The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions, but, Bob, we thank you for coming over. We appreciate your contribution. And this is a difficult subject.

Mr. SIKES. An extremely difficult subject. I commend this committee for the thoroughness with which it is going into it. It is something which certainly must be studied carefully and I am sure the matter is in good hands in this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you.

Senator CANNON. Thank you.

The next witness is the Honorable John J. Flynt, Congressman from the State of Georgia.

Congressman Flynt, we are very happy to have you here this morn

ing.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. FLYNT. Thank you, Senator Cannon.

Mr. Chairman, I am John J. Flynt, Jr., U.S. Representative from Georgia.

It is a pleasure to appear before this committee. During a long period of service on the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, we had many legislative interests which we share. I remember with a great deal of pleasure serving on conference committees with members of this committee and it is a pleasure to again be with you today.

I would like to express my support of the bill known as the Dodd bill, as amended. I think that it presents the most reasonable approach and by far the best approach which could be made to this allembracing and very comprehensive subject.

The manner in which the Senate Commerce Committee has approached this subject is indeed praiseworthy. I think that everyone who has studied this subject matter, has taken a genuine interest in it, and has sought diligently for a solution to the problem which we must face certainly is in full accord with the procedures which the Senate Commerce Committee is following in exploring this subject.

It is not necessary for me to comment on the danger of haste in this subject, because the actions of your chairman and indeed of your entire committee have certainly eliminated any possibility of ill-advised legislation being passed immediately following the tragedy which put the entire population of America-and perhaps the world-in a state of high emotionalism.

It is proper, I think, however, to call to the attention of the committee for record purposes, if for no other, the inherent danger of acting upon legislation such as this which might be based upon an emotional demand for the control and undue registration of guns and firearms, and relate this demand to the tragedy which occurred on November 22, 1963.

Some have sought to assess blame for that tragedy upon the ownership of a particular gun and thereby have sought to make a whipping boy out of every gun owner, gun collector, sportsman, gun purchaser, and gun dealer in the United States.

I am sure that the committee realizes that nothing could be further from the truth than that basic statement that every gun owner must share this blame. The gun owners are no more required to share this blame than the owner of an automobile in the State of Washington would be required to share the blame for an automobile accident in my State of Georgia which might take the life of one or more of ourcitizens.

I am not attempting to assess the blame for that on any group other than the individual who may have pulled the trigger and-if there were any associates with him-of course, upon them. I think it would be very unwise to pass legislation which could strike at a basic right which Americans have cherished for centuries in order to assess blame for the tragedy which befell this Nation.

One of the prized possessions of Americans has been the right to own and possess firearms and to use these firearms in defense of country, in defense of home, in self-defense, provided that use is done in a legal and legitimate manner.

The attitude toward firearms has become a historical tradition in the United States. I think it is safe to say that it represents a priceless freedom won by those preceding us as Americans, which few if any other nations enjoy. So strong was the conviction of early Americans about the right of law-abiding citizens to own, possess, and use firearms for lawful purposes, that there was included in an early amendment to the U.S. Constitution a provision that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So important was this limitation that it immediately follows the prohibition against violations of the rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

The right to keep and bear arms was exceedingly precious in the early days of our country.

Mr. Chairman, that right is equally precious today. Colonial farmers with their muskets helped this Nation to win the Revolutionary War. On the westward march of progress, on the frontiers of moving westward, a gun was usually the pioneer family's only protection against wild animals, prowling savages, and criminal desperadoes. It was necessary and accepted that young and old alike be intimately acquainted with firearms and that they use them as part of their everyday life; provided of course that they were used in a legal fashion.

Guns have been and will continue to be constructive tools in America. Today they are used to build healthy minds and healthy bodies, to help develop self-discipline, initiative, and team spirit, to help prepare our young men to defend American ideals, both within and outside the armed services of our country.

Hunting and shooting are wholesome forms of recreation which may be enjoyed for a lifetime. The development of firearms traces the historical progress of our Nation and the possession of them, individually and by law-abiding groups, offers a fascinating hope by too many Americans with real historical value.

Unfortunately, there has entered in the mainstream of American life a prejudice against firearms, a prejudice really against the simple ownership of guns.

Why, Mr. Chairman, if a would-be dictator or would-be tyrant, as the expression used to be, were to come to me and ask me for my advice on how to help him achieve his ambition and his goal of dictatorship, I think I would be compelled in all fairness-if I were to give him any advice to tell him to begin with some unreasonable requests to require central registration of all firearms and all shotguns and all weapons used primarily, of course, for home defense or for sports. I say that for this reason: If a totalitarian dictator should suddenly seize power, the first way that he could prevent a recapture of American liberties and individual freedoms would be the immediate confiscation of all guns which are owned by a law-abiding citizen.

I am sure that this committee and this Congress will not be hastily led astray into legislation which could possibly accelerate any take over of power which I have hypothetically described.

Mr. Chairman, I have full confidence in this committee and its membership and the approach which your committee is taking toward this subject matter. I don't think it is necessary for me to go into any lengthy explanation on this.

I think that the committee and its membership is aware of my feelings on it.

I would, however, like to associate myself with and to endorse the statement which was just made by my distinguished colleague, the Representative from Florida, Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes. He has made a very clear presentation and I think that if I were to continue longer, that I would merely repeat some of the things he has said. I certainly would concur in the objective of the subject matter upon which your committee is now holding hearings and I urge care and caution which I know you will exercise in the reporting out of legislation on this subject.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your contribution and what you have said, what you and Bob Sikes have said in effect, really what you are asking is for the members of committees not to act under emotional stress in this matter. It is a difficult subject. I have seen to many laws passed to try to achieve a good purpose and we accomplish the reverse.

We are all trying to minimize the unlawful use of firearms, but you sometimes do more harm if, in order to do that, you restrain the lawful use of firearms which, as you pointed out, is very historic in this country.

I don't know but if a person wants to commit a heinous crime, and use a firearm, I suspect that no matter what kind of a law you had on the books, he would get it somehow.

Mr. FLYNT. And he would not use, in all probability, one that was registered in his name.

The CHAIRMAN. I remember when I was a prosecuting attorney in my home county, it seems to me (I haven't got the figures) that most of the armed robberies and vicious crimes that were committed by use of firearms, in 8 or 9 out of 10 cases, which were stolen-deliberately stolen so that they couldn't be traced, so it is a difficult subject. I think we are all trying to do the best we can on it as I said, in order to minimize these grave possibilities.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you both for coming.

Mr. FLYNT. We thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (presiding). All right.

Senator Cannon had to leave for just a few minutes. He will be back. But he has on his list here an old friend of the committee, the Honorable James V. Bennett, Director of the Bureau of Prisons. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Bennett.

STATEMENT OF JAMES V. BENNETT, DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, gentleman of the committee, I am James V. Bennett, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons since 1937, a lawyer, a member of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, and someone who has been interested in this problem of more effective firearms control since 1934, when the first National Firearms Act was passed.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, Jim, before you begin. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. BENNETT. I am here at the request of the Deputy of the Attorney General to give you the views of the Department of Justice and to express the wish that we will be happy to cooperate with the committee in any way that you think proper.

I am here because I have seen in my official capacity the importance and the serious role that guns play in the commission of crimes. I am personally convinced that many of these crimes would not have been committed and many of these men would not have come to prison if guns had not been so easily accessible.

All of the data I have pointed to the fact that many serious crimes could be avoided if it was made much more difficult for guns to come into the possession of the unstable, the embittered, and the hostile.

Bank robbery, for example, is a crime that is almost always committed with a gun.

With the large number of weapons in this country, the crime of bank robbery is also on the increase. This year, the number of bank robberies may approach the appallingly high number we had during the crime-ridden gangster heyday of 1932 which were the precursors of the present laws.

In my testimony before the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee, I submitted a number of robberies where the stickup men actually bought their guns on the way to the bank. Securing a gun was the least troublesome element of their plots, presenting a problem no more difficult than purchasing a pack of cigarettes.

Only yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I looked over the statement that an unemployed steel worker gave the police department when he was apprehended in the act of robbing a Pennsylvania bank. Pennsylvania, as you know, has a law requiring a 48-hour waiting period to buy a hand gun, but this man avoided calling attention to his purchase merely by placing a mail order. He saw the ad in a magazine: $24.95 for a .45 caliber Colt, with a 6-inch barrel, blue steel, as he described it. He also ordered a box of ammunition and got 50 rounds for $2.50.

When the police asked why he bought the gun, he responded that he ordered it strictly to rob the bank. The company who sold it, incidentally, was the same one that sold Oswald his rifle.

And Mr. Chairman, if you please, I will submit if you care to have me do so, an exact transcript of the testimony of that man where he says he bought the gun and how.

This isn't an isolated case, either; there are many that are worse. This offender at least never fired his gun.

Last year, it was my gruesome duty to have to be responsible for the execution of a man for kidnaping and murder. This man had served time in a Wisconsin prison and had received treatment for mental illness during his sentence. Shortly after he was released, he went to a sporting goods store, bought a gun over the counter, no questions asked. With the gun he killed a dentist and stole his car. Fortunately, he was apprehended and they asked him how he got the gun. But of course it was too late for that question.

It is sometimes charged, Mr. Chairman, that areas without gun controls have less-or at least no more-crime than areas with gun controls. There are numerous ways of assessing the value of gun control, but perhaps one of the best is a comparison of homicide rates.

During 1962, five cities, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Detroit, all of which have varying degrees of gun regulation, had homicide rates to this effect: In New York, homicide rate was 5.4 per 100,000 of general population; Chicago, 7.6; Los Angeles, 6; Philadelphia, 4.9; Detroit, 5.5.

But the city of Dallas, which has no gun controls whatever, had a rate of 13.4, almost three times the rate of Philadelphia, for instance. Pennsylvania has some pretty good laws.

Many States have laws regulating in some way the sale and possession of firearms, but these are too often thwarted, frustrated, through mail-order sales or by purchase in neighboring States which do not have such regulations.

The District of Columbia, for example, has a provision in its code requiring a prospective purchaser of a pistol to fill out an application and wait 48 hours to conclude the transactions.

And in this statement which I will file with the committee, you will see that a number of States have this waiting period time. But lacking any meaningful controls over interstate shipments and any meaningful controls in Maryland and Virginia, the District of Columbia requirement is deprived of practically any real effectiveness. The Chief of Detectives in Washington, John B. Layton, reported to Senator Dodd on January 4 of this year that during the period January 1 to December 10, 1963, the police confiscated, seized, a total of 656 guns. Three hundred of these guns were of standard American manufacture, but 117 were distinctly mail-order-type weapons. The remaining 239 guns were of foreign and off brands, and these are the type most frequently vended through mail-order appeals.

This same proportion holds throughout the United States, so you can see where the very considerable problem is of mail orders and importation of foreign guns.

A study of the State statutes discloses a number of jurisdictions which try to provide some measure of supervision over the firearms traffic. The commendable efforts of these jurisdictions is all but