Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Swift. Do you care to add any oral statement to your prepared written statement? Mr. SWIFT. I have one thing here that I might submit for the record. I was in New York the other day and I noticed in the copy of the New York Times an article about firearms in the State of New York which I think is pertinent to our discussion here today. I will submit this for the record. It is January 29, New York Times, and it is a statement from the joint legislative committee on firearms and ammunition. It says, in effect, that they are not recommending a bill requiring the registration of rifles and shotguns. The statement made by Senator Berkowitz, the chairman of the group, is and I quote: We felt that such a move would penalize law-abiding sportsmen but would not reduce crime. All persons who appeared before our committee, without exception, agreed that criminals would never use licensed or registered guns in committing a crime. Neither could any legislation ever prevent anyone from obtaining a rifle or shotgun. Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you desire to file the entire article? Senator YARBOROUGH. All right. (The newspaper article follows:) STATE SENATE UNIT EASES ARMS PLAN-WON'T SEEK REGISTRATION OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS (By Douglas Dales) ALBANY, January 28.-The sportsmen's lobby won a victory today as the joint legislative committee on firearms and ammunition announced that it would not recommend a bill requiring the registration of rifles and shotguns. Instead, Senator Albert Berkowitz, Republican of Granville, who is chairman of the committee, filed bills to make it unlawful for the insane or for persons with serious criminal records to possess rifles or shotguns. Persons with criminal records would be permitted to possess these weapons if they were able to obtain a certificate of good conduct from the police. In announcing the committee decision not to recommend registration, Senator Berkowitz said: "We felt that such a move would penalize law-abiding sportsmen, but would not reduce crime. All persons who appeared before our committee, without exception, agreed that criminals would never use licensed or registered guns in committing a crime. Neither could any legislation ever prevent anyone from obtaining a rifle or shotgun." As the law stands, anyone can go to a store and purchase a rifle or shotgun. No official records are kept of such sales. Following the assassination of President Kennedy last November with a rifle purchased through a mail-order catalog, strong popular sentiment developed for some regulatory legislation on both the State and Federal levels. Among those who took this view was Walter J. Mahoney, the senate majority leader, who called the unrestricted availability of shotguns and rifles "intolerable." The senate leader said in a statement last December that he was certain the Berkowitz committee could draft legislation that would not be unduly oppressive but would protect the rights of the individual and society in general. A result of his statement was a torrent of mail from sportsmen, conservation groups, and rifle clubs protesting any registration of rifles or shotguns. These groups fear that registration might eventually lead to restriction of their activities. Senator Mahoney, commenting upon the Berkowitz proposals, said the bills "are probably the best we can hope for under the circumstances." Senator YARBOROUGH. This concludes the present hearings. In December the committee announced it would hear all persons who desired to testify, who submitted their requests prior to January 10. Every individual who submitted such a request has now been accommodated. The committee is anxious to have the hearings printed, and that includes today's testimony, but in order that all be heard, if there be any person who has not yet been heard, and who desires to be heard, they may submit their additional material in writing not later than Wednesday of next week, February 5, and it will be printed with the record. Of course, I am only one member of the committee and I can't predict what action the entire committee will take, or whether it might even decide to schedule further hearings. I can assure you gentlemen though that the committee will carefully consider all of the evidence given and that as soon as the record is printed, we will take this matter up in executive hearing. The members of the committee are by and large men of average experiences in life, most of them have handled firearms either in the armed services or out, probably most of this committee in both capacities. When we read the States of residence-Washington, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Ohio, Texas, California, Alaska, Indiana, Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maryland-with that wide geographical distribution of the States of residence of the committee members, there is quite a bit of experience and practical application of these matters. A majority of these members are attorneys, some have had experiences as judges, some in the criminal courts. We realize that the problem of crime has grown in this country. We realize too that many people feel that the vast importation of cheap arms from many countries since World War II, many of those guns out ofsurplus stocks from World War II military weapons, has cheapened the price of firearms to where there is a broad distribution of them in the hands of people, in the hands of children. Where a generation ago a firearm was an expensive, treasured weapon that an average family had to obtain with some financial sacrifice, now many of these weapons can be bought for the price of one good steak dinner. And this problem has become graver with the cheapness of the weapon, and the broader distribution of weapons. So the committee will consider all of these problems, law enforcement, but consider it only in the Federal context in our constitutional power under the commerce clause of the Constitution. We thank you, and I am glad you all stayed so we could have the benefit of your views. The committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee on Commerce was adjourned.) INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF FIREARMS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1964 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9:45 a.m. in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Howard W. Cannon presiding. Senator CANNON. The committee will come to order. At this time the hearings on mail-order firearms will be resumed. Senator Dodd has requested to have the opportunity to appear and further clarify his views with respect to the legislation he has proposed. Senator Dodd, we are happy to have you here this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. DODD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Hart. I am sorry to have been late, but I was unavoidably detained. Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to appear again. I would like to discuss the firearms legislation before this committee which I feel would place reasonable controls on the purchase and sale of weapons by the mail-order common carrier route. I have asked to appear here again because I feel that the bill which I and members of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee introduced has been the target of an irresponsible lobbying campaign. On December 10, 1963, 18 days after the assassination of President Kennedy, Chairman Magnuson of this committee announced the first public hearings on S. 1975, a bill which I had introduced some 4 months prior to the assassination. When the bill was introduced, it was with the approval of the major Federal, State, and private groups concerned with firearms legislation. The amendments I sponsored after President Kennedy's death with a mail-order gun likewise have the approval of the important leaders in Government, industry, and sports groups. And, as of today, it is a matter of record that these same groups publicly support the amended S. 1975 as it is currently being considered by your committee. However, despite all these years of research by Government, business, industry, and groups of sportsmen; despite their cooperative effort in drawing the bill; despite the several public hearings on the bill in each phase of its development, I have become aware of a concerted attempt to kill the bill, attempts to see that the bill, S. 1975, never becomes law. There is no doubt in my mind at all that this is the intention of the opposition. One of the principal devices used by the opposition is the attribution of certain concepts to S. 1975, which are in no way a part of the bill. Even the press can become confused by witnesses who are supposed to be for the bill, who then object to a host of ideas which have no relation, whatever, to the bill before this committee. Thus, de facto support of S. 1975 has frequently been interpreted through the press to the public as opposition. Let me give you an example. There is a news story covering the Commerce Committee hearings from the Washington Post. It is headlined, "Police Powers in Gun Control Bill Rapped." [From the Washington Post, Dec. 19, 1963] POLICE POWERS IN GUN CONTROL BILL RAPPED The National Wildlife Federation proposed amendments yesterday to key sections of legislation before Congress restricting the sale of mail-order guns. The federation, backed by the National Rifle Association, urged removal of a requirement in the bill that the serial number of a gun be given to police in the jurisdiction to which it is to be shipped. It also objected to a provision that the mail-order house hold up shipping the guns until a registered letter is received that police have been notified of the sale. Views of the federation, devoted to the conservation of wildlife were presented by Thomas L. Kimball, the executivé director, before the Senate Commerce Committee. After the hearing, Franklin L. H. Orth, executive vice president of the rifle association, said he backed the amendments. Orth told the committee last week that the association supports the bill. This was after Senator Thomas J. Dodd (Democrat, of Connecticut) has agreed to modify it by removing a provision that would require police to give advance approval of the sale. George N. Craig, a former Governor of Indiana and past national commander of the American Legion, also testified for the amendments. Kimball contended if police have the serial numbers of guns they will use the information to set up firearms registration. The rifle association adamantly opposes the licensing or registering of guns. Kimball declared that gun registration could endanger national security. He said it is "the most effective and convenient way of disarming the private citizen should a subversive power infiltrate our police system or our enemies occupied our country." On the question of receipts, Kimball said police could thwart the desire of a citizen to purchase a gun merely by refusing to sign a registered mail receipt. Testifying against the Dodd bill, Representative John D. Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) told the committee that while the legislation is better than most gun bills it still "is clearly not in the public interest." Gun laws, he said, should be aimed not at outlawing guns but at punishing criminals who use them. Dingell was asked about the 72 mail-order guns confiscated so far this year by police while making arrests in Washington's second precinct. The Michigan Congressman said anyone wanting to commit a crime could easily find a weapon and not necessarily a gun. Speaking for the bill, John W. Coggins of the Treasury Department said there definitely is a problem in mail-order sale of guns. States and localities are entitled to more protection than they are receiving from the Federal Government with the shipment of these firearms in interstate or foreign commerce, he testified. 1 The same story is in the Washington Star. It is headlined: "Control of Firearm Sales Backed by Two Groups." [From the Washington Evening Star, Dec. 18, 1963]. CONTROL OF FIREARM SALES BACKED BY TWO GROUPS A bill to establish controls on firearm sales today won support from two organizations. But the legislation, sponsored by Senator Dodd, Democrat, of Connecticut, was blasted by a Michigan Democrat as an "evil step" in the direction of disarming citizens. Representative Dingell deplored demands for gun restrictions in the "very hysterical climate" following President Kennedy's assassination. Support has developed in current Senate hearings, however, from the National Wildlife Federation and the National Rifle Association. URGES MODIFICATION Thomas L. Kimball, the federation's executive director, said today the Dodd proposal could be a "good bill" with two slight modifications. He asked for elimination of the requirement in the bill that police send sellers a receipt for a report on buyers' ages, arrest, and health records before gun sales. This amounts to a "veto power" of guns bought by mail order, Mr. Kimball said. His federation also sought tougher penalties for gun purchasers who filed false affidavits to buy firearms. The Dodd bill would simply require a purchaser of a mail-order gun to send a sworn statement with his order to establish that he is 21 or older and giving his correct name and address, his felony convictions, if any, and his compliance with local firearm laws. The purchaser would have to notify local police before sending for the gun. This notification would be sent with the "return receipts" which is opposed by Mr. Kimball. CITES PROBLEM John W. Coggins, representing the Treasury Department, said earlier that approval by the National Rifle Association was "a clear indication that enactment would not unduly inconvenience or burden responsible citizens." The problem is that cheap firearms are readily available to juveniles and irresponsible persons from mail-order dealers who advertise in comic books and pulp magazines, Mr. Coggins said. There is presently no effective way of finding out the age and identity of the buyer or whether his purchase would break local firearm laws, Mr. Coggins said, adding that the Dodd bill furnished a basis for requiring this information. Mr. Chairman, these two reporters are writing about the same hearing and the same witnesses. I am not charging the reporters here with anything except to support what I said a minute ago, that the campaign against the bill has been such that it is almost impossible to make clear what the truth of the matter is and what the efforts of the opposition are. Senator CANNON. If I may interrupt, Senator Dodd, I may say I am still getting a considerable amount of correspondence objecting to the "gun registration provisions" in the Dodd bill. Senator DODD. That is another example of which I speak. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is no registration at all in the bill. Since testifying before the Commerce Committee on December 13, at the first public hearing on this bill, I have watched and heard succeeding witnesses, row upon row, on five separate occasions, make statements allegedly in favor of the passage of S. 1975. But in nearly every case the comments contained in these statements dwelt more on provisions which are not now nor never have been a part of the bill than on the bill itself. |