In fact, many of those appearing before the Commerce Committee to discuss the bill have apparently not read it. That is the only conclusion to which I can come. I don't think they ever read the bill because in their testimony they discuss at length matters that are not the concern of the bill and make charges, solely calculated to confuse the public, that are in no way pertinent to the matter under consideration nor in any way provided for in the bill.

I have heard and read more than enough of these calculated attempts to confuse the public about S. 1975. I would like here and now to put an end to these unwarranted attempts to confuse the provisions of this bill and to mislead the public. Let me repeat the charges and answer them.

For example, as you pointed out, they say the bill calls for registration of guns. It doesn't do any such thing. It has been charged it infringes the rights guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution. There is nothing to that at all. It is charged that the bill would give police control over gun ownership. It has been said that this will be achieved simply by refusing to accept a registered letter, refusal of the police to accept it. I don't think there was ever anything to this objection. However, recognizing that it might be theoretically possible, I resolved that question in a letter to Senator Magnuson on January 22, and proposed an amendment to the effect that the mail-order dealer may deliver a gun if the registered letter has been returned to the manufacturer or dealer due to the refusal of the named law enforcement officer to accept such letter as evidenced in accordance with the U.S. post office regulations. I don't think there is anything to that objection anyway, but if there is, that takes care of it.

It has been charged the bill is similar to the Sullivan law of New York State, which is violently opposed by all of the gun groups. Of course, this bill in no way relates to the Sullivan law, which is strictly a local law calling for the issuance of permits to possess weapons.

To

However, in defense of the Sullivan law, I would like to correct some of the statements being made relative to its effectiveness. those who criticize it, I say the reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that New York has a homicide rate 22 times lower than Dallas, Tex., where there are no effective gun laws. New York does have the Sullivan law.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I prepared a chart comparing the homicide rate of Dallas, Tex., to five of our largest cities. It exceeds each of them, and each has restrictive gun laws. I have also compared Phoenix, Ariz., to these five cities and the homicide rate there exceeds each of them. I have observed that the severest critics of S. 1975 were from the State of Arizona according to the record.

(The chart referred to by Senator Dodd follows:)

Comparison of homicide rate per 100,000 population, Dallas, Tex., Phoenix, Ariz., and 5 selected cities

1 Sources: U.S. Bureau of Census, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Senator DODD. I might point out also that many times the reason the Sullivan law does not work in New York as well as some people think it should is that it is being circumvented by these mail-order dealers. Unmarked packages are being delivered into New York City by common carrier which contain handguns. This, by the way, I think is the whole point of S. 1975. It will help the States and the State law enforcement officers by preventing or curtailing or restricting shipments of weapons via the mail-order route into these areas. They do their best, under local law, yet they can't keep up with the gun traffic, because no matter how strong the State or city ordinance is these guns can be shipped in by this mail-order route.

As recently as this Monday morning, I received a letter from the Pittsburgh Police Department which contains two reports on murders committed in that city. Both were committed with mail-order guns sent into Pittsburgh from Chicago mail-order houses. This was done in violation of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, which has adopted the Uniform Firearms Act. One of these murder weapons, it may interest you to know, came from Klein's in Chicago. It is the same establishment that supplied Lee Oswald the weapon he used to assassinate President Kennedy.

(Letter from Pittsburgh Police Department follows:)

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, February 27, 1964.

In re mail-order guns used in murders, Pittsburgh area.
SUBCOMMITTEE INVESTIGATING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY,
Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

(Attention: Mr. William Mooney.)

GENTLEMEN: Supplementing our previous file, I am enclosing herewith two reports of mail-order guns which were used in murders in this area; also photograph of one of the guns used, a .38 caliber, S. & W. caliber, Enfield revolver, serial No. ZG-2234:

"To William J. Gilmore, assistant superintendent of police, Pittsburgh, Pa.; from Joseph Flynn, Allegheny County Homicide Division; subject: Mail-order gun confiscated in murder of Nancy Flowers, in Jefferson Borough, West Elizabeth, Pa.; date: December 21, 1963; accused: Raymond Cummins, white, 32 years, 309 Seventh Street, Clairton, Pa. On Saturday morning, December 21, 1963, in West Elizabeth, Pa., the Jefferson Borough Police came upon an automobile in which one Nancy Flowers, white, 38 years, of West Elizabeth, Pa., was found on the front seat with a bullet wound in her left temple. The accused, Raymond Cummins, was found with a bullet wound of the right eye. Cummins stated that he saw an advertisement in a magazine about a year ago and he sent and bought this gun: .38 caliber, S. & W. caliber, Enfield revolver, serial No. ZG-2234, from Klein's Gun Store in Chicago, Ill. As of this date, December 21, 1963, a photograph will be made of this gun for your files.

"To Superintendent William J. Gilmore, detective division; from Eugene L. Coon, homicide section, February 18, 1964; mail-order gun: Sir: On January 30, 1964, Vonceil Washington, colored, female, married, aged 27, of 79 Climax Street, was fatally shot by her husband, Robert Washington, colored, male, married, age 32, same address. When apprehended, the suspect turned over an Italian Beretta 6.05 caliber automatic revolver which he stated he purchased in August 1963 from Aldens in Chicago, through a mail-order catalog. This information is forwarded for your files. Respectfully, Eugene L. Coon, captain, homicide section."

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM J. GILMORE.

It is also charged we are acting in panic and heated emotion after the tragedy of Dallas. It has been said so many times it is getting sickening. Even a brief study of the printed hearings of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee and a review of our files should prove to anyone beyond a doubt that this bill has been given 3 years of thought and expert attention. We have heard witnesses from all over this country; police officers, law enforcement officers, probation and parole people, educators, parents, everybody that we could get in. There is a long list of them, and it took a long time. Now for witnesses to come before this committee and allege that this is the result of what happened last November in Dallas, is not an honest mistake and those who say so, I believe, know better. And I think it is only another effort to confuse the public, to stall action on this measure and to make it impossible for it to become law.

It is also said that S. 1975 would disarm the law-abiding citizens necessary for the defense of this country in the event of an enemy invasion. Well, I was not here, but I read the record of course when Senator Yarborough, at the hearing on January 30, put that argument to rest when he told the witnesses of his experience as an officer in World War II. Senator Yarborough pointed out that Hitler armed the German civilians with weapons to fight the invading forces and he told of what happened when this was attempted. He said it dosen't

work and won't work here either. So I don't think there is anything to that argument. But since it is one of the charges, I wanted to answer

it.

S. 1975, it is said, is unenforcible and would not be effective in disarming the criminal. Well, I think I need only to point to the testimony of the Treasury Department, which is charged with enforcing the Federal Firearms Act. That agency has unequivocally endorsed S. 1975 in every regard. It has also been endorsed by the Department of Justice, not to mention the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, the president and past president of the National Rifle Association, and a host of other responsible agencies and groups who have a deep concern not only for the firearms business, but the welfare of our Nation.

I might also point to the fact that the subcommittee investigation revealed that 25 percent of the firearms delivered into the District of Columbia were delivered to persons with criminal records. I say this bill will certainly help prevent people of this type from obtaining weapons through the mails in the future.

I would also like to call to the attention of the committee some of the extreme views held by those who oppose even the reasonabe, minimal control of that vast gray area where millions of guns are bought and sold each year and shipped in interstate commerce as often as not in violation of State laws.

As recently as January 30, a group of witnesses appeared at a public hearing before the Commerce Committee and suggested that this proposed law, S. 1975, the fruits of 3 years of labor by the Congress, the Federal agencies, the great American gun industry, and groups of sportsmen, was subversive in nature and a conspiracy to disarm the American public.

Well, again it almost seems to be unworthy of answering. But I have come to the conclusion that these things must be answered, because I go home and my neighbors and friends who should know better read these things in the papers and they ask me is this so. And I only get a limited chance to say of course it is not so.

So it seems important to me to put it on the record. I am a sponsor of the bill. Its cosponsors are Senators Bayh, Ervin, Fong, and my late and dear friend, Estes Kefauver. It is the product of years of effort by the other groups I have mentioned. To suggest that the loyalty of any of these need be defended is absurd.

I only raise the point at this time, not so much because I think it is worthy of retort, but perhaps it is well to indicate the depths to which these people will go to insure the availability of weapons, for whatever purposes they have in mind. I don't know. But I do feel their approach is evidence itself in a need for stricter controls of firearms. It is this type of fanaticism which would go so far as to accuse the eight Senators who make up the Delinquency Committee of subversion that resulted in the death of our late President. I can only say today that I intend to expose these people, that I intend to continue my fight for adequate firearms controls. I don't intend to be intimidated by those who would defame my colleagues and myself.

I would like to say in closing, to plead with the members of this committee, I hope that you can find it possible to vote the bill out, get

29-119-64- -19

it passed. You have sat at the hearings and you have heard respon sible witnesses and I can't see a need for further hesitation and delay.

I have heard it suggested that perhaps we should wait and see if we can't get a uniform firearms act in the 50 States. This would be highly desirable, but you may have to wait a very long time to get it done and I think we ought to move toward that objective, but I think the situation in this country calls for some action now. And here is a simple, moderate, and reasonable proposal which will give us some means of cutting down this traffic in these guns to mentally deranged, to criminals, to juveniles, who really should not be handling this type of weapon. Here is a measure that will help us to cut down on the murders across this country.

In Los Angeles over the weekend, there were two more. In Pittsburgh, this letter received on Monday indicates two more. We ought to be able to do something to cut this down and all of these law enforcement people think this will help. So I make this final plea to the committee to give this bill favorable consideration.

Senator CANNON. Senator Dodd, we appreciate your appearing here at this time to testify further with respect to your bill, and giving the committee the benefit of your present thinking and present views. I, as acting chairman, regret that there is a great deal of misinformation being sponsored by some group or groups throughout the country in connection with the proposals that you have advanced to the committee.

Of

I have an example before me now-a newspaper article which starts off as follows: "The infamous Dodd bill, aimed at registering firearms, began slowly sinking into never-never land this week." course, it does not and has never required registration. As you have pointed out so well, there is much misinformation put out about this bill.

I would like to say that there are some very responsible groups, people who deal in firearms every day, who support your bill because they understand it. They are not misled by inaccurate publicity. I want to assure you the committee is going to consider it very thoroughly. As we stated initially, we do not intend to be stampeded into action on the bill. We expect to give it objective, responsible attention and then decide as a committee what legislation, if any, should be recommended to the Congress.

Senator Hart, do you have any questions?

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, I think you stated very fully and well the attitude of each of us on the committee. I sympathize with Senator Dodd, too. I have read some things about him that would singe the hair of even an insensitive man.

Senator DODD. I have been particularly concerned because I think there has been a studied effort to have it appear that the National Rifle Association is opposed. As a matter of fact, I have even received mail from members of that organization who apparently got this impression some way or another. That just is not so. And I worked rather closely with the NRA when I originally drew up this bill. We were in consultation all of the time with the NRA, because I felt and I feel now this is a very responsible organization in this country. Mr. Franklin Orth is here, and I asked if he could be here today in case you wanted him to tell you what the attitude of his organization is about this matter.