Whereas all past experience strongly indicates that firearms controls or registration merely tend to disarm the law-abiding citizen and allow the criminal and psychopath to proceed unimpeded; and

Whereas no nation in modern times has fallen to tyranny without first having imposed upon itself a strict system of firearms control and registration; and

Whereas it is a truism that firearms, in and of themselves, are not criminal or dangerous: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission, That this commission strongly urges the appropriate public officials, local, State, and Federal, to prosecute to the limit of the law those criminals who employ firearms in crimes of violence, and those who violate present laws regarding the ownership, sale, and use of firearms. This commission also urges the appropriate State and Federal legislative bodies to enact stricter penalties for violation of the above laws.

This commission also, by this resolution, indicates its firm opposition to enactment of any new laws or regulations of a local, State, or Federal nature, which would tend to harass or prohibit the ownership and enjoyment of sporting or target-type firearms by honest law-abiding citizens. The commission adopts this position because of its firm belief, based on evidence and experience, that further restrictions on firearms will, in no way, prevent or deter crime.

On adoption, the commission directs that this resolution be spread at large upon its minutes, and that copies thereof be sent to the Governor of Nebraska, the Nebraska Legislature, and to all members of the Nebraska congressional delegation and to the appropriate public news media. Dated this 20th day of December 1963.

WADE ELLIS,

Chairman, Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission. I hereby certify that the above is a true and accurate copy of the resolution adopted by unanimous vote of the Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission at its regular monthly meeting held December 20, 1963.

M. O. STEEN,

Director, Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission.

Mr. FOOTE. The Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission has gone on record publicly in strong support of strict penalties and effective prosecutions for violations of present firearms laws, and in support of stringent punitive and corrective action against criminals and psychopaths who employ firearms, or other weapons, in crimes of violence.

Where there is a problem in this field, the commission strongly feels that what is involved is a "people problem" and not a firearm problem. Firearms, in and of themselves, are not in any way inherently criminal or dangerous. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

The commission therefore strongly and firmly opposes enactment of any law or regulation which would tend to harass or prohibit the ownership or enjoyment, by law-abiding citizens, of sporting or targettype firearms. This includes any undue restrictions or prohibition against the trade, transfer or transportation of such weapons in the ordinary channels of commerce.

Copies of a formal resolution of the Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission, in support of this position have been submitted for your consideration.

Modern experience indicates that the only effective general firearms control measures involve such stringent penalties and police state measures that the "cure" becomes worse than the "disease." We respectfully petition the Congress to instead enact what we call profirearms legislation-and this is not the place to make a pitch for the King-Anderson bill to provide funds for ranges but that is what we would regard as being the prototype.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What bill is that?

Mr. FOOTE. It is the King-Anderson bill in the House, regarding provision from taxes that are being paid on handguns today, to allocate a certain amount of that to the States on a matching basis for the construction of public rifle and pistol ranges. I don't have the number of that, Senator. This of course is a very practical problem. We have heard testimony from the gentleman from New York on the subject, that we need a place to shoot for the man who wants to safely and honestly enjoy himself.

Many States and municipalities, many private groups, are facing up to this problem in various forms and are trying to solve it. But it is a problem of the future regarding firearms. People that are not familiar with firearms are not going to be interested as much-and perhaps they shouldn't be-in hunting.

We think the man that goes hunting should have a very high degree of familiarization with his firearms. He should shoot often at targets. When I train a class in firearms, I tell them, "For every round you expect to fire at big game, put a hundred rounds into a target over a period of time."

This is a diversion from my testimony, but it is background.

To return to my testimony: legislation in the original spirit and intent of the second amendment, which would provide stringent penalties on people for criminal misuse of firearms, but would protect the law-abiding citizens' basic rights in this field.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You petition Congress to enact laws that will provide stringent penalties on people for criminal misuse of firearms. Would you put the Congress in the general field of criminal law, criminal jurisdiction? It would have jurisdiction only over the District of Columbia or certain Indian reservations or Federal land areas.

Mr. FOOTE. No, I do not suggest in any manner, except as experience indicates, that the general law enforcement powers be seized from the States to the Federal Government.

The resolution is also based on a local or State basis.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Of course, there is jurisdiction by the Federal Government under the commerce clause in the field of interstate

commerce.

So are you for strict laws in the field of interstate commerce?
Mr. FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Shipment of firearms, interstate.

Mr. FOOTE. Yes, sir. When we say "strict," I am speaking in terms of violations of laws as presently constituted, sir, because these laws are violated, no law is perfect. This thing has worked to a considerable extent and worked quite well. It was a real piece of police work, an excellent piece, and it was done under the concept of the present law, that within a few hours after the unfortunate assassination the FBI had spotted this gun.

That was done under the records kept under the present firearms law.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The reason for my question-we are not trying to confuse the issue is that I got the impresison from the earlier part of your statement that you were opposed to any additional Federal legislation. But in the closing sentence you call for legislation that would provide stringent penalties on people for criminal misuse of firearms, but would protect the law-abiding citizens' basic rights in this field.

Mr. FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I think we have clarified it; you mean within the proper sphere of Federal activity. You don't mean for the Federal Government to try to exercise the general criminal jurisdiction reserved to the States.

Mr. FOOTE. No.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I point out in this sphere of proper Federal constitutional activity there is the right to regulate interstate commerce. So my question now is: In this advocacy of stricter legislation, do you advocate laws under the commerce clause to regulate the interstate traffic in firearms?

Mr. FOOTE. No other laws than currently exist. We only ask for heavier penalties for criminal violation of those laws.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. Your statement is here in full and also the resolution which you didn't read is ordered printed.

By the way, you have a book there. Does that relate to this subject? Mr. FOOTE. Yes, sir, it does.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What is the title of it?

Mr. FOOTE. This is a standard textbook in the field of criminal ballistics, "Firearms, Investigation, Identification, Evidence." It is a currently published book, authored by three people-General Hatcher, probably one of the outstanding firearms experts in the United States, who died last November; a gentleman by the name of Jury, who heads up the State police laboratory on firearms identification of the New Jersey State Police; a gentleman by the name of Jack Weller, who is a consulting engineer in firearms, Princeton, N.J. This happens to be the standard textbook of criminal ballistics and criminal firearms identification throughout the country.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Were you referring to this book in your testimony?

Mr. FOOTE. No, sir. With your permission, I would like to read one paragraph from this book, relating to this subject. It is page 180.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What year is that? Is that a revised edition?

Mr. FOOTE. Yes, sir. It is 1957.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The 1957 edition.

Go ahead and read the paragraph.

Mr. FOOTE. Thank you.

I am not reading from context, but it is the material contained on the general subject of firearms regulation and registration that is within this book. The authors state:

Many States, including New Jersey, have purchase permit laws. A citizen must get formal approval for his purchase of a handgun from a local chief of police in advance.

Reputable dealers abide by these laws. However, in most towns there are exceptions. Further, more than half of the handguns in any given State were not purchased from dealers at all. Reference to a collective purchase permit file, in the central office of each State, will reveal the most astonishing irregularities.

Patent dates are frequently given as serial numbers, impossible calibers are listed. Few people with experience have any confidence in the information contained in some of the permits. Even if one State should manage to accomplish the really tremendous task of getting all its purchase permits in order and have its citizens register all their handguns properly, that State would merely disarm its honest citizens.

Only a tiny percentage of honest people are willing to go through the redtape, trials, and tribulations in order to keep a firearm they may need desperately later. Such regulation would accomplish little, since the average honest citizen does not go about committing crimes of violence with his gun.

A criminal who does commit such crimes is not going to bother to register his weapon or purchase it legitimately from a dealer with a purchase permit obtained from the local chief of police.

Disarming a citizen aids crime. Few criminals want to meet on an equal footing, a man ready and able to defend his home, his wife, and his property. Criminals want stringent firearms regulation. The task of disarming the criminal is impossible. A revolver represents high value for relatively small buck. If the Government could not stop the importation and distribution of alcohol during prohibition, it has no chance to stamp out traffic in arms. Only an honest citizen worries about a fine or the extremely unlikely short prison term for possessing or carrying an illegal firearm.

The gangster, robber, and murderer have much more serious personalities to worry about.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you advocate everybody go armed and everybody be his own police force?

Mr. FOOTE. No, sir. However, I think that is entirely a matter for the individual and the conditions and the time and place in which he is in.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Of course, that is the opinion of the author there, that it is as difficult to regulate firearms as was the consumption of alcoholic beverages. After all, you don't drink guns.

Mr. FOOTE. No, sir. But you do have, of course, to support that opinion-and it is submitted as opinion, it was written better than I could say it, and that is why I read it.

But guns are made at home, homemade. The New York zip guns are a perfect example.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Does that text have any figures or have you seen any informed estimate as to the number of handguns in America today, in private hands?

Mr. FOOTE. No, sir; I would not be qualified to comment on that. I have seen the figures of 35 million firearm owners. Most people who hunt, hunt with firearms, although we do have archers, and we have between 11 and 13 million hunters. But many people own firearms that are not hunters. These are licensed hunters, incidentally, so these are known figures.

It is difficult, because of the long life of weapons, to determine exactly how many firearm owners there are, or how many handgun owners. A very, very good number.

In no way do I wish it to appear that we don't have in certain States and in certain situations problems with some people in relation to firearms. This we are well aware of. But we do suggest that in many cases the cure is worse than the disease, when we go to attempt to control the honest citizen in this field.

It has been a pleasure. Thank you,

sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Robert A. Reveles, legislative assistant to Congressman George F. Senner, Jr. of Arizona, to introduce some witnesses on behalf of the Congressman. He has witnesses here from Arizona who have been waiting.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. REVELES, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, ON BEHALF OF HON. GEORGE F. SENNER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. REVELES (reading):

Senator, because of another commitment, I am unable to personally introduce my constituents who wish to testify concerning the pending firearms legislation. I therefore asked my legislative assistant, Robert Reveles, to read this statement into the record. The following individuals are all constituents of mine from Bagdad, Ariz.: Mr. William Gibson, Mr. Thurman Gibson, Mr. Burr Marley, and Dr. William Gorder.

I am sure their testimony and information will be helpful to this important committee in finding an equitable solution to the problems concerning firearms. Coming from the West, there is no doubt that Western feelings are strongly imbedded in the American tradition of the right to keep and bear arms. But, in particular, I am hopeful the committee will be successful in its search for an answer to the vexing problem of mail order purchases.

I understand that Mr. Ben Avery, from Phoenix, Ariz., will also be testifying before this committee. While Mr. Avery is not a resident from my congressional district, I am personally acquainted with him, his reputation as a sportsman, a writer on the great outdoors, and a man who enjoys a wide following for his concern on the proper use of firearms and strong efforts against any improper infringement on the rights guaranteed under the second amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Avery's testimony therefore comes from many years of practical experience and talking to thousands of American wildlife enthusiasts and sportsmen. Thank you for giving me this opportunity of introducing my constituents and expressing my own concern for careful consideration that whatever legislation develops will be such as to respect our traditional regard for individual responsibility in the ownership and handling of guns.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

Gentlemen, do you each have a separate statement, or do you have one spokesman for the group? How do you wish to proceed? Mr. MARLEY. We wish to do this on our own. We each have a statement and we wish to present this as individuals to this committee. Senator YARBOROUGH. All right, gentlemen. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM E. GORDER, BAGDAD, ARIZ.

Dr. GORDER. I will speak first, sir. I am William E. Gorder of Bagdad, Ariz., and my presence here today is motivated by my concern over the direction the Federal Government is taking in the field of arms control and disarmament.

I am specifically opposed to any type of gun registration and/or control legislation for a private citizen by the Federal Government, as is proposed in S. 1975 presented by Senator Thomas J. Dodd. My opposition is based on the following reasons:

1. The proposed bill (S. 1975) is unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution states in part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is definitely an infringement of this right.

2. Article II of the Constitution was based on the unalienable or natural right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the means of defending his property a citizen's life and liberty will be gone. No man can take this right of the citizen away because it is his duty to defend himself and has been so since time immemorial.