it

Senator HART. That makes it more dramatic. You would agree doesn't make any difference who gets killed, if the logic were followed. Mr. ORTH. That is true. The whole national focus of our attention has been brought on this problem by the assassination of our great President.

Senator HART. Lest a reader of this record or others present may have any doubt, does the association support the bill in the form introduced this morning by Senator Dodd?

Mr. ORTH. In the form introduced this morning, the association supports the bill of Senator Dodd. I would like to add, parenthetically, that normally we are opposed to legislation relative to guns of any kind because we don't think that they reach the criminal. We think the criminal gets the gun anyway.

You mentioned, Senator Hart

Senator HART. Don't leave me hanging there. Is that a "Yes, but

Mr. ORTH. No, it is not a "Yes, but ***" We support Senator Dodd's bill as presented here this morning.

I would like to comment, if I might, Mr. Chairman, on something which Senator Hart brought up earlier this morning, which related to the uniform State laws. You know that this matter was considered by the Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association when they gathered to initiate a study of the existing State laws for the purpose of formulating the Uniform Firearms Act in the early 1930's.

In connection with that, and I will quote from their report, is the following language:

The most obvious objection to existing pistol legislation is this diversity. Here, as in many other fields, uniformity is desired. Still more objectionable is the wrong emphasis on most pistol legislation. It is aimed at regulating pistols in the hands of law-abiding citizens rather than at punishing, severely, criminals who use pistols. Of course, no legislation can prevent gangsters and other dangerous criminals from securing and using pistols, but legislation can make it to the interest of criminals not to use pistols and can send to prison for long periods those caught doing so.

This part of the Uniform Firearms Act was adopted in the 1930's by five States and the District of Columbia, and this is as far as it

ever went.

Other States objected for various reasons, have passed various acts, but uniformity in State laws, as you are well aware, is very difficult to accomplish.

Senator CANNON. May I ask there, if you would be willing to assist the committee in cooperating in the drafting of a model State law on this subject?

Mr. ORTH. We would be willing to aid the committee in any way that you can suggest, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HART. Mr. Orth, lest you misunderstood my prodding, I was very anxious to get the position of the association on my own family experience. I know of no organization in this country that is really more responsibe and more helpful in the wise use and training with weapons. I am very grateful.

Mr. ORTH. I didn't misunderstand. I probably made it unclear to you, and I apologize.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Orth.

Senator HART. I am still looking for the new Dodd bill.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Orth, for your fine statement today. We had intended to hear Mr. Kimball. But the hour is late.

We will recess the hearings now until 10 a.m., December 18. At that time we will hear Congressman Sikes; we also will hear from the Treasury Department, the American Legion, from Mr. Kimball, the executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, and other witnesses to be announced at a later time. The committee will stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, December 18, 1963.)

INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF FIREARMS

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Strom Thurmond, presiding.

Senator THURMOND. The committee will come to order.

The committee will resume hearings this morning on the control of firearms in interstate commerce, with specific attention being focused on S. 1975 and S. 2345, bills to amend the Federal Firearms Act. The committee had originally scheduled several other witnesses, but was advised yesterday they would be unable to appear. We are pleased to have as your first witness, the distinguished Congressman from Michigan, Mr. John D. Dingell.

Mr. Dingell, we are glad to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 15TH DISTRICT, STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. It is a pleasure to be here, Senator.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am most grateful for the opportunity that has been afforded me to express my views on the subject of firearms legislation and on the efforts of this committee to legislate against the nationwide problems resulting from mail-order firearms.

There is a growing prejudice against firearms in many segments of our society. More excuses constantly are being found to propose legislation which denies the right to use firearms for protection, for marksmanship training for national defense, or for the recreational pleasures of shooting and hunting. The members of the committee are well aware of the great number of firearms bills that have been introduced in Congress since the assassination of President Kennedy. Many laws are presented by persons who believe that the laws will prevent crime and accidental shootings. Others are advanced by individuals or groups who seek, through legislation, greater assistance in the arrest and conviction of lawbreakers. Some are advocated by those who would like to see America a disarmed and weakened nation.

Present-day firearms legislation is pointed in the wrong direction. It disarms the law-abiding citizen while it fails miserably in its avowed purpose of disarming the criminal. It is aimed at outlawing the gun, which is incapable by itself of doing evil, rather than at

punishing criminals who use a gun for illegal purposes. No legislation can prevent gangsters from securing and using guns, but proper legislation can severely penalize illegal use of guns and can send to prison for long periods of time criminals caught doing so.

Despite the painful history of other countries, there are those who still contend that some form of National or State firearms registration law should be passed in the United States to aid law enforcement. Others advocate laws designed purely for the convenience of law enforcement officers or for the purpose of circumventing due process of law in order to obtain convictions more easily. The desire to see our laws adequately enforced is never justification for any law which can make a prudent, law-abiding citizen an unwitting violator, or infringe his right against illegal search and seizure.

In my experience as a prosecuting attorney and as a maker of laws, I realize the need for regulations in order to maintain an orderly society. I do not propose that this committee adopt any "head in the sand" policy in hopes that the mail-order gun problem will go away. But please bear in mind that many law-abiding citizens utilize this legitimate means of purchasing firearms and the firearms so purchased are used in the peaceful enjoyment of the sport of target shooting and hunting. If the entire mail-order gun industry is so severely regulated as to ultimately cause its demise, in an effort to "weed out" the unscrupulous dealers or to curtail the nefarious deeds of people after they have purchased firearms, you will have done nothing more than to have cured the symptom, but killed the patient.

Gentlemen, you have in your hands the power to place in motion a legislative vehicle that can arrive at only two destinations. The first destination; that is, the eventual destruction of our right to keep and bear arms, will be reached if the vehicle is overloaded with highly restrictive regulations geared to penalize all citizens in a shotgun approach to a solution. The second destination; that is, the continuation of the peaceful and legitimate enjoyment of shooting activities by citizens of good repute, will be reached if the vehicle contains legislation designed to penalize criminal activities with a firearm and make more difficult the accessibility of firearms to criminals and unauthorized or unsupervised juveniles.

The legislation that results from the studies and investigations of this committee will be used as guidelines for future legislation on this subject in all State governing bodies throughout the land. Mr. Chairman, I know that you and your committee will weigh carefully all factors involved in the matter of proper and sound firearms regulations. To this end, I pledge my wholehearted support and coop

eration.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few points that are not included here in my statement which I think would be useful to the committee.

First of all I think all of us sincerely mourn the death of our beloved President. And I know that useful and meaningful and worthwhile legislation would be an appropriate monument to him, but legislation which would chip away the fundamental and basic liberties we all enjoy and share in this country would certainly not do so. If the firearms legislation is passed by this committee, it must be legislation which is wise and useful and in the public interest.