Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of December 2, 1963, requested the views of the General Services Administration on S. 1975 (amendments No. 335), 88th Congress, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act. The purpose of S. 1975 as introduced is to curtail the shipment in interstate commerce and delivery by common carrier of mail-order handguns to juveniles ; to provide that firearms dealers and manufacturers give written notice to common carriers of handguns being transported in interstate commerce; and to provide that each purchaser of a mail-order handgun enclose a sworn affidavit with his purchase order to establish his bona fide age, felony convictions, or criminal record. The adoption of amendment No. 335, to S. 1975 would strengthen the provisions of the bill as introduced to include all mail-order firearms and not only handguns; to require the submission by the chief law-enforcement officer of the purchaser's place of residence of a certificate verifying the purchaser's sworn statement; and to eliminate the period of time originally to be allowed for promulgation of the act before it would take effect. As the proposed amendment No. 335 would not change the present exemption of the United States, any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof from the provisions of the Federal Firearms Act, GSA has no comments to make on the desirability of the measure from the viewpoint of its functions with respect to the furnishing of arms and ammunition for its public buildings protection forces, nor with respect to the furnishing of transportation and traffic management services on behalf of executive agencies. However, as noted in our November 13, 1963, comments to you on S. 1975, we recommended the enactment of the proposed legislation as it would clarify GSA's authority with respect to the disposal of firearms forfeited as a result of violations of the Federal Firearms Act. As amendment No. 335 do not deal with the provisions of S. 1975 relating to the disposal of forfeited fireams, GSA would not be opposed to their adoption. Enactment of this measure would not affect the budgetary requirements of GSA. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, BERNARD L. BOUTIN, Administrator. STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD STATEMENT OF SENATOR GALE MCGEE ON LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT THE PURCHASE OF FIREARMS TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee I have participated in a great many debates over the use of the Federal power to regulate interstate commerce. It has been amply demonstrated that in cases such as this the Congress has the right to regulate such commerce in the public interest. So the question boils down to the fact of whether this legislation is indeed in the public interest. It is certainly in the public interest to do all that is possible to prevent any recurrence of the tragedy of last November 22. And it is in the public interest to do all that is possible to prevent other misuse of firearms anywhere in the Nation. However, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the bills under consideration by this committee would not do what they purport to do. And further, if these bills were to be passed, I believe they might well have the adverse effect of lulling the people into a false sense of security in the belief that something constructive had been done about the problem. My main objection to all of the legislation presented in an attempt to curtail the indiscriminate use of firearms is that the greaest burdens are placed upon those who present no danger to our Nation. I refer to the many millions of sportsmen who find a whole world of relaxation and enjoyment in the pursuit of game in an outdoor setting. I can speak with some authority on the hunter because I happen to be one myself. We regard our ability to own firearms for recreational purposes as a right under our Constitution and our democratic way of life. With that right we cheerfully and willingly accept the responsibility of the careful use of these firearms and the duty to teach each succeeding generation the proper and safe use of these weapons. The magnitude of devising a workable yet fair means of controlling the illegal use of firearms can be illustrated by one startling fact-it is estimated that there are now more than 200 million firearms in private ownership in this country. With these guns in circulation, almost beyond the reach of any legislationexcept a complete registration system-the task involved in preventing the unstable and the criminal from obtaining a gun of some sort becomes exceedingly difficult indeed. And we must also consider the fact that since murder and mayhem are products of the human mind, the means can be varied to meet the situation. One aspect of this situation was brought home to me very forcibly in a trip I made, just before coming to the Senate, to the Soviet Union. I was leading a group of American businessmen on that trip. Our guide suggested we might enjoy a morning of duck hunting on the marshes near Moscow. To do this, he said, we would have to go to the central police station and check out guns and ammunition. In many areas of the world the same policy is enforced. For other areas hunting remains the sport of royalty or the very wealthy. Only in America do people from every walk of life have the opportunity to hunt with only the minimum restrictions of season and license requirements. And espe Mr. Chairman, this privilege is one that we will not give up easily. cially one that we would not give up in exchange for a system that would not do the job expected of it. I am certain that those who have proposed these laws are motivated by a genuine concern for the welfare of the Nation. But we must not let the emotions of the moment crowd in upon the deliberations of a bill that would change a tradition that has existed as long as the history of our Nation. So while I share with all responsible Americans the concern that everything possible be done to eliminate violence from our Nation, I must oppose the bills now before the committee as deterimental to our fundamental American freedoms and ineffective in eliminating the problems they are designed to combat. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORP., DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We are studying carefuly the bill S. 1975, to amend the Federal Firearms Act and amendment No. 335 and we may wish to comment at a later date on the amended bill's major provisions. However, we would like immediately to propose one change in the nature of a technical amendment which we believe is necessary to prevent unintended and undesirable consequences of the bill as it is presently worded. The existing language could result in the shutting down of legitimate US. arms manufacturing activities which maintain the highest standards of performance and integrity. The specific change in S. 1975, as presently written, would be the following: Page 4, lines 1, 2, and 3: Strike all words after the words "or other" (line 1) and insert in their place the following language: "Federal or State offenses pertaining to such general or specific business practices unrelated to the objectives of this Act as the Secretay may designate." (Attachment 1 contains the full text of the paragraph.) This proposed amendment in no way weakens the regulatory provisions of the bill and in no way narows the definition of crimes, including offenses of racketeering or of a similar nature, which may be disqualifying. It merely broadens the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to exempt certain offenses from automatically bringing into effect the sanctions of the act such as those against the shipment of arms and ammunition in interstate commerce. We feel that this technical change is particularly important in the case of a very large diversified company such as Olin which, in addition to its Winchester-Western Division, which manufactures arms and ammunition, has its Squibb Division manufacturing pharmaceuticals, its Chemical and Organics Divisions manufacturing bulk chemicals, its Metals Division manufacturing aluminum and brass, its Packaging Division manufacturing paper, film and forest products and its International Division in widespread oversea operations. It is entirely conceivable that, even with the greatest diligence on the part of management personnel, one of our approximately 40,000 employees could perform some act in connection with an activity bearing no relation to arms manufacturing which would subject the company to an indictment, in either a Federal or State court, for criminal negligence or criminal fraud or anyone of a number of violations of a criminal statute. We have made no attempt to research the statutes of the 50 States to determine what violation would, if the existing language were enacted, bar a company from the arms industry. We can, however, conceive of innumerable situations where a company could be indicted for and even convicted of an offense (including offenses made such by statutes enacted in the future) which would in no way reflect on the integrity or eligibility under the most rigid standards of that company as a manufacturer or distributor in the arms industry. We thus strongly urge that the language of the bill be amended as suggested. We repeat that this in no way diminishes the impact of the act, but that it merely avoids what we believe to be an unintended consequence of the present wording. Sincerely, FREDERICK B. LEE, Director, Washington Office. ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO S. 1975 Changes in S. 1975 made by the proposed amendment are shown as follows (wording in S. 1975 proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is italicized): "(11) The term 'crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year' shall not include any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other [similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices as the Secretary may by regulation designate]." "(11) The term 'crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year' shall not include any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other Federal or State offenses pertaining to such general or specific business practices unrelated to the objectives of this Act as the Secretary may designate.” CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I appreciate the opportunity of being permitted to file the enclosed statement for the record in regard to the amendment of the Federal Firearms Act now being considered by your committee. If the hearings are to be reopened or extended, I would appreciate having the opportunity to appear in person. I assume from conversations with the staff however that the hearings are concluded and that my enclosed statement will be made a part of the record. Sincerely, SPENCER M. SMITH, Jr., Secretary. STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JANUARY 30, 1964 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a natural conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. Our board of directors is graced by some of the Nation's outstanding leaders in conservation of natural resources. Our chairman, Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson, has been outstanding in his efforts to effect prudent conservation policy for more than 50 years. It is, therefore, not only an honor and a privilege to present our views to this distinguished committee but I feel it an honor to be able to represent this distinguished group in their presentation. Few could fault the motive and purpose of the measures S. 1975, S. 2345 and other recommendations that are before the committee to amend the Federal Firearms Act. If the successful enactment of any of these measures would greatly reduce or severely limit capital crimes, which result in death and injury to many individuals each year, our organization would be in support of such legislation with practically every major organization that feels any social responsibility. Also, the new impetus given this legislation is without question the tragic assassination of President Kennedy. Again, if the enactment of this legislation would prevent a repetition of one of the most lamentable occasions of our history, we could hardly oppose any such means.. Even if the risks were significantly reduced, we could not seriously object to such enactment. Unfortunately, the conditions suggested above do not necessarily mean that the passage of this legislation will effect the desired result. It appears to us that this is the significant measure that the committee must judge. Will the enactment of the restrictive phases of this legislation really mean a reduction of incidents that lead to injury and/or death? We feel that such restrictions are basically almost a non sequitur to the ends desired. The biggest difficulty, of course, is that legislation against inanimate objects, which can be used to harm one's self or neighbor, has never been very successful. No glass of whisky ever destroyed a family; no vial of narcotics ever destroyed an individual; and, no gun ever killed a person. In all instances the term lacking in the equation of destruction is human behavior. A gun, chair, table, or automobile has no capacity for doing either right or wrong. They must be intimately connected with human behavior before they can be put to purposes either good or evil. Just as a fire can be an enormous source of energy for good, it also has the capacity to burn down a house. There are those who say the problem of crime, as it relates to firearms, is sufficiently egregious to cause the enactment of such legislation since little harm can be done. Our concern is that harm will be done to a most important form of outdoor recreation enjoyed by millions of Americans. The use of firearms for sport and recreation is significant. To deny millions this opportunity, on the off chance that a bad social condition may be rectified, is in our judgment not sufficient justification for the legislation. We certainly feel that when any object or vehicle has the capacity in human hands to be destructive in a greater sense than simple normal use, then some tests of responsibility are proper. We have, of course, the quandary that is ever present in law enforcement and is a case in point here. Those who are responsible, and in the case of sporting arms this represents the overwhelming majority, would indeed abide by any laws and restrictions set forth. Those who are not responsible and who may be criminally opposed to such restrictions would hardly be restrained by the imposition of such restrictions. Certainly we impose no serious objection to an affidavit indicating that a firearms purchaser is of age, that he has not been connected with any mental disturbance or a patient in a mental institution, or convicted of a felony. We are disturbed however, when police are literally given veto power over any and all gun purchases by mail order. This appears to us to invite more difficulties than it solves. There should be some limitation on the authority of the Secretary to impose additional requirements over and above those established by statute. In substance, we feel that reasonable tests of owning and using a gun for sporting purposes is appropriate in our society. We do not see that such an activity, which does indeed provide extremely fine recreational opportunities for millions of Americans, should be placed in serious jeopardy or unduly harassed by restrictions which have assumed an enormous burden of proof that when enacted they will indeed lead to reduced criminality. May we make our position abundantly clear in that we eschew both of the extremes that have been given publicity as a result of this committee's deliberation. We do not believe that the framers of this legislation, or those considering this legislation, are a part of any Communist or any other kind of conspiracy to disarm citizens of our Republic. We believe that the majority of Americans do not keep firearms for the purpose of defending themselves in some sort of combat which might take place from the invasion of some foreign power or to put down some sort of insurrection mounted as a result of some foreign power. We therefore reject out of hand any association or belief in arguments of some neo-Fascist group that sees the use of firearms quite differently than do we. By the same token, we reject the recommendations of those who insist that all guns for whatever purpose be confiscated with the exception of those used by police officers and the armed services. We doubt, that even if such an activity was possible and the end results came to pass, that the diminution of capital crime would be as significant as some people seem to contend. We have cooperated and will continue to cooperate with any authority which seeks to improve upon the prevention of crime and upon the apprehension of criminals. This it appears to us is basic and, while we are not contending that the committee disagrees with this position, we do feel there is a tendency to exaggerate the ameliatory effects that this legislation would have upon capital and related crime. We appreciate the opportunity of being able to make our views known to this distinguished committee. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: It is regretted that a field trip and two speaking engagements of long standing prevent my attendance at the committee's hearings on firearms legislation. I have a profound interest in this and am sorry that I cannot be present to hear all of the testimony. We appreciate the opportunity that the committee extended for the institute to present its views, and it is hoped that the enclosed statement can be made a part of the hearing record. Thanks again for your courtesy. Sincerely, C. R. GUTERMUTH, Vice President. STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH, VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON S. 1975 AND S. 2345 Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The institute is one of the older national conservation organizations, and its program has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the broad public interest since 1911. Before commenting on the proposals under consideration, I first want to commend Senator Warren G. Magnuson, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and Senator Howard G. Cannon, the chairman of this special committee, for their excellent statements issued last December at the start of this hearing. Their well-reasoned calls for calm and thorough deliberations, and their refusal to be stampeded by the tragic events in Dallas, have been assuring to the millions of Americans who own and use sporting firearms of all kinds for traditional recreational purposes. I do not distort the situation when I say that Americans in every part of the country were apprehensive that good judgment might yield to emotion in the aftermath of President Kennedy's untimely death. Senator Magnuson and Senator Cannon helped to quiet that fear by their realistic appraisal of the problem and by their discussion of the aspects involved. Their statements point to the pitfalls of superficial legislation. They recognize the paramount rights and responsibilities of the millions of law-abiding people who must be considered. They recognize, too, that firearms can be misused by the criminally inclined, by incompetents and malcontents, and by uninstructed juveniles. They are aware of the need for a solution. But in seeking that solution, they want to avoid the inequity of penalizing and burdening the multitudes for the misdeeds and indifference of a few. It is hoped that this sound advice will be heeded by the Congress and by State and local legislative and regulatory bodies. In earlier sessions before this committee, a number of Senators and Representatives expressed conviction that there is reasonable need and opportunity |