a good way to do it. I think every time we can get the Federal and State Governments working together for a good purpose, we have accomplished a good objective. Senator CANNON. That doesn't quite get to the point that I had in mind of where the real responsibility lies. Does it lie with the Federal Government or does it lie with the States? We have already indicated here in the record that the States required licenses, then this would come under the Federal act at the present time, and a violation would be a felony. I am concerned as to whether or not it is a Federal responsibility if the States refuse to act, or is it our responsibility to try to get action from the States? Senator DODD. I think it is both. Of course under this bill the responsibility for enforcement is clearly Federal. And the responsibility for going forward in this area is Federal under this bill. I think it would be better if we could get State regulation, some uniformity of State regulation. Maybe we can. But until we do, I think the Federal Government has to accept this responsibility, which is where. the responsibility would be reposed under this bill, and do its best to enforce the law. Senator CANNON. Thank you very much. If there are no more questions Senator DODD. I would like to add one more point. While I was testifying I was handed these figures. We obtained these figures for the year in New York. There were, as I pointed out, 131, since January. There have been a total of 266 murders or injuries in New York through the use of mail-order or imported guns. I thought that figure might be of interest to the committee. Senator CANNON. This is from January 1963 up to the present time? Senator DODD. Yes; up to the present time. Senator CANNON. Thank you very much. Your testimony has certainly been helpful to the committee in the consideration of this very grave problem. Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator, and I thank the committee. (The following telegram from Governor Brown of California to Senator Dodd is included in the record at this point:) Hon. THOMAS J. DODD, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, SACRAMENTO, CALIF., December 11, 1963. I strongly support your proposed legislation relating to the regulation of shipments of firearms to improper persons. Please be assured of my continued and heartfelt interest in this matter. I am also requesting that each member of the California congressional legislation take a direct and personal interest in this matter. Senator CANNON. Senator Bayh? EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor. Senator Bayh, we are very happy to have you here. Will you testify before the committee and give us your views in relation to these bills that are now pending? STATEMENT OF HON. BIRCH E. BAYH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am happy to have the chance to appear before your committee. I feel sort of like a utility infielder, having followed Senator Dodd, who of course was the original author of this particular bill and who I was very happy to have the chance to join in cosponsorship of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit for the record some editorial newspaper comments as they appeared in some of the newspapers of my home State, if I may. Senator CANNON. Without objection they will be inserted in the record following Senator Bayh's testimony. Senator BAYH. I might point out that one or two of these newspaper stories or editorials point out that this is not going to be a simple problem to solve, but that we are not going to solve it at all unless we look into it. We are very fortunate, I think, that your committee has decided to investigate not only our bill but to look into the possibility that there may be other answers in addition to our bill. I would like to point out first of all that in the minds of some, this bill could well have been introduced or brought before your committee as a result of the horrible tragedy which resulted in the death of our President. I think the evidence is quite to the contrary. Senator Dodd and I and others expressed a deep interest in this bill. In fact it was before the Congress of the United States prior to President Kennedy's death. The need for this legislation is not as a result of the death of President Kennedy, but President Kennedy's death, I feel, did focus public attention on one of the loopholes which presently exists in our law. I think it would be most unfortunate if we would race into an effort trying to plug up a loophole without giving it reasonable consideration and thought. However, this mail-order problem with weapons was going on long before the tragedy which resulted in the death of our President. I would like to point out that, having lived in rural America for a good portion of my life, I have great respect and admiration and enjoy participating myself in the sports of hunting and shooting. This bill is designed in no way to penalize the legitimate sportsman, the hunter, the marksman, the collector of collections of firearms. Quite the contrary. I for one would like to compliment many of these groups who instill not only in our young people the skill of how to use weapons, but how to use them safely. And I hate to think of the additional accidents of hunting and accidental discharge of firearms that would exist in this country today if it were not for the enthusiastic effort that many sportsmen's organizations and marksmen's groups are presently fostering. However, I would like to point out that most of the weapons, a big majority of the weapons, which are today a part and parcel of the traffic in mail-order distribution of these weapons, are weapons that have little or no value at all to the sportman or the marksman, the legitimate user of weapons. The study which the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee has conducted has disclosed that the big bulk of these weapons can be used to hunt only one kind of animal, and that is a two-legged animal, a human being. The collection that we have in the committee, which I think would be an eye opener for the members of this committee to have an opportunity to look at this collection, discloses that in just a few of the precincts of Washington, literally scores of these weapons are the size that would fit into your hand-inexpensive foreign imports, usually. One particular weapon comes to mind that was taken away from someone who was apprehended by the police in Washington. It is a regulation commando weapon that was made in Britain primarily, of course, as a commando weapon. To bring it down to this day, they have sawed off the end of that weapon and it is about so long, but it is a deadly looking thing, the exact weapon, and primarily they sawed off the barrel of it so it could be concealed. We have submachineguns, bazookas. In fact, just the other day, not too long ago, three youths were apprehended in New Jersey wearing tattered and frayed Nazi uniforms and they had a 20-millimeter antitank gun that was a mail-order weapon that they were proceeding to fire into and tear down an old apartment building. These types of weapons certainly are of no use whatsoever to the hunter or the marksman. The thing that we are trying to accomplish in this bill is to prevent the hidden, concealed sale of these weapons. I would like to address the remainder of my remarks to one question that was touched on briefly by Senator Dodd, because I feel it is a technical question and it is a legitimate question, because the bill has been criticized on some grounds; the fact that it is said to violate the second amendment of the Constitution which guarantees the right to bear arms. I don't know how deeply this criticism has penetrated, but as I mentioned a month ago it has been made and I feel it is a legitimate concern. I would like to help in any way I can to assist the committee in examining and answering this question. Even a brief examination such as the one I intend to make this morning in support of S. 1975 will prove that this criticism is unfounded, and that those who make the criticism are guilty of either distorting the Constitution and warping the concept of individual human rights, or of complete lack of comprehension of what our bill is trying to accomplish. Let us look for a moment, if you please, at the second amendment, and at the same time at S. 1975. The second amendment, as we know, is but one sentence in length and says: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. S. 1975, on the other hand, has no relationship, either stated or implied, to this right to maintain a well-regulated militia, a right which the Court, in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 1886, made clear, referred to the National Guard or other State-created body of troops. Let us look for a moment-as no member of this committee needs to at the United States today and our position where we need armed force today. It seems that a nation that spends $47 billion a year or 29-119-64- -3 more for defense, a defense so vast and so thorough that it includes military bases in our individual States as well as those overseas and in the troubled spots of the world, has no need for mail-order pistols, rifles, machineguns, bazookas, cannons, and even tanks, even if they can be purchased wholesale through mail-order catalogs. All such a collection to private individuals with these weapons can contribute, it seems to me, is general lawlessness, danger, and in fact, panic. At this point, Mr. Chairman, it is important to clear up the confusion that has developed over the scope of S. 1975, and some of these remarks will be repetitive of those so well made by Senator Dodd. Many feel this legislation is an attempt to register all guns in the Nation. In fact I had a constituent get me out of bed about 1:30 one morning with a rather let me be careful how I say this-terse statement of his feelings on what he thought this bill would accomplish, and that he missed the boat completely. It is not designed to register all guns in the country; it is an attempt to require the police affidavit attesting to the name, age, criminal record-or an affidavit with the name of the police official, as it has now been changed-and other pertinent information regarding the individual who seeks to purchase a mailorder firearm. Senator Dodd pointed out this will be sent to the mail-order house and they will be charged with the responsibility of forwarding a copy of this information to the local police. It seems to me that this one correction is a valid one which would lessen the possibility that the local police official, which I doubt would happen, but at least it lessens the possibility that they might because of personal reasons other than the capability of an individual to use the weapon, prohibit the individual from having it. This bill has as its purpose the establishment of safeguards on the interstate shipment of mail-order firearms for the protection of those citizens who may be targets of these same weapons. We who favor the bill realize its limitation. Federal law can only control interstate commerce of these weapons, and to properly protect our citizens, State and local action will be required. Nonetheless, it is our hope, too, that this legislation will more effectively stimulate local efforts in this field, which, according to James V. Bennett, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, are now so largely an exercise in futility. Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite some legal precedent relating to the legislation before us, and which for reasons of time must be very brief. When the Founding Fathers drafted the second amendment, their memories were fresh with recollections of England under James II. They saw a defenseless citizenry at the mercy of an armed force. This is what they had left behind them when they had set out for the New World and they wanted to have no repetition of that experience in their newly formed Government. The second amendment was a protection then for the States against despotic tyranny, a protection put into the Constitution to insure that the General Government would not threaten liberty and individual rights by disarming the citizenry, the armed citizenry, because our Founding Fathers were so suspicious of the standing Army that we rely upon today which had proven itself so essential to liberty. Here let me add that this suspected Federal encroachment upon liberty and individual rights has not transpired despite the protestations from some quarters that it had. The liberty and freedom that the Founding Fathers sought for the freedom of the States is still with us. The Federal Government has not abridged that freedom. Each State is still free to provide for its citizens if it will the components of the American dream, individual liberty. To return to the immediate subject, we see that the conditions of our national defense have a definite change. Even if they had not, is the second amendment geared toward individual rights or toward group rights through the political body of the States? In the United States v. Tot, 131 Federal 2d, 261, 1942, 3d C.C.A., the Court held that the second amendment, unlike the first amendment, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachment by Federal power. And the Court cited the example again here of England under James II. Other Court interpretations have further defined the amendment. In People v. Liss, 94 Northeastern 2d, 320, 1950, the Court recognized that the second amendment does not prevent the enactment of the law against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should be kept in mind in the construction of a statute of such character, and it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts and for the prevention of crime and not against use in the protection of persons or property. In one of the most important cases on this subject, the United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174, 1939), a defendant prosecuted for the interstate transportation and possession of a firearm in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 asserted that the act was invalid under the second amendment. The trial court agreed with this claim, but the Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that, and I quote: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the prevention, preservation, or efficiency of a wellregulated militia, we cannot say that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. The Court declared that the obvious purpose of the second amendment was to render effective the provisions in the Constitution for the maintenance and calling forth of the militia to execute the laws of the Union; suppress insurrections and repel invasion. The Court said "it," [the second amendment] must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. To summarize, we have Court opinions stating that, one, the right to bear arms is granted to a well-regulated militia; two, the second amendment was adopted not as an individual right, per se, but as a protection for the States; three, that a law against a concealed weapon is appropriate under this amendment when that law is aimed at the prevention of crime, not against the protection of life and property; four, the obvious purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the law, not break or circumvent it. Mr. Chairman, all these conditions are satisfied in S. 1975, including the right of an individual to have a gun for protection of life and property. Again I submit that a person who genuinely wants a gun for this purpose and chooses to purchase it through a mail order |