Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

visions relating to recordkeeping appeared to have certain meritorious features. H.R. 9471 is a revision of H.R. 9323 and apparently is designed to overcome the reservations expressed by Treasury and Justice concerning H.R. 9323.

This concludes my discussion of the bills pending before the committee. However, before concluding my statement, I would like to express to you the concern of the Treasury Department, as it was expressed to the Judiciary Subcommittee, relating to the problems involved in the unrestricted importation of very low cost foreign firearms. We deem these importations to be the keystone of many of the problems involved in effective firearms control-at the State and local levels as well as at the Federal level. We feel that serious consideration should be given by your committee to placing some controls on this inflow of undesirable weapons which serve no apparent useful function in our national life.

These include surplus military weapons and very inexpensive handguns made to sell far below the cost of handguns in the United States. The mail-order dealers seem to traffic in these imports principally, or to a large extent certainly, and I shouldn't say "all" dealers, because I distinguish between the old line dealers and the ones that have sprung up lately, particularly in this low-cost import trade

Senator HART. Could I interrupt there to disclose an ignorance and have it corrected if it possible.

Under existing law if a commercial firm in this country, a firm engaged in the business of selling firearms, ordered a shipment from ovreseas, from a foreign vendor, once the shipment came to rest here, resale by that American firearms merchant would be subject to the Dodd bill and is now subject to certain licensing?

Mr. COGGINS. Yes, sir. In other words, for instance, let's assume these firearms were shipped to a Los Angeles dealer, and they were being sold by mail-order transactions to other States, those guns would be covered at that point by the controls in the Dodd bill.

But we don't see why there is any justification really for certain of these guns coming in here at all.

Senator HART. That is what I was trying to pursue. Is there, under existing law, any way available to you, at Customs or otherwise, to reject such shipments?

Mr. COGGINS. Not within any of the laws that are under the Treasury Department, Mr. Chairman.

We would like to distinguish here and say that under the National Weapons Act, as far as submachine guns and these gadget guns, sawed-off shotguns, and short-barreled rifles are concerned, we do have a strong power to limit imports. In fact, in that category they have to show that it is unique, it cannot be obtained in the United States and they have to get individual licenses for bringing these in. In this area, we do have the power. But under the national act, it does not concern firearms generally.

Senator HART. So it follows also that the purchase by an individual in the United States from a foreign vendor of firearms accomplished by sending a purchase order through the mail also would not be subject to any restraint or restriction?

Mr. COGGINS. That is correct.

Senator HART. And you argue that if there is justification for imposing a restriction such as Senator Dodd proposes on the domestic

29-119-64——6

acquisition, it follows that at least no less restriction should be imposed on the import.

Mr. COGGINS. That is right.

Senator HART. I would think if the premise is valid, the conclusion certainly is.

I am sorry I interrupted you.

Mr. COGGINS. That basically was the conclusion of my statement. The Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department would be pleased to render any further assistance which they can to this committee to perfect any proposed legislation, which the committee may desire.

Senator HART. Mr. Coggins, I am advised it was not the Dodd bill that referred to foreign commerce.

But you have certainly put us on notice about the problem that would remain if we acted only with respect to interstate commerce. Mr. COGGINS. We feel, in this particular area of mail-order shipments, our interest in this matter has not arisen in the past months, and we don't feel we have been dealing with it in an emotional manner. We have been consulting on this matter for the past 2 or 3 years and feel that there is an identifiable problem here that is the responsibility of the Federal Government, and can be dealt with. Actually I think that, in the general area of firearms legislation, you have to first identify your problem, then get the problem down to a science in which it can be seen and dealt with. We feel that this particular problem has been brought within that perspective.

Senator HART. We will have to consider whether the amendment offered on November 27 by Senator Dodd, and the December 12 amendment do extend the restraints to shipment in foreign commerce.

Mr. COGGINS. We would be glad to consult with the staff on that. As I say, we are primarily here dealing with a specific area that we · feel has been identified.

Now as to the overall area, that is, I feel, an entirely different question. We feel that that is essentially a transitional problem that the United States has to recognize. We feel that we have progressed from a society where an individual was in large part responsible for providing protection for himself and his family to a society in which this function is performed on a day-to-day basis, as a normal routine matter, by those whose official duty it is to maintain law and order. New law enforcement problems are arising in our urban areas which cannot be effectively dealt with under some of the concepts of the past.

Now effective control can only be achieved if the people at the National level, State level, and local level are willing to recognize that this change has taken place and are willing to deal with this problem in an objective, realistic, and reasonable manner, giving due heed to the needs and problems and circumstances of the urban citizen, as well as the rural citizen, and of the law enforcement officer, as well as the sportsman.

Now I think the list of witnesses who testified before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency indicates where the interest in the problem lies; it lies in the large metropolitan urban areas.

So, in the overall problem, it really is one of adjusting to this transition.

Senator HART. The statement you just made, Mr. Coggin, talking about the obligation that we balance competing claims here, is important and it is an excellent one and it is applicable to any and all of the legislative proposals that create controversy around here.

Mr. COGGINS. That is right and I think like we tried to in the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee, you have to first identify the problem and then you have to deal with the problem.

You can't deal purely in an emotional context with an overall issue. Senator HART. Unhappily, stating that we should not permit emotions to intrude on our judgment doesn't exclude them, whether it is on firearms or anything else.

Mr. COGGINS. That is true.

But I want to make clear the Treasury Department interest that occurred in the past months.

On March 7 of this year, I testified before the Judiciary Subcommittee and my remarks there were substantially what they are here today.

Senator HART. I think committee counsel, Mr. Beeks, may have some questions.

Mr. BEEKS. I only have one. We have the National Firearms Act now and the Federal Firearms Act, which are designed to implement State law. If the States passed adequate laws to implement the Federal Firearms Act, would Federal legislation be necessary?

Mr. COGGINS. If all of the States passed laws uniformly-I am not completely sure. I think we possibly would still need some further regulation of the interstate and foreign commerce aspect of it.

Although if each State passed laws tying in exactly with 2(c) of the act, which meant you had a permit to purchase, then it would not be possible to ship to an individual in that State, unless the dealers, unless the permit to purchase, issued by the State, was exhibited to the dealer.

So that would be true. But I think that to assume that all 50 States are going to enact that provision is indulging in a little wishful thinking. The fact is there was a movement among the States, after the Federal act was first enacted, in which a few States tied in with it, but since that time there hasn't been any great movement in that direction. Usually the firearms legislation results from back in the thirties, when there was a long series of hearings, in the gangster era; Senator Copeland, I think, was chairman of this committee and held hearings over periods of years. A grave and sustained interest had been built up before the national and Federal acts were enacted.

And the States did tie into a limited extent shortly after the enactment of the Federal act. But since that time, for one reason or another, they have not done so. So you have only legislation that comes in the time when the conscience of the people is aroused for one reason or another.

Mr. BEEKS. This is a question which Senator Cannon was asking last Friday, to the effect that: Is Federal legislation justified simply on the basis that the States have not acted?

Mr. COGGINS. I think it is, definitely, because we have metropolitan areas that have acted, we have large cities that have acted, have done everything they could.

Why the legislatures of those States have seen fit not to tie-in, I don't know. But the cities have acted, and yet we haven't afforded those metropolitan areas protection.

Mr. BEEKS. On page 10 of your statement you say it would be impractical for an individual to obtain a firearm by mail-order shipment without the knowledge of local authorities, or in violation of local laws. That is predicated upon the assumption that the local authorities are going to follow through when they get this information.

Mr. COGGINS. We feel that, if the local authorities desire-certainly in places where the local authority is in a position to know that the firearm is being shipped in, and if it is a violation of their local laws or ordinances we presume they would take action. Mr. BEEKS. I can see where they could

Mr. COGGINS. And there is also, I think, as far as irresponsible persons and juveniles are concerned, a great psychological deterrent to the procedure set forth in Senator Dodd's bill.

Mr. BEEKS. But a person could still go to a notary public and swear to anything. The notary doesn't attest to the validity of what is contained in the affidavit, only what is sworn to. One could give a wrong name, wrong age, swear he was not a felon when in fact he was, and give a wrong address. Unless the police followed up on it, the bill wouldn't accomplish anything.

Mr. COGGINS. You say he could do this.

I don't say so, personally. I think it is doubtful a juvenile would go through this procedure.

Mr. BEEKS. Psychologically?

Mr. COGGINS. Psychologically. I think it would have a great psychological deterrent. Certainly someone who has something to hide or who has a criminal record is not going to spread this kind of situation on the record.

In other words, first he has to go before the notary public and he knows the police are going to get a copy of this affidavit. I just don't believe that an irresponsible person or a juvenile would go through this procedure.

Mr. BEEKS. But it does depend on the cooperation of the local police?

Mr. COGGINS. Yes; and I think that is proper.

In other words, we feel these cities, particularly, who have enacted requirements, are entitled to know that these guns are coming into their jurisdictions, possibly in violation of their own laws, and to juveniles. Now we feel at least they are entitled to that type of protection from the Federal Government.

Mr. BEEKS. Could the States enact laws requiring manufacturers to notify local police authorities of the fact that weapons were being shipped into that State; would it be a violation if they were not notified?

Mr. COGGINS. The States, of course, can't go outside of their jurisdiction, and their jurisdiction stops at their border and the State has nothing to do with a mail-order dealer in San Francisco or Los Angeles.

Mr. BEEKS. Except when it hits the border?

Mr. COGGINS. That is true, but there the only effective action they could take would be try to deal with the carrier, who is bringing in

the gun. The person in the commerce of this is the man in Los Angeles and the State has no effective way of reaching him.

Take the case of South Carolina, where they prohibit the sale, or the laws are construed to prohibit the sale. South Carolina has no way to reach the dealer in Los Angeles.

Now we would reach the dealer in Los Angeles by the Dodd proposal.

Mr. BEEKS. Could they provide, through State statute, that anyone who caused a weapon to be shipped within the State of South Carolina without notifying the police would be in violation of law?

Mr. COGGINS. Well, I don't know how much beyond their borders they can project their jurisdiction. That is a difficult problem there. It is true, they have to do something basically that comes within the reach of the State authority. The State authority basically doesn't reach out of the State. That is where the Federal Government does have the responsibility in the transactions that go between States, and between United States and foreign countries.

Mr. BEEKS. Senator Dodd has in effect three versions of the bill before the committee. Do you have your preference toward one or another?

Mr. COGGINS. We prefer the bill with the amendments offered by the Senator on December 12, which is the version with the new subsection "L."

Mr. BEEKS. You believe that would be more effective than the amendment of November 27.

Mr. COGGINS. I think actually the National Rifle Association, as I understand I wasn't here when they testified, but there were some questions raised, and I think possibly reasonably, concerning the police officer certification that just by failure to act that they could prevent anyone, whether it was or wasn't against the law, from shipping firearms. And it would, of course, place a greater burden on them.

Here it doesn't place a direct burden, any more burden than they wished to assume on the police department.

Senator HART. Thank you very much, Mr. Coggins.

Our next witness is the executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Thomas Kimball, of Washington.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. KIMBALL. May I begin by recalling a pleasant experience, when you addressed our annual meeting last March in Detroit.

Senator HART. It was pleasant for me, but it is usually tough on the recipients. Of course, I should not burden the record by thanking you for supporting some national recreation proposals affecting Michigan, that I think we are about to get.

Mr. KIMBALL. It was our pleasure.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I am Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation which has its headquarters here in Washington, D.C. A private, nonprofit organization, the Federation is dedicated to the attainment of conservation goals through educational means.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »