THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I have been instructed by the board of directors of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia to make known to your committee the views of our association with respect to the pending consideration of amendment of the Federal Firearms Act to accomplish more effective control over the distribution of firearms through the channels of intertsate commerce. It is our belief that the high incidence of the use of mail-order firearms in the commission of crimes of violence requires prompt and effective action. Our committee on juvenile problems has reported to us that there is an increasing number of crimes by juveniles using firearms obtained through mail-order sources without any control whatsoever. It is common knowledge that crimes of violence are daily occurring throughout the Nation with the use of such firearms easily obtained by persons of unsound mind and with criminal records. The most tragic example, of course, is the assassination of President Kennedy last November. We are satisfied that it is within the power of Congress to regulate the distribution of firearms across State lines in such a manner as to curtail substantially the ease with which firearms may now be obtained by undesirable persons. We, therefore, recommend that most careful consideration be given to pending legislation such as Senate bill 1975, as amended, and other proposals calculated to control effectively the use of channels of interstate commerce in order to avoid the abuses which we have noted. Sincerely yours, JOHN H. PRATT. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Washington, January 24, 1964. Mr. WILLIAM T. BEEKS, Jr. Counsel, Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Here is a transcript of the introductory remarks of Mr. Edward S. Silver, Kings County district attorney, in a recent television broadcast which I hope it will be possible to include in the record on the amendment to the Federal Firearms Act. Sincerely, JAMES V. BENNETT, Director. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS OF EDWARD S. SILVER, KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ON WCBS-TV, NEW YORK, ENTITLED "CONTROL OF FIREARMS," JANUARY 5, 1964 Mr. Chairman, the control of firearms is a subject about which there are divergent views, concerning which there is much debate. Although our recent national tragedy, alleged to have been the consequence of the mail-order purchase of a high-powered rifle, has seemingly renewed and invigorated the pressing need for more adequate control of firearms and ammunition, this is not a new subject, nor is it one which is a mere flash in the pan. The heartbreaking assassination of President Kennedy did not trigger this problem. The ease with which firearms can be obtained and the availability of ammunition with which such lethal weapons are fed, seriously hamper the job of protecting the public from wanton acts of violence. Both on the national level and local level, law enforcement has met with obstacles in a drive to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of the lawless and irresponsible. The hue and cry of those who take exception to firearms legislation and the argument that such legislation flies in the face of a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is wholly without merit. It has been firmly established by the constitution and authorities that allow for reasonable regulations for the public good in the area of arms control. No one, and particularly law-enforcement agencies, deny the wholesome, character-building disciplines of sportmanship and the recreational values of hunting. However, the measures proposed to more carefully regulate and control the sale, distribution, and possession of firearms, would not in any real way affect the ability of the bona fide hunter or sportsman to obtain weapons and ammunition for their sports. As things stand now law enforcement is powerless to prevent the possession of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition by an evil brand of hunters, to-wit: Known criminals who with shotguns and rifles carry out their personal feuds, power struggles, and criminal activities, thus making our public streets a battleground where, in addition to the foe, innocent bystanders are maimed and killed. Secondly, in large urban areas such as New York City there are no deer, bear, or grouse roaming the streets. Nevertheless, local authorities are powerless to restrict the sale and possession of such weapons, even to persons who do not possess hunting licenses or are not members of legitimate rifle clubs. Almost every day, somewhere in this vast State of ours, an innocent person is either wounded, maimed, or killed as the result of injuries sustained from a rifle or a shotgun. For the first 11 months of 1963, in the city of New York alone, 422 crimes and 27 homicides occurred which involved the use of rifles or shotguns. This does not include many accidental deaths and serious injuries. In Brooklyn alone, in 1 week's time, during the holiday season, at least three people died as the result of wounds inflicted by rifles or shotguns. No one desires to deprive the honest sportsman of his pleasures. All we ask is that the legislature recognize the overriding needs for the safety of the community as a whole, in supporting a program designed to eliminate the placing of weapons in the hands of the criminal, the mentally ill, the irresponsible, and the young and inexperienced. NATCHITOCHES, LA., January 30, 1964. Senator MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Please record me as being in accord with the statements made at your hearings on firearms laws by Franklin Orth and Thomas Kimball. Legislation should be directed at misuse of firearms rather than at the firearm itself. GRITS GRESHAM, Outdoor Writers Association of America. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, CANON CITY, COLO., January 5, 1964. MY DEAR SENATOR: I am taking the liberty of writing you and through you to your committee against some of the recent legislation which has come up since Kennedy's death. Senator Dodd's bill, S. 1975, and its recent amendments, seem to me to be much too severe and restrictive for passage. Also, other bills which are even worse. I submit that a hundred gun laws would not have prevented the Kennedy tragedy and a hundred will not do any good in the future. The fact that a mail-order gun was used is completely beside the point for it would have been perfectly possible for Oswald to have obtained a rifle from a hundred sporting goods houses in Texas, and if these had been out of business he could have stolen one from some hunter or even the Armed Forces. He knew his life was forfeit anyhow, so what would a gun law violation have meant to him? This type of legislation is pure hysteria and I am very happy that you did not allow yourself and committee to be stampeded into passing some ill-advised legislation under pressure of it. As I wrote you in September, I felt that portions of Senator Dodd's bill, the raise in fees to $10 for a license and the provision that one must be age 21 to obtain a license were worthy, but I did not see much good in the other provisions except to constantly harass the gun trade. I see even less value and a great deal more harassment in the two new amendments. In fact, I feel these last are so severe that they border on the unconstitutional. It is to be remembered that within 2 weeks after the President's death more than 200 people were killed in crashes of jet airplanes. Either of these crashes could have easily been the presidential jet on his Texas trip. However, no cry has been raised to abolish or severely restrict jet airplanes. Yet, it should be even more logical that such should be the case, considering the number of deaths involved, than the present antigun cry. While most of the present hysteria seems to be directed against the mail-order business it is to be expected, if this legislation is allowed to pass without searching thoughts and the most careful study and amendment, that the proponents of such type of legislation will demand more and more, until the very second amendment is threatened. This last is too precious a piece of American rights to be allowed to be trampled on. If public hearings are held on this or other bills of like nature I would like this letter to be read into the testimony against their passage. Very truly yours, GORDON BESs, Gunsmith. NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I have noted with interest the appearance in the Congress of many firearms bills and their wide coverage in the press. Although I appreciate the motivation and basis for these measures, I hope that no action is taken which would seriously curtail the fundamental right of the American people to possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes. This right is an important and living part of our common law and constitutional framework. Infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the reputable citizen would have a damaging effect on the civilian marksmanship program. This program has the legal and operational sanction of the Federal Government; the creation of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice by Congress on the recommendation of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, and the enactment of the National Defense Act of 1916 and subsequent related laws. The agency which has unquestionably done the most in the United States to promote rifle practice and to encourage the safe and sane use of firearms is the National Rifle Association. We in the National Guard feel particularly close to the NRA, for it was founded in 1871 by a group of New York National Guard officers. Members of the National Guard participate in NRA-sponsored rifle and pistol tournaments throughout the United States. In many areas National Guard organizations sponsor junior rifle groups and support in other ways competitive rifle shooting. The basic purpose of the civilian shooting program is the training of citizens in rifle marksmanship in the event that they are called to serve in the Armed Forces. The program is voluntary and is generated by that spirit of patriotism and loyalty which is essential to the American tradition. I firmly believe that stringent firearms controls will deal a severe blow to the civilian marksmanship training program. Without doubt, this would be detrimental to our national interests and training posture. In the light of the reasons cited above, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that you and your committee will give the matter of firearms regulation extensive and intensive study. You may be sure of my complete cooperation and support toward the achievement of this objective.. Sincerely, JAMES F. CANTWELL, Major General, NJARNG, President. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1964. Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Room 5112, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Enclosed is a telegram which I received from the Honorable W. B. Barkley, speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, concerning hearings recently held by your committee on S. 1975 to amend the Federal Firearms Act. Will you please include the attached telegram in the record of hearings? With kindest wishes, I am, Sincerely, GEORGE F. SENNER, Jr. PHOENIX, ARIZ., January 30,1964. REPRESENTATIVE DUKE SENNER, Washington, D.C.: Arizona House of Representatives today passed House Memorial No. 2 by overwhelming vote to oppose the Dodd bill as amended or any other similar legislation to require registration and licensing of firearms. W. B. BARKLEY, Speaker, Arizona House of Representatives. THAT URGE TO DO SOMETHING When confronted by problem or peril, Americans, more frequently than most of the world's peoples, try to meet the situation as they see it, with what they believe to be suitable action. This urge to do something accounts in large measure for the relatively free and highly responsible Government we have enjoyed for nearly 188 years. This urge to do something, important and effective thought it is, sometimes goes astray. Usually these occasions arise under circumstances which lead the voter and the legislator to abandon calm and rational thought for the dictates of emotion. We find ourselves in just such a situation today. A President has been murdered. The wave of shock sweeping the Nation carries at times to heights of hysteria. The urge to do something is widespread. One of the frequent and unfortunate targets of this present urge is our right to keep and bear arms. When such a vital and basic right is subjected to attack on the basis of one incident, then all thinking Americans must be alerted, lest our urge to do something lead us into serious trouble. Let us consider the situation at hand: case. First, Mr. Kennedy was not killed by a gun. He was killed by a man, a man who only happened to use a gun rather than any one of the many other instruments that might have served his criminal purpose. Murder was not invented by the firearms inventors. It has been with mankind since long before the writing of history began, and far longer than even basic primitive weapons. Second, there are adequate laws to cover every wrongful act surrounding this Lee Harvey Oswald had violated a whole complex of State and Federal laws. He did so with malice and forethought and planning. The most important law he planned to and did violate was the law against murder in the State of Texas. This law carries a possible death penalty which has a record of being frequently imposed. Can we rationally suppose that this man would have balked at the breaking of laws concerning firearms, no matter how severe the penalty? While the enactment of highly restrictive firearms legislation might satisfy for some this urge to do something, it would accomplish nothing else. Those who believe otherwise fall into three classes: the uninformed, the subversive, and the criminal. The uninformed do not seem to realize that privately owned firearms are our first line of defense of our lives, our homes, and our rights in a turbulent world. The subversive and the criminal do realize just this, and will seize upon any pretext to try to disarm or to discourage arms ownership among our citizens. Fortunately, the uninformed are more numerous than the subversive and the criminal. All thinking citizens who have an urge to do something should talk to the uninformed and demonstrate to them that arms controls are not a valid solution to situations such as the one at hand. Further, thinking citizens might do something to further more and better patriotic education, to minimize the incidence of Lee Harvey Oswalds in the future. Thinking citizens should also get behind the educational programs of organizations which teach safe and responsible handling of firearms. Thinking citizens should work always for the day when our Nation may be an example of a country in which knowledge, patriotism, and arms make our people nationally strong and individually free. These are things we can do and must do so that during this emotion-charged period we are not disarmed. We can have no second chance. Only freemen can choose to arm in defense of their freedom, and once disarmed, men are no longer really free. LINGLE, WYO. ROBERT A. MURRAY. COMMUNICATIONS FROM STATE AND REGIONAL OFFICIAL FISH, GAME, AND CONSERVATION AGENCIES STATE OF ALABAMA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Montgomery, Ala., January 23, 1964. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The introduction of several firearms bills is a matter of grave concern to a large segment of our population here in Alabama. We do not object to a requirement of affidavits on mail-order sale of revolvers and pistols that the buyer is not a convicted felon, teenager, mental defective, or a narcotic addict, but further restriction could seriously endanger our wonderful sport of hunting which so many of us hold dear and consider a part of our American heritage. The problem for which many Congressmen are seeking an answer will not be resolved by undue restrictions on our outdoor sportsmen. I beg of you not to support a measure which will punish so many innocent people and prevent them from reasonable use of firearms. This department speaking for all the outdoor sportsmen of Arizona is unalterably opposed to any legislation which would require registering sporting firearms. We are firmly convinced that the enactment of firearms registration laws would hamper only the honest citizen who used his guns for hunting, target shooting, or protection, and that criminals would ignore the firearms laws just as they ignore other laws. Requiring honest citizens to register guns would be just one step away to requiring them to obtain permits to keep those guns, which in turn would constitute a perfect blueprint for making petty dictators out of local officials charged with the responsibility of issuing those permits. We don't object to requiring affidavit on mail ordering sales of pistols and revolvers, stating that the buyer is not a convicted felon, mental defective, or narcotic addict, but neither do we see any benefit. Again, undesirables could obtain false affidavits without the slightest difficult so the net benefit of such regulation would be exactly nothing. We sincerely hope Congress will reject any and all proposals which would enact any form of firearms legislation registration into the law of the land. ROBERT J. SMITH, Chairman. |