Mr. Chairman, may I repeat some of your own words taken from your opening statement:

*** The solution must be total, not partial. It must be dictated by the voices of reason, not emotion. It must to the extent practical prevent the possession and use of firearms by the irresponsible, but in so doing not unduly inconvenience or burden the responsible.

To this procedure and objective the National Wildlife Federation wholeheartedly subscribes.

Senator CANNON (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Kimball, for your

statement.

Do I understand, then, the thrust of your statement is that you see no objection to the provisions of the Dodd bill as it has now been amended?

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes. My suggestion was for consideration of two further amendments to the bill, Mr. Chairman. One deals with the authority for the Secretary to promulgate further regulations. Our thinking on this was that conceivably he could require a description of the weapon to include serial numbers and any other information he may require, and in so doing actually set up a registration system. Senator CANNON. I see. Well, I think that would clearly not be within the intent of the law, however, if the law were passed in this form-if the Congress rejected the proposals to require the registration, which have been advanced by some.

Do you have any language to propose in lieu of that stated in the bill in that regard?

Mr. KIMBALL. No specific language, Mr. Chairman, except that the authority for the Secretary to further regulate, I think, should be stricken from the language, and that the form of affidavit and the information required should be spelled out by the Congress. So this would be the information which should be sent on to the local police officer.

Senator CANNON. With that change, then, you would see no objection to the Dodd bill as it has not been amended.

Mr. KIMBALL. Let me see, there was one other thing I had. One other suggestion was that the return receipt from the registered mail should not be a prerequisite for the sale of the firearm. This conceivably could permit a local enforcement agency to refuse to receive any registered mail of this type, which in essence would be a veto power over the sale of the proposed weapon. If they are notified by registered mail, it would seem the objective of the bill would be accomplished.

Senator CANNON. Senator Hart?

Senator HART. Thank you, Senator Cannon.

I have difficulty with not necessarily the proposition but the distinction you are suggesting. You do not object to the affidavit being filed with the police department that identifies the owner and generally his weapon, but you say, if you added registration numbers, you would in effect be establishing a registration system. You would object to that. As a practical matter, what difference does it make whether the registration number is there, if the name and location of the gun is there?

Mr. KIMBALL. Well, as I view the objective of the bill, the intent of this affadavit is to notify the local police that an individual is desirous of purchasing a firearm of some type and that he is not a criminal. This puts them on notice and they can check and find out whether or not he is of the character that he has said he is in the affidavit. But to go beyond that, to where you start describing weapons and putting on serial numbers, that can be transposed to an IBM card. Eventually over the years you would have a complete gun registration list-names of persons, type of firearms they purchased, and the serial number. I don't think this is the intent of the bill.

It was not the intent of Senator Dodd, anyway, to set up a Firearms Registration Act. His intent was to get the information to the police, so they could prevent criminals and juvenile delinquents and other people from obtaining the weapons.

Senator HART. I won't pursue it, but I am not sure it is a distinction that, as a practical matter, makes any difference.

Mr. KIMBALL. Well, it makes quite a bit of difference to quite a number of us, Senator.

Senator HART. I know you are concerned about the registration. But you can make the IBM machine produce the same answer, even if you don't have the serial number. That is the point.

Mr. KIMBALL. Well, it wouldn't identify that particular weapon, even though they had the name and address and a gun had been purchased.

Senator HART. Thank you.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Kimball, for presenting your views to the committee.

Mr. KIMBALL. Thank you, sir.

Senator CANNON. The next witness is Mr. George M. Craig, past national commander of the American Legion.

Mr. Craig.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE N. CRAIG, PAST NATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION (PAST GOVERNOR OF INDIANA)

Mr. CRAIG. I am appearing here principally as an individual and an interested citizen in this matter. I am the past national commander of the American Legion, and formerly Governor of Indiana. I practice law in Washington.

I think that in the deliberations of this committee, some thought might be given as in the hearing of all witnesses that there are two organizations that have devoted their entire existence to matters, many of which touch upon the subject here under consideration, that have manifest their activities through the promotion of good citizenship, conservation, and the obedience of law.

I speak of the American Legion, 45 years of experience in this field, a patriotic organization, devoted to the principles of Americanism, as we understand them, and likewise the National Rifle Association that has had 92 years of experience in the instructions of our citizenry and teaching principally the respect for and the safe handling and legal use of firearms.

So I feel here you have two organizations who have devoted their existence to matters that touch upon that which is in inquiry.

It might be noted that each year, through the joint efforts of the National Rifle Association and the American Legion, 250,000 youths are taught the proper, safe use of firearms; taught to respect them for the lawful purposes for whch they were intended. I might indicate that is about equivalent to the six divisions which we have in Europe.

Is seems to me that the matter under inquiry here and cast under the great shadow of tragedy, that has not only shocked our Nation and created great emotional distress, but the entire free world, is one that goes a little further than the mere handling of an inanimate object; such as a weapon of any kind. It seems to me that we are here discussing not the weapon, but the criminal who would use it. I don't know how we make criminals. I do know why we fail to punish them; I do know why we fail to detect and apprehend them.

But it seems to me the matter of the criminal, the matter of the illegal use of firearms or other weapons, goes far more deeply than the matter under consideration and should only be considered briefly for the purpose of pointing out that we are here discussing the rent in the moral fabric of our society.

I have listened to Mr. Hoover, of the FBI, speak with great feeling upon some of the contributions we make to the delinquency of our youth. I don't know how many toy machineguns will be sold this Christmas, but I imagine it will run into the hundreds of thousands. So children can go out and play to kill one another; cops and robbers; cowboys and Indians. I don't know how many hours a day we drench our children with television in which we must kill at least two or three in every half-hour program to have it profitable to the advertiser, and apparently passing the approval of society.

Likewise and I certainly shall not discuss it, because the members of the committee are more studied than I am on the subject-the matter of environment, home, education, housing, employment and all of the tenets that go to make up our society, economic, sociological, and psychological.

It was incongruous that the President, who had showed the most interest in mental health of any to my knowledge, became the victim of one demented-one who at the age of 11 was diagnosed a schizophrenic with paranoid tendencies. There was then, and there is now, in the State where he was diagnosed, no means, no treatment, no custody sufficient to remove him from society, to treat him, or to go through the processes of reorientation.

In 1949 I sugggested the formation of the National Association of Mental Health. Subsequently, through the efforts of the American Legion, the National Association of Mental Health came into being. And I do believe that while its accomplishments have certainly not attained the maximum, they have made some contributions to our social welfare.

I would say that we would not have lost our beloved President if we would have had proper facilities, either for custodial or remedial care for the assassin, some 20 years ago.

I feel that we are discussing here—or the committee is considering here a matter of deep import, going back to the fact that it is the individual and not the weapon under consideration.

I am for this bill, as it is amended, with one or two minor suggestions that I would like to make to the committee. I am only appear

ing out of the belief that others will follow who are going to ask this committee to make far more stringent coercive limitations that will render impractical-if not impossible the private ownership of firearms for the legitimate use of lawful people, law-abiding people. I think that probably Professor Wolfgang, the head of the Sociology Department at Pennsylvania University, made a prophetic statement when he said:

It is the impression of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if the firearm were not immediately present, and the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal. Probably only in those cases where a felon kills a police officer or vice versa, would homicide be avoided in the absence of a firearm.

Professor Wolfgang is one of the outstanding men in his chosen field, to my personal knowledge. He states many other problems, or many other axioms that I shall not burden the committee with. But they all point to the proposition that a man who is base, demented, malicious, or born to avarice, who would take the life of another illegally and unlawfully would certainly either have to make the selection of another weapon or achieve the weapon of his choice.

It might likewise be noted here that in 1962, according to the best figures, based upon urban population of 123 million people, there were approximately 7,500 murders in the United States within the year of 1962. Fifty-four percent of these were achieved by the illegal use of firearms.

Now I do not think it will be disputed by anyone that a firearm is the most convenient, practical weapon that can be used for the taking of human life. Yet, in only 54 percent of the murders was it used. I would simply say that, if we are going to speak of weapons as such, the butcher knife in the kitchen only shortens the range. And the societies that preceded us some few centuries ago, when they did not have firearms, had a higher rate than we have and they killed with the weapons that they had at hand, back to the time when they threw rocks at one another.

I only make these statements in the hope that, regardless of the passionate statements that will be made by others, this committee will not be led into deliberations that will in any way impinge upon, restrict, or coerce, or arrest the legitimate use by the legal owner of a firearm in legitimate purposes.

I came from the State of John Dillinger. John Dillinger had machineguns, which the policemen of Indiana and those throughout the Nation did not have. I only say that-with the thought in view that at all times that the criminal has been able to provide himself with weapons to relieve the law-abiding citizen of the proper ownership of weapons would place him at their peril.

There are 30 million gun owners in the United States; this is an educated estimate. Military men throughout our entire history of warfare have pointed to the American soldier as being superb with small arms because from an early age he became familiar with them, learned to respect them, and from his association with the weapon built a feeling of high morale.

This is my experience as an infantryman. It has been my observation that the young man who has had the opportunity, and I will just use some extremes, who might have come from the hills of Kentucky and handled a rifle from the time he was able to walk, was far more

easily trained and a finer marksman than the unfortunate or less fortunate in this regard who might have come from a highly populated metropolitan area and was looking at a rifle for the first time.

I believe that the morale principle of an armed citizenry is a source of strength, a source of pride, and a backlog and reservoir of potential that should not be destroyed by impinging, arresting, or dissipating the legitimate use, ownership, and possession of firearms by our citizenry.

It may be noted here that when the Chinese encroached upon the borders of India, the citizenry of India matriculated in the armed forces and sent to the border of China did not perform; they could not orient themselves to firearms and combat.

They came to the National Rifle Association, sent a military commission here to the National Rifle Association, seeking their advice on how they could inculcate into their citizenry the necessary ingredients of reliance and morale to enable them to readily become combat soldiers.

I may say and I do not say this facetiously-that they were instructed to begin teaching the use of firearms in their schools. And it might be of interest that they purchased 50,000 air rifles in this country to begin that training upon the advice of the National Rifle Association.

I know it is hard for us sitting here to conceivably contemplate that this Nation would ever fall victim to insurrection or invasion. We are so strong politically, sociologically, economically, morally, with all of our defects, our morale is so high that sitting in these august chambers, it is a little difficult for us to ever conceive that what has in the past happened to other countries could ever befall us.

Yet, how do we know what will happen a hundred years or more hence? And I do not think we should trifle with any basic proposition that would become permanent and carry over into days we cannot forsee.

I would say this-it has been used here before this morning: The disarmament of England, its resultant disaster, and I would like to call further to your attention an old document that was in existence in May of 1919, when the Communists attempted to take over Germany immediately after World War I. (This occurred in Dusseldorf where the Communist revolutionary elements were congregated and making their preparation for internal revolution in Germany at that time.) They set forth three propositions. I am not going to read it all to you, but I would like, if I might, to place it in the record. Senator CANNON. Without objection, it will be placed in the record. (The material referred to follows:)

[Reprinted by permission of the American Rifleman, August 1946]

"RULES FOR REVOLUTION"

On a dark night in May 1919, two lorries rumbled across a bridge and on into the town of Dusseldorf. Among the dozen rowdy, singing "Tommies" apparently headed for a gay evening were two representatives of the Allied military intelligence. These men had traced a wave of indiscipline, mutiny, and murder among the troops to the local headquarters of a revolutionary organization established in the town.

Pretending to be drunk, they brushed by the sentries and arrested the ringleaders—a group of 13 men and women seated at a long table.