will have no objection to the inconvenience of the affidavit required by our bill.

S. 1975 in no way violates the second amendment of the Constitution. We do not seek a bill that is a violation. We seek one that is a protection, a protection of lives that may be lost if we continue to permit the "no questions asked" purchase of mail order firearms.

I urge that this bill be reported favorably after due consideration by your committee, and then passed by the Senate, subsequently the House, as quickly as possible.

My only regret is the deep regret that it took the unfortunate tragedy, the murder of our President, to bring to focus and to bring more national awareness of this need.

Mr. Chairman, that statement ran longer than I intended. I will be glad to try to answer any questions that you have. (The clippings follow :)

[From the Indianapolis, Ind., Times, Nov. 29, 1963]

THE TRAFFIC IN GUNS

The least that should be done by Congress concerning the sale of firearms is to pass the bill just tightened up by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, of Connecticut. The assassination of President Kennedy, with a $12.78 mail order rifle, is a terrible reminder of careless neglect in this field.

Under present regulations it is amazingly true that a child, a narcotics addict, a known criminal with as little as $5 can buy a gun.

"The easy accessibility of firearms," says J. Edgar Hoover, "contributes significantly to the crime problem. Firearms were used in 3,910 homicides last year. Only seven States require permits to buy guns. Only 21 license dealers. The State of Texas has no firearms regulations at all."

Even under Senator Dodd's proposal, firearms still could be bought without severe restrictions. Any legislation must be drafted with the second amendment to the Constitution in mind—article 2 of the Bill of Rights which provides:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Memory of the self-armed Minutemen at Lexington and Concord may have prompted this amendment, but security requirements have changed radically and repeal of this amendment should be considered.

Meanwhile, Senator Dodd would require, for the purchase of a gun, an affidavit stating age, name, address, and criminal record, if any. It would have to be certified by the highest local law enforcement authority in the purchaser's home community.

Persons requiring guns for sport would not be seriously inconvenienced by this regulation. Both sportsmen and manufacturers have approved most of the bill. We feel certain, along with Senator Dodd, "that the responsible, lawabiding sportsmen and gun owners * * * will be willing to tolerate what I feel is only a slight inconvenience at the worst * * * what more do we need than the death of a beloved President to arouse us to place some regulation on this traffic in guns used for crime?"

[From the Evansville Press, Dec. 7, 1963]

LET'S TRY A LITTLE COMMONSENSE

(By Gordon Hanna)

The gun controversy is heating up again at both the local and national level. Locally the gun enthusiasts are alarmed and mustering their forces in an effort to beat a proposal that would prohibit the shooting of guns anywhere in Vanderburgh County within 1,000 feet of a residence.

Nationally the assassination of President Kennedy has given new life to attempts to legislate some sensible control over the sale and use of firearms.

The gun lovers want no part of any of this, and that seems a shame. I am afraid that their reluctance to go along with any tightening up of present practices will in the long run be self-defeating.

Unless the worst of the existing abuses are eliminated it is quite possible that aroused public opinion will eventually force much stricter regulation of firearms than anything contemplated up to now.

The local proposal comes up for a public hearing before the plan commission Monday night. It grows out of complaints by mothers in the Melody Hills subdivision that their children's lives are endangered by hunters shooting too close to their homes.

This is something that was almost bound to occur as the county's population grew and residential areas developed outside the city limits.

It has long been against the law to discharge firearms inside the city. But the county areas outside, rural in nature and thinly populated, have been popular with hunters of all ages.

With our population pressing outward, this situation is changing. The mothers' fear that a stray rifle bullet could easily kill or injure a child is a legitimate one. Before that happens, it seems to me, all the interested parties-gun lovers included ought to get together and work out some reasonable ground rules that would help prevent such a tragedy.

It is the principle, not the details, that we are talking about here. The details can be settled after the principle is agreed on.

The 1,000 feet proposed, for example, is arbitrary. Maybe it should be 800 feet, or 1,100. And it shouldn't have to be as much for shotguns as for rifles. Existing gun clubs and skeet ranges could easily be exempted. So could inside pistol ranges approved by the proper authorities.

In short, just about all the objections that have been voiced against this proposal could be eliminated with a little commonsense and cooperation.

That's what should happen as a result of the public hearing at 7:30 Monday night in the courthouse. Let's hope that it does.

Much the same problem is encountered when efforts are made in State legislatures or Congress to provide for stricter controls over the sale and use of guns-particularly pistols.

We are reminded of the constitutional right of our citizens to keep and bear arms and are constantly told that guns don't kill people; people kill people.

The latter is correct, of course. Just as it is so that cars don't have wrecks and kill people; drivers do. Yet we regulate by law the ownership and use of automobiles and license drivers on a much stricter basis than we attempt to control the ownership and use of firearms.

We could also say just as truthfully that dope doesn't hurt people; people who take it hurt themselves. And poison isn't dangerous; it is how people use it that is dangerous. And so on and on.

Gets a little silly, doesn't it?

I don't know anyone who wants to stop the hunter or skeetshooter from owning guns or the pistol enthusiast from practicing his target shooting; or to prevent the individual who honestly needs one from having a gun to protect his life or property.

But a psychopath shouldn't be able to purchase a rifle by mail, or a man with a criminal record buy a pistol in a pawnshop.

Some people have legitimate business with guns, and some don't. And those who don't shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Does it make sense that it is easier for an individual to buy and shoot a gun than it is for him to buy and drive a car?

"Controls" is the key word in all this. Better controls are needed, locally and nationally. And they will work to the advantage of the gun enthusiast just as they will benefit everybody else.

[From the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, Dec. 8, 1963]

CONTROL OF FIREARMS

Opposition to control of firearms is based largely on the brief sentence that comprises the second amendment to the Constitution: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Circumstances have changed so much

since the late 18th century, when this was written, that it is only the flimsiest basis for argument against registering firearms and restricting their sale.

The question has been a subject of concern in Congress during the past several months. Now it has been brought to a head by the Kennedy assassination, and it appears that action may be taken in the near future. Several measures are under consideration in Congress-one introduced by Senator Bayh of Indiana. Congressional action alone may not suffice. At present, State and Federal law on the subject lacks uniformity. It would seem sensible for Federal and State authorities to develop a system of interlocking laws to regulate shipment and sale of all firearms. This could be done within the framework of the second amendment.

It cannot be assumed that even the strictest regulation would absolutely rule out the possibility of assassination. There can never be any guarantee that a man of apparently good character who buys a deer rifle will not turn it to criminal use. But firmer controls would greatly cut down on the number of weapons in the hands of juveniles and criminals of record. It would reduce, though not eliminate, the chance of another such terrible event as that at Dallas. These are reasons enough for wholehearted support of firearms regulation.

[From the Indianapolis Times, Dec. 8, 1963]

WHERE WE STAND ON MAIL-ORDER WEAPONS
(By Al Bolin)

The killing of the President-and its frustrating sequel-has raised the specter of a Nation crawling with irresponsibles who possess all sorts of death-dealing weapons.

The image would seem to be not completely unfair.

There is practically no national uniform gun code. Some States have laws governing the sale and use of pistols. Few have any restrictions on the purchase and use of larger guns.

The ease with which anyone-including criminals, children, and mental incompetents-may obtain guns is frightening.

Inherent in the chaos is the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed."

There seems to be little question of the right to possess guns to protect life, home, or property.

But the assassination of President Kennedy has raised again what to many is the burning issue of some form of national regulation on the sale and use of firearms.

It has been proposed, since November 22, that Congress pass laws governing the mail-order gun business.

The cry for a national system for registration of all guns and a Federal law on the supervision of the sale of firearms is apt to become louder in our landpossibly loud enough to bring results.

Advocates of such legislation concede that criminals still will be able to get the tools needed for their work. But the demented, and the juveniles, also might be prevented from coming by the firearms they now can get so easily.

Many States have laws covering the carrying of handguns. Some have strict regulations on the over-the-counter sale of such weapons. But all sorts of gunsand other lethal objects as well-may be ordered through the mails. Even some comic books carry gun ads. And comic books are for kids. Gun magazines abound with mail-order advertisements.

Mail-order firearms are sent express. Postal regulations prohibit interstate shipment by regular mail.

It has been estimated that there perhaps are 50 million guns in the hands of U.S. citizens. But only a fraction-possibly only 10 percent-are registered with any law-enforcement agency.

Most of them are owned and used wisely, if at all-by sensible, law-abiding citizens. But a fraction of them are held by undesirables.

The man suspected of the killing of the late President got the rifle without violating any laws. Only the use of the $12.78 gun in the murder violated a law. Where do such guns come from? How can they be sold so cheaply?

The United States is a vast dumping ground for foreign guns. Gun dealers in other countries, knowing America's lusty history in the possession and use of guns, find a big market here. Many weapons, some of them obsolete military guns are bought for practically nothing in Europe, shipped here and sold at low prices-but still high enough to make a profit for everyone handling them. Some are shipped here with plugged barrels and minus firing pins, and thus apparently unfit for use as weapons. But many of them can be made operable quickly.

Very little information is required of persons wishing to order guns by mail. A child may obtain one by listing his name and address. Where the age is required on the order form, he may list himself as an adult.

Opponents of tighter gun laws include such groups as the National Rifle Association, sportsmen's clubs, and some small arms and ammunition makers.

Nevertheless, there is growing sentiment for Federal regulations for the sale and use of firearms.

Any such legislation would have to skirt the issue of the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

IT'S NOT EASY TO GET A PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL IN INDIANA

Carrying a gun ( pistol) in this State is a privilege not easily acquired. Only 15,626 persons in Indiana last year had the State-issued permits to carry handguns. An estimated 75 percent of the permitholders got them for target shooting or hunting only.

Obtaining a permit is difficult because authorities feel that carrying a gun is a dangerous practice-both to the pistol packer and to others.

The Indiana State Police is the issuing agency for gun permits, under the 1935 Firearms Act, as amended. Judges of circuit, superior, and criminal courts at first issued the permits.

A permit must be obtained to carry any gun with a barrel of less than 12 inches in length in any place other than the person's home or place of business.

Before State police issue a permit, it is recommended to do so by a local police agency-police or sheriff's department or town marshal.

Local authorities aren't supposed to recommend gun permits to just anyone, or for just any reason.

The local agency is supposed to make a thorough check of each applicant, making certain that he (or she) has no police record, is a stable, law-abiding, sober citizen, and has good reason for wanting to carry a gun.

Purposes for which permits are issued are three: Hunting or target shooting, occupation (private detective, merchant, policeman, or guard), and personal protection.

A person getting a permit for the first two purposes is to carry the gun only while engaged in those activities. A person getting a permit for protection purposes may have the gun on him 24 hours a day. This is the one that's hard to come by.

State police may turn down an application—even though it's approved by local police because of faulty information, concealing a police record or for technical

reasons.

If the permit is isued, it costs $1, in certified check or money order (no bouncing check takers, these).

State police last year turned down, for one reason or another, 2,468 applications for permits sent to them.

Many requests never get to the State level.

Indianapolis police run an exhaustive investigation on every request submitted them-if Chief Reilly OK's the initial application. He may find, and often does, there is no sound reason for the requested permit.

All kinds of reasons are given for wanting permits to carry guns: Late working hours, extensive travel, bad neighborhoods, carrying money, threats on life, and others.

If Reilly thinks the request is valid, he turns the request over to the internal security branch, headed by Capt. C. R. Caine.

The gun to be carried then must be brought to police for registration and a ballistics test in the police laboratory. A long, comprehensive form is then filled out. The investigation follows:

Personal and employment references are checked. A check on police record is made (persons with records of "crimes of violence" may not get gun permits). Neighbors may also be questioned. Information obtained during the investigation may rule out issuance of the permit.

Indianapolis police last year approved 520 applications for gun permits. Nearly 300 for renewals. No records were available on the number of permits refused.

The sheriff's department runs a similar investigation. That department says it has no records on permits recommended last year.

Obtaining a gun permit may take up to 2 months, from time of initial application to issuance of the permit.

INDIANA GUN SALES REGULATIONS ARE TOUGHER THAN MOST STATES Indiana's regulations of gun sales are tougher than those of many States, but are no real deterrent to any fanatic wishing to buy a pistol through a local dealer.

There are no restrictions at all on the sale of rifles and shotguns. Laws cover only those weapons with barrels less than 12 inches long.

Restrictions on over-the-counter handgun sales are, briefly: purchaser must be at least 18 years of age and of sound mind; he must not be a drug addict or habitual drunkard, and he must not have been convicted of a "crime of violence" (murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnaping, kidnaping for the purchase of ransom, rape in the first degree, malicious mayhem, assault or assault and battery with intent to commit a felony, robbery, bank robbery, automobile banditry, and burglary in the first or second degree).

The regulations, part of the 1935 Firearms Act, apply to sales made by all retail stores and pawnshops. The law doesn't cover transfer of pistols among individuals.

Last year there were 14,564 sales-and therefore registrations-of guns reported in Indiana. There'll be that many or more this year, State police records indicate.

Indiana's gun sales law is designed to prevent sales of pistols to undesirables by disclosure of information on purchasers of such weapons.