearms as opposed to deaths caused by criminal misuse of weapons.

Mr. REISMAN. We have those statistics. I don't have them with me. I can furnish them to you.

May I say, going back to our percentage of license holders as against the number of people, you must understand that in the city of New York, the public and even private pistol range facilities are extremely limited. And I speak from personal experience, since I shoot on some of those.

The further availability of guns could probably not be used for target purposes. Perhaps they could be used in the area of selfprotection, but that is another matter.

Senator YARBOROUGH. In other words, this isn't like the country west of the Mississippi, where in practically any city a person can drive to the city limits and find some place to shoot.

Mr. REISMAN. Of course, that is exactly it. When I was upstate as a special prosecutor, when things got a little tight, I picked up a couple of guns, drove 5 minutes into the hills, and vented my frustration on the open air.

But you can't do it in the city of New York.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I notice that was a very careful statement on the open air. You don't confess to damaging any trees or splintering any rocks.

Mr. REISMAN. If I am nothing else, I am still an attorney and I know my privilege against self-incrimination.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Does your Sullivan law apply to antique handguns, matchlocks, and flintlocks?

Mr. REISMAN. It does in general theory. We have not yet been faced with the square test of whether or not those cap and ball revolvers, which require separate ball and separate powder and separate percussion caps, would be included. However, in our judgment, when the test does come, we will take the position that they must be included within the present Sullivan law, and relief in this area must be by the legislature.

It is true that they are generally used for sporting purposes, but they are growing in numbers, and they are a dangerous weapon.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Does the sawed-off shotgun come under the Sullivan law?

Mr. REISMAN. It does.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The shotgun you referred to being used in the supermarket, was that a sawed-off shotgun?

Mr. REISMAN. As far as we know, it was not. From the description given by the witnesses the perpetrator was not apprehendedit was not a sawed-off shotgun. It was probably a normal size shot

gun.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Reisman, for the information you have given the committee, and I will ask another question.

We have had a criticism of the Sullivan law from one of your fellow citizens of your State, that if he lived in the county on Long Island, outside of New York City, he couldn't drive through New York City to an upstate county in New York to take part in a shooting match. It couldn't legally be done. He couldn't get a permit to carry his guns through New York City. He said, if a person lived in New York City and legally owned these guns, he could travel outside to any other county in the State, but that New York law was so drawn that no one living in another county could travel in New York, to travel through New York City, though he was licensed in this other county. Mr. REISMAN. Yes; that is the fact.

I might say this session of the State legislature has taken up this problem and we have recommended and endorsed the recommendations to permit those persons who have a State license and who are passing through New York City to engage in a match, to pass through the city without fear.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This was not some premeditated result in the law, in other words.

This is an inadvertence that arose out of the wording?

Mr. REISMAN. I am inclined to think it was originally intended to do just as it has done, because at that time I would think there was less attention to target shooting. But with the growth of target shooting in the State, the problem has now arisen in that area.

It is our intention to have legislation where, if the guns are in a locked target-shooting box, and sealed, and there are no overnight stops, they may pass through without concern. And that would probably pass this session of the legislature.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What is your experience in New York City with the incidence of street crime against the person at night in the past 5 years, offenses against a person, attacks on people, either assaults or any kind of physical attack on a person at night on the streets?

I ask this question because I read articles in magazines recently about how dangerous it was to walk on the streets of New York at night.

Mr. REISMAN. I think that is overdrawn, Senator. It is true that as in the rest of the country, the incidence of crimes of violence, robberies, aggravated assaults, and the rest are rising in the city, but the rise is nationwide. I might say our arrests have kept pace with that rise.

The streets of New York are not a jungle. People walk down the streets of New York as they do in other areas, free of interference, except in those instances which are reported. But the thought, the counterthought, that the prevention of this would be to arm every citizen, I think is unsound.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You don't think the average citizen would be qualified to protect, or be able to protect, himself against an accomplished criminal who was armed with lethal weapons.

Mr. REISMAN. I don't think the ordinary citizen would. And I don't think old ladies and young boys and old men who are the victims of so many of these crimes of violence would be able to protect themselves in any way.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It is your view that the greater protection of the public will come not through arming the public, but through a well-trained police force and a limitation on arms, limitation on the wide distribution of handguns among the public.

Mr. REISMAN. Yes, Senator, that is exactly it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you for your testimony here. You have put the issue squarely before the committee from the standpoint of a police officer.

The next witness is Mr. John Schooley, former chief of police and director of safety of the city and county of Denver, Colo.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. SCHOOLEY, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE AND DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, DENVER, COLO.

Mr. SCHOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is John M. Schooley. I reside and now practice law in Denver, Colo. I am the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association, and have served as a member of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice since 1955.

I am opposed to any amendment to the Federal Firearms Act or to the passage of any new legislation that would impose registration

or permit restrictions on the purchase or possession of firearms by citizens of good repute. This opposition is based on experience gained in the past 30 years that I have been engaged in law enforcement at every level from an arresting officer to the head of a large metropolitan police department and as sheriff of the county, Denver, Colo. Nineteen years of this experience included enforcement of the two present Federal statutes dealing with firearms, the Federal Firearms Act and the National Firearms Act.

Much has been said in public and in press about the part that firearms play in the commission of crime. Some persons have gone so far as to maintain that the accessibility of firearms plays a major part in the increasing crime rate. It is interesting to note that no mention of this accessibility of firearms is made in the listing of conditions which affect the amount and type of crime occurring in the United States according to the Uniform Crime Reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1962. These conditions are as follows:

Density and size of the community population and the metropolitan area of which it is a part.

Composition of the population with reference particularly to age, sex, and race. Economic status and mores of the population.

Relative stability of population, including commuters, seasonal, and other transient types.

Climate, including seasonal weather conditions.

Educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.

Effective strength of the police force.

Standards governing appointments to the police force.
Policies of the prosecuting officials and the courts.

Attitude of the public toward law enforcement of local law enforcement agency.

In speaking of an increasing crime rate, the educated person realizes that the word "crime" embraces all of those acts of man's inhumanity to his fellow man that are punishable by some civil authority. In 1962, 2,047,370 serious crimes were reported or a 6 percent rise over 1961. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the increasing use of firearms as the fatal weapon in the number of homicides perpetrated in 1962. While I certainly decry this fact, I cannot help but think that this rise is consistent with the general rise of all crimes throughout the country with or without the use of firearms. Crime is a social problem and cannot be attributable to a single factor, such as the accessibility of firearms.

As a form of rebuttal of the propositions of those persons who dwell on the subject of the use of firearms in the commission of crimes, I wish to cite a few statistics of my own.

FIREARMS AND CRIME

Firearms were used as fatal weapons in 54 percent of the murders committed in 1962. The total number of murder victims by firearms. was 3,931 (based on an estimated population of 112,368,000). Therefore, there was 1 murder with a firearm for every 349,000 persons. Viewed from another angle, of a population of 112,368,000, the rate of murder with firearms was 0.0000349 of 1 percent.

From 1960-62, 113 law-enforcement officials were killed in the line of duty. Of this number, 109 officers were shot to death by 89 handguns, 23 rifles, and shotguns. During this same period, 142 individuals were involved in these murders. Eighty percent had previous records of prior arrests, and 75 percent had been convicted on one or more

occasions. Leniency in the form of probation or parole had been previously granted to 56 percent of the offenders, and 37 percent were on parole or probation at the time they murdered a law-enforcement officer. Therefore, the figures indicate that this type of crime is, in the majority of cases, the work of criminal repeaters and seldom by law-abiding citizens.

In 1961 (similar information not available for 1962) the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed certain information concerning the weapons used in a sampling (7,348) of the total number of aggravated assaults committed during that year. Aggravated assault is defined in part as

assault with intent to kill or for the purpose of inflicting severe bodily injury— Shooting: 931 or 12.7 percent.

Cutting or stabbing: 3,230 or 44.0 percent.

Blunt object: 1,760 or 24.0 percent.

Personal weapon (hands, fists, feet): 906 or 12.3 percent,

Poisoning or use of acid: 90 or 1.2 percent.

Explosives: 2 or less than 0.1 percent of the balance.

These figures are revealing in two ways: (1) The entire State of New York has the most restrictive limitations on the sale, possession, and carrying of handguns. Yet 112 murders were committed with handguns; (2) 370 murders were committed by means other than firearms.

The District of Columbia is another area that has received more than its share of criticism concerning its increasing crime rate. Some legislators continue to advocate the most restrictive of firearms measures to curtail the accessibility of the weapon that they feel is the most used. However, the annual report of the Metropolitan Police Department for the fiscal year of 1962 shows that of the 85 murders committed during that period, firearms were used only in 30 instances or 35 percent. There were committed 2,956 aggravated assaults. Firearms accounted for only 455 such crimes or 15.3 percent.

The last section certainly points out the truth of the observations of Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang, professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, in his book "Patterns in Criminal Homicide." He said:

It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shootings could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal. Probably only in those cases where a felon kills a police officer, or vice versa, would homicide be avoided in the absence of a firearm.

In England, where firearms are rigidly controlled, such restrictions had little or no effect on the recent perpetration of the biggest train robbery in the history of mankind. The committee will be interested in knowing that in Japan, no one except a police officer is allowed to possess or carry a pistol, and no one is permitted to carry a rifle without a license. This is issued only after a thorough investigation of the applicant's background. No one is allowed to possess firearms for private reasons. Yet the number of known cases of unauthorized possession of arms has increased year after year. In 1962, the police discovered 12,773 illegally possessed arms, including 459 pistols, 806 sporting guns, and 11,409 air rifles. This compared with 12,513 in 1961, 11,749 in 1960, and 8,617 in 1959. The corresponding figure for the first 9 months of 1963 was 9,126.