in the affidavit by certified mail. This feature is objectionable to the shooter's groups, both State and local, of which I am a member. I would like to point out as a police official and the "highest local police authority" in this area, that I also find this provision poses a problem. Also, my reasons may differ from some which have been presented to this committee before. Personally I feel that the provisions requiring the certified mail clause are worthless. The inherent weakness arises from the fact that the only person who pays any attention to the law is the law-abiding citizen. The criminal being what he is would pay no more attention to this law than he does to the other laws which he regularly violates. The certified mail notice provision is apparently designed to keep felons and undesirables from buying guns from out-of-State dealers by threatening these people with the fact that the sale will become immediately known to the police. Personally, I don't think this is the problem at all. In my experience the criminals I have run across and heard of, who possess guns, get these weapons by stealing them or buying them through surplus stores in the area, or from the underworld or a friendly source. I have never seen a case where a crook applied for a permit, ordered a gun by letter or did anything else that might leave a record of his action in purchasing the weapon. If a criminal is in need of anything which is subjected to restricted control, he simply lies, uses an alias, alters the facts, or uses a confederate who has no criminal record, and as we all know there are many of these "hangers-on" in the crime world. Violation of the Federal Firearms Act is no great barrier to a man who is contemplating armed robbery or a murder. The only thing this provision would do would be to develop a new occupation especially for those "hangers-on" at the fringes of crime who already have enough profitable sidelines. Another major reason why the certified mail notice provision would be no threat to the criminal is because it is obvious to him as well as to the police that Congress is not providing the local law-enforcement agencies with any funds or manpower with which to make investigations of such cases. There are no provisions in the bill telling the police what is expected of them, what they are to do with the affidavits upon their receipt, how long they are to be kept, what investigative techniques should be used to substantiate the affidavit and to whom they should report if they did have the time and manpower to make such investigations. As matters stand now, I do not have the manpower or sufficient appropriations to accomplish the mission I am already charged with, and I am in no different position than most of the small departments in the United States. Personally, I cannot see what this would do to stop armed crime. Another major reason why this provision would be futile as a deterrent to armed crime is because it does not make a direct attack on the problem as we face it. The provision adds a bit of extra harassment to each of the many thousands of firearms sales which occur each year, but it does nothing to prevent the thousands of murders, assaults, and robberies plaguing our communities. It does complicate the ownership of a firearm and makes it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen who cares about complying with the law. Again, I fail to see what good this provision would accomplish. In our own particular history we have never had any laws that restrict, unduly complicate or deter ownership of firearms that have been successful as crime stoppers. The Sullivan Act in New York is the classic example. The Sullivan Act makes ownership of pistols totally subject to police discretion and approval. I have many friends who have bitterly complained of the harassment to which they have been subjected because of this bill. If any restriction of this type would reduce the rate of violent crime, the Sullivan Act should do Has it? Ask the representatives from New York whether their statistics compare favorably in any way with New York of 1910 before the passage of the act. Ask them how their statistics compare with that of New Hampshire, only 250 miles away, where a pistol may be purchased in the general store without any record beyond identification and signature. Check the FBI uniform crime reports. These records belie the advantage of this law. SO. I would like to remind the members of this committee that the crime carnival of the "roaring" twenties, complete with murders, machineguns and the star actors such as "Legs" Diamond, the Five Points Gang, Murder, Inc., and many others too numerous to mention, all took place after the State of New York was "protected" by restrictive legislation. Just recently a prominent gang chieftian was efficiently assassinated in a barber chair in midtown Manhattan by revolver-wielding hoods, and last year two rival gangs fought it out with a wide array of weapons in Brooklyn. This information is based on stories carried in the Saturday Evening Post and other publications. What protection would legislation limiting the ownership of weapons give the citizens of New York from these acts? Another very serious aspect is the complaint of the New York Police Department of the lack of citizens' cooperation in acting as witnesses in the apprehension and prosecution of zip-gun juvenile gangsters (who were equipped with weapons of their own manufacture) because the honest citizen finds it not only legally difficult but dangerous to keep a pistol to defend his own life and that of his own family from those he might otherwise have been willing to testify against. Congress should now be making a decision as to a serious change in the policy of Federal law enforcement in the United States. The shocking event of November 22, 1963, should raise a very meaningful question; to wit, should the Federal Government have the power to prosecute any person who commits a crime while armed with a weapon which is a product of interstate commerce? If the Federal Government can punish a man for carrying stolen property across a State line or taking a stolen car across a State line or taking a female across the State line for immoral purposes, why cannot the Federal Government put their vast resources behind hunting a criminal down and punishing him for committing a crime with a weapon which came across a State line into his possession. I am well aware that the above remarks may well stir up opposition from those who say that such a law would put Federal law enforcement into every robbery and murder. It is possible that some police authorities would object to the invasion of the local law enforcement jurisdiction. It may be that the need to correct an evil necessitates a change in our procedure. It is obvious to those of us in this area who have discussed the situation that the certified mail provision is not the change to accomplish what we are all interested in. Most of us are well aware that the criminal is reluctant to take on the well organized police agencies of national scope if the certainty of detection, apprehension, and strong penalties were certain enough so that the professional criminal would find it undesirable to own a weapon. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present my views on this matter, and I hope that they will give them serious consideration. Thanking you for your attention, I remain, Sincerely yours, A. L. SCHMIEG, Sr., Chief of Police. STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. O'CONNOR, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICANISM COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION, ON S. 1975 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be allowed to place in the record the statement of the American Legion on S. 1975, and give the views of the American Legion relative to this proposed legislation. The American Legion is interested in legislation to strengthen the regulation of interstate mail-order trade in firearms; however, the American Legion also strongly believes that there should be no infringement upon the constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. During the 1963 National Convention of the American Legion, two resolutions were adopted on the subject of firearms. I will briefly state the resolving clauses in these two resolutions so that the record will show the overall position of the American Legion on this vital subject: 1. Resolution No. 138, entitled: Oppose State and Federal legislation which would infringe upon the constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms, resolved as follows: "Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the American Legion, in national convention assembled in Miami Beach, Fla., September 10-12, 1963, call upon the State and Federal Governments to: "1. Defeat all State and Federal legislation which infringes the basic right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the Constitution. "2. Promote and encourage the safe and accurate use of firearms." 2. Resolution No. 382, entitled: Enact legislation providing for strict control of interstate mail-order firearms trade, resolved as follows: "Resolved by the American Legion in national convention assembled in Miami Beach, Fla., September 10-12, 1963, That the American Legion urges the enactment of legislation by the Congress of the United States providing for strict control of the interstate mail-order firearms trade, and do commend groups, such as the National Rifle Association and junior rifle clubs, who teach the proper handling of weapons." In both of these resolutions, mention was made of the importance of the promotion and encouragement of the safe and accurate use of firearms. Through the coordinated efforts of the American Legion with the National Rifle Association, much progress has been made in teaching young people the proper use of firearms of all types. The American Legion has been interested in this type of program since 1930 and many distinguished Members of the Senate will recall that during World War II, the training which young men had received in the marksmanship program of the American Legion and the National Rifle Association, resulted in greater proficiency in the handling of weapons upon entry into service. The American Legion is seriously concerned, as are many parents, with the sale of firearms to minors without adequate controls. Many of these firearms are flaunted before the youth of our country through alluring advertisements in comic books and the most sensational magazines. For just a few dollars, most any young person in the United States can quickly secure a deadly weapon simply by mailing a money order. We realize there are many reputable firearms dealers in the United States who would not sell to questionable customers or to minors; however, the unscrupulous mail-order merchants often use no more than a post office box for an address and camouflage their operations. Accordingly, the American Legion supports the objective of S. 1975; however, we have reservations concerning certain of the proposed methods by which S. 1975 seeks to protect the citizens of the United States against the indiscriminate purchase of firearms by questionable individuals, and minors. This is because we do not lose sight of the fact that we unalterably oppose any infringement of the right of law-abiding citizens to secure firearms for legitimate use. For this reason the American Legion is concerned with the provision of the bill which prevents the mail-order firm from completing the transaction until it receives a return receipt from the local police official in the purchaser's locality, indicating he has received the copy of the proposed purchaser's statement required by the bill. Our concern stems from the fact that we oppose giving any local police official discretionary power to decide whether or not a law-abiding citizen within his jurisdiction may or may not possess a firearm for lawful purposes. We believe that this latest proposed method of control may be converted into such power by police officials simply by refusing to accept such registered letters or by accepting only some on a selective basis. Therefore, the American Legion suggests an amendment to the bill, which would eliminate the foregoing possibility, such as permitting completion of the transaction by the mail-order firm, if within a reasonable time, a return receipt for the registered letter is not received from the local police official. In conclusion, let me say that the American Legion is well aware of the seriousness of the problem and the necessity of enacting certain controls of a stringent nature. However, in designing the specific methods of control to be used, we must keep in mind the constitutional right of free, law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for lawful purposes and must keep in proper balance, that right, and the controls placed upon it. In other words, the American Legion does not wish to see a New York State Sullivan-type law enacted by the Congress as the solution to the mail-order firearms trade problem. Hence, we urge that it be made clear that any duties or acts imposed by the legislation upon local police officials are purely ministerial duties and are not discretionary in nature; unless, of course, the proposed purchaser is found to be ineligible under the specific provisions of the law. Again, may I express to you the sincere appreciation of the American Legion for allowing us to place this statement in the record. You may rest assured that as an organization, we will constantly cooperate with governmental agencies and other organizations interested in the subject of firearms control and the proper use of firearms by the young people of the United States. Thank you. NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The National Shooting Sports Foundation has been scheduled to make an oral statement to the Senate Commerce Committee when it resumes public hearings on S. 1975. In order to save the committee's time, we are, instead, putting down our views in the attached letter (copies are enclosed for committee members). Most respectfully yours, LEO S. DISHER, To the Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee: The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has as members more than 90 corporations, including virtually every company in the firearms industry in addition to manufacturers of shooting sports equipment and accessories, has been following with the closest attention the progress of S. 1975, which is currently the subject of public hearings. We would like at this time to endorse most heartily the intent of this amended bill, that of keeping firearms from the hands of criminals, irresponsibles and mental incompetents. Taking note of Senator Dodd's letter of January 22 to the committee proposing several new changes in the wording of the bill's provisions, we congratulate the authors of this bill for the drafting of well-considered legislation. In this same spirit of seeking the best possible legislation, we are taking the opportunity to propose four further revisions in the bill, to clarify it still more, and, in one instance, to strengthen its provisions. When S. 1975 originally was submitted to public hearing in spring 1963, this foundation cooperated by expressing its views. We strongly favor legislation which will tend to prevent the use of firearms in the commission of crimes. We have, however, been concerned that this indeed be effective legislation, not simply legislation imposing still further restrictions on the country's lawabiding citizens without appreciable effect on the criminal. Effective legislation obviously must tend to control the criminal, above all, not merely be directed at an instrument he might use. How to control the criminal is one of the great social problems of our times. Effective legislation to control the criminal's misuse of firearms is a subject for most calm and all-encompassing consideration. We regard S. 1975, as now amended by Senator Dodd, to be forward-looking legislation, a possibly potent deterrent to crime. In regard to this bill we heartily concur in the provisions barring felons, the underaged and mental incompetents from the purchase of firearms. At the same time, the National Shooting Sports Foundation urges that the bill be amended to impose far heavier penalties for the misuse of firearms. We urge that the sentence for any criminal misusage be doubled or even tripled, and made mandatory. And we advocate that similar penalties be imposed for any falsifications of affidavits. Our further proposals for changes, other than those put forward by Senator Dodd, are as follows: That in subsection L, section 2, of the bill, the wording "in such form and manner as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe," be stricken and that instead the exact wording of such an affidavit form be substituted, so as not to leave this authority undefined; that any other grant of power to the Secretary of the Treasury be also exactly stipulated, and that any fees to be imposed under the authority of this bill be reasonable and exactly stated. That after subsection L, section 2, this sentence be inserted: "Nothing in these regulations shall be taken to apply to the shipment to and from the manufacturer or dealer of guns so shipped for repairs, or of firearms shipped by an owner himself to a new address." It is a fact that many thousands of guns are shipped to gunsmiths or the manufacturers by legitimate owners every year for repairs. Unless changed, the bill will prevent such repair shipments. At the same time the present bill, unless revised, could impose a great inconvenience upon the legitimate gun owners who now ship their guns ahead on hunting trips. That in subsection L, section 2, the wording "unless the person to whom such firearm is to be shipped has submitted" be changed to read "unless the person by whom such firearm is to be purchased has submitted." The bill very evidently intends to regulate the new purchase of firearms and not the shipment of firearms already in the hands of legitimate owners. The foundation most emphatically concurs with Senator Dodd's January 22 letter to the committee clarifying that serial numbers of firearms should not be included in the letter of purchase and that provisions should be made for any refusal by law-enforcement officers of registered letters. Most sincerely yours, LEO S. DISHER, LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD ADJUTANTS GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I have noted with much interest the introduction of various firearms bills in the Congress and the nationwide publicity attendant thereto. While I understand and appreciate the reason for these legislative efforts. I hope that no precipitate action is taken which would infringe the historical and basic right of the American citizen to possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes. This right, as you well know, is not a mere theoretical expression but an integral part of the constitutional and common-law structure of our great nation. Any undue impingement of the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding citizen would have a sharp effect on the civilian marksmanship program. This program has the legal and operational support of the Federal Government through the creation of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice by Congress in 1903 and through the National Defense Act of 1916 and later related statutes. The National Board is an agency of the Department of the Army, and the Board's policies and programs are executed by the Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship. The National Rifle Association of America, which operates with funds from dues of more than 600,000 individual members and 11.000 affiliated clubs, is the civilian organization which carries the program to organized rifle and pistol clubs. The basic purpose of the civilian shooting program is the training of citizens in rifle marksmanship in advance of being called to serve their country. The program is primarily voluntary and is sparked by that spirit of patriotism and loyalty which is a hallmark of the American tradition. The Adjutants General Association has long been associated with the purposes and work of the civilian marksmanship program. This association has taken the form of the participation of National Guard teams in State, regional, and National matches; the use of National Guard ranges by civilians; the approval of rifle and pistol clubs by State adjutants general; and the promotion of joint military-civilian shooting training activities. Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that any burdensome and severe firearms control measure will have a far-reaching and detrimental impact on our whole marksmanship training structure. Clearly, what affects one segment of the law-abiding shooting public will eventually affect the total framework. For the reasons given above, Mr. Chairman, I know that you and your committee will give thorough and incisive study to all factors involved in the matter of proper and sound firearms regulation. To this end, I pledge the wholehearted cooperation and support of the Adjutants General Association. Sincerely, EDWIN W. HEYWOOD, Major General, Maine ARNG, President. |