manufactured arms for several years but since they are of comparative recent ownership, even though of Western type, as I indicated just a moment ago, it is contrary to our policy to assist them in any way in their disposal effort. So we deny the importation there.

In the second case, where these are of Western manufacture the criterion of recent ownership we put at approximately 2 or 3 years. That is to say, if we can trace ownership back 2 to 3 years to any Soviet bloc entity, we deny the importation.

That attribute has been adopted, or that criterion has been adopted, for the simple reason that it has turned out to be extremely difficult and indeed impossible to trace back ownership earlier than 2 or 3 years.

Senator DODD. By recent, do you mean since World War II?

Mr. MARGRAVE. Insofar as manufacture is concerned, sir, that is

correct.

Senator DODD. Most of this stuff that we know about in this country, the majority of it anyway is, I would say, 25 or 30 years old. So that would go back beyond your marking point. So your policy, then, does not get at these surplus firearms.

Mr. MARGRAVE. The purpose of the Department's policy in this field, sir, is to preclude the possibility of any benefit to Soviet-bloc countries either by enabling them to export newly manufactured material or recently owned material regardless of manufacture so as to avoid the possibility of an economic benefit, or benefit to their small arms producing industry.

Senator DODD. Don't you think it helps some when they are able to sell their 30-year-old military weapons?

Mr. MARGRAVE. Oh, yes, sir. If we are able to trace it back in any way to their disposal efforts, we deny it.

Senator DODD. Have you made an effort to trace any of it?

Mr. MARGRAVE. Yes, sir; through our embassy and consulates abroad, and through the use of appropriate intelligence agencies; yes, sir.

do

Senator DODD. You know today that a lot of it is military surplus, you not? Our files are filled with information on this.

Well, go ahead.

Mr. MARGRAVE. To continue with my statement, it should be observed at this point, however, that the present U.S. munitions list does not include as arms under the import control of the Secretary of State, either shotguns or firearms using only caliber 22 rimfire ammunition. Shotguns and .22 rimfire weapons can and do come into the United States from Soviet-bloc countries.

Senator DODD. I want to read you a letter which is in our files, written on the stationery of Hy Hunter, Inc., Firearms Manufacturing Co. of Hollywood, Calif. It is written to a man in Germany. It is the original letter. We subpenaed this last year.

Dear Mr. GraETZ: Under separate cover, I am air-mailing you a copy of a new catalog book that has been recently published here in the United States. I think it will be of great help to you in making up your own new catalog. It is very important for you to read very carefully the comments of the author in the very beginning of the book. Look at page VII, the third paragraph at the bottom of the page where he says the following: "Evidently, guns made in Soviet countries but purchased in free foreign countries such as

Western Germany are not subject to this restriction, and may be readily imported, and at rates applicable to free foreign countries."

I think that this is very important to you, and I suggest that you write a letter immediately to the U.S. Customs and the Munitions Control Division of the U.S. State Department, asking them if this is correct. If this is so, you should be able to buy your guns from Omnipol, East Germany, and sell them mail order into the United States without the buyer of the United States having to pay the extra duty. Look into this immediately as it could be very important to you.

This is how they are getting around it?

Mr. MARGRAVE. Yes. The mail-order business of Hy Hunter and its entities in Germany are and have been a matter of continuing

concern.

Senator DODD. What have you done about it? Is this the first time you have heard of it?

Mr. MARGRAVE. Of the mail-order business of Hy Hunter?

Senator DODD. Yes; of this going on, of this kind of a situation. Is this new to you this morning?

Mr. MARGRAVE. No, sir.

Senator DODD. What have you done about it?

Mr. MARGRAVE. I can read

Senator DODD. I know that you know about it. What have you done about it?

Mr. MARGRAVE. With respect to the mail-order business, "we have been in close and intimate association and contact and cooperation with the Department of Justice, with the Post Office Department, with the Bureau of Customs toward the end, and toward the objective of seeking to establish such violations of any and all laws and regulations which could be brought to bear on the mail-order business.

Senator DODD. You know we have warehouses all across this country filled with small arms ammunition bearing the label "Made in Russia." We know all about this. You must know about it, too. Mr. MARGRAVE. Yes, indeed, sir.

Senator DODD. I guess all you have done is confer about it. I really think you should do something about it. That is one of the reasons we put this section in the bill.

Are you really in sympathy with this section of the bill?

Mr. MARGRAVE. There is no question about it, the Department of State supports S. 1592 officially.

Senator DODD. I know the Department of State supports it. Do you personally?

Mr. MARGRAVE. Without question.

Senator DODD. All right, sir, go right ahead.

Mr. MARGRAVE. In addition to the grounds already stated, the Department of State will not issue a license to import firearms unless the Secretary of the Treasury is satisfied with the importer's compliance with the requirements of the National Firearms Act, or if there is any reason to believe the importer is not properly licensed under the Federal Firearms Act.

Further, if there is any reason to believe an importation of firearms or ammunition would be resold or reexported for purposes other than in accordance with applicable Federal law, the import would be denied.

The Office of Munitions Control cooperates with Federal security and law enforcement agencies as appropriate. If on the basis of our

own intelligence data or on the basis of information furnished by any appropriately concerned Federal agency there should appear any reason to question the bonafides of an import transaction, we would and in fact do deny the license application.

Under the present traffic in arms regulations all individuals engaged in the business of manufacturing, importation, or exportation of munitions are required to be registered. Also, penalties are provided for willful violations of these provisions.

However, I do not wish to mislead this committee. State has neither the facilities, nor the authority, to check the end use of import firearms as to their eventual employment in accordance with State and local laws. Imported firearms are subject to the same Federal, State, and local control once imported as all domestically produced and available firearms.

This brings me to point (1) of Mr. Perian's letter; that is, and to clarify that for the record, I should point out that I am referring to Mr. Perian's letter of April 15, 1965, to the Secretary of State in which he referred to the fact that this hearing would be held.

Point 1 of Mr. Perian's letter requested the position of the Department of State with respect to the specific provisions of S. 1592. I believe I have already adequately covered point 2 concerning the areas of responsibility of the Department of State in this matter. It is noted that the proposed legislation specifically does not modify or affect any provision of section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended.

Let me say at this point that the Department of State is in complete sympathy with the objective of S. 1592 which is the more effective control of interstate and foreign traffic in firearms. The specific provisions of S. 1592 appear to be directed essentially to the improvement of domestic public order and safety, matters somewhat outside the province of the foreign affairs functions of the Department of State. As to the particulars of the bill, we defer to the views of the cognizant Departments-Justice and Treasury.

With respect to point 3 of Mr. Perian's letter, that is to say, the effect which S. 1592 would have on the functions of the Department of State in this field

Senator DODD. You mean on the Office of Munitions Control?
Mr. MARGRAVE. Yes.

Senator DODD. What is unclear about it?

Mr. MARGRAVE. We are unclear as to the effect-I believe we then go on to say what we mean in that regard in the testimony.

The import control authority of the Secretary of State, while extending to all articles enumerated in the U.S. Munitions List, as a practical matter involves predominately small arms and ammunition therefor. Accordingly, the Department would wish to examine carefully the controls over the import of firearms vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by S. 1592 from the standpoint of whether they would be duplicative of the functions now performed by the Office of Munitions Control.

Senator DODD. I think I can clear that up for you. I understand if this bill passes the authority will pass from you to another department of the Government. Is that what is bothering you?

Mr. MARGRAVE. No, we are not bothered by it.

Senator DODD. Is that what is unclear?

49-588 0-65- -10

Mr. MARGRAVE. Yes, sir. It is purely the administrative aspects. And in fact, a little later in the testimony in the same paragraph, we point to a simple way in which this can be done.

Senator DODD. I think I am in a position to give you a very competent understanding of the bill. It is intended to take this control out of your hands.

Mr. MARGRAVE. Then it is no longer unclear, and it in no way affects the position of the Department of State. We fully support S. 1592.

Senator DODD. Go right ahead.

Mr. MARGRAVE. Again, on the same point, there would seem to be a real question of Government interest involved in not having two departments engaged in the administration of import controls of firearms. However, the reach of the Secretary of State's import control authority, is, as I indicated, much broader than firearms. There is also the matter of the administration of the 1958 amendment to the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (Public Law 85-477) which prohibits the importation for sale of military firearms or ammunition furnished to foreign governments under that act or any other foreign assistance prorgam. In any event, the department would certainly consider the question of duplication of functions and refer the matter with appropriate recommendations to the Bureau of the Budget. It would appear that any duplication of functions by the Department of State could be eliminated by amendment of the Executive order issued under section 414 and, therefore, it would not be necessary to add any provisions on this to S. 1592. It could be accomplished very simply. With respect to point 4 of Mr. Perian's letter, it is indeed difficult to determine what effect this would have on those countries which presently import firearms into the United States. One thing is clear-the overall effect of S. 1592 would be to reduce imports. We have already received a few commercial complaints from Western European armsproducing firms which have learned from their trade association of the introduction of S. 1592. The prohibition against the importation of surplus military weapons would bring about the most significant decrease in imports in terms of dollar value. The countries involved would be almost exclusively Western European, and principally Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Belgium. The foreign entities primarily affected would be dealers and brokers in used and surplus small arms. There are a number of "specialty houses" engaged in the manufacture of firearms "not particularly suitable for sporting purposes," such as the smaller caliber handguns, which would be excluded by S. 1592, that depend in considerable measure on the U.S. import market. Certainly firearms are not a major import of the United States, nor are they a major export of any country to the United States.

And that completes my testimony, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DODD. Very well. I think we covered the questions that I wanted to ask.

But I don't understand any better now than I did before these hearings opened how it is possible for this surplus military Soviet-bloc stuff to get into this country. And I think it is no secret that it is going on, and I think it could have been stopped. And I think much of our problem is a result of the failure to do so.

I thank you very much.

Mr. MARGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DODD. Captain Howe?

Captain Howe, we welcome you here. I will say for the record that you are an outstanding law-enforcement officer, and have been a member of the Los Angeles Police Department for 20 years, and you have extensive law-enforcement experience. We are interested in hearing your comments on this bill.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. MERTON W. HOWE, COMMANDER OF THE ROBBERY DIVISION, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator.

On behalf of Chief William H. Parker and the Los Angeles Police Department, I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear before you and to state our position with respect to Senate bill 1592.

First, I would like to say that because of the number of mail-order gun dealers in and around Los Angeles, Federal regulation curtailing the sale of guns as provided in the bill is extremely vital to us.

Some of the provisions of this act do not affect us because they are already covered by California State law. However, there are a number of sections that will assist us in our attempts to reduce the quantity of dangerous weapons falling into the hands of juveniles, felons, and paramilitary groups. These are the provisions I would like to discuss along with some of the problems now confronting our department and how they could be reduced with the passage of this measure.

The bill defines and brings under its provisions a "destructive device." This includes any explosive or incendiary bomb or grenade or rocket or missile or similar device or launching device therefor. The term also includes any type of weapon by whatsoever name known (other than a shotgun having a barrel of 18 or more inches in length), designed to expel a projectile by an explosion, the barrel of which has a bore of one-half inch or more in diameter.

The present Federal laws or laws of the State of California do not prohibit the sale or possession of such devices and there have been several instances in the last 2 years when our officers have been confronted by persons possessing such armanent. As I stated, these weapons are not illegal and some of our so-called legitimate gun dealers sell them over the counter or by mail order. Two recent examples are: The Robert Romero case and we have a group of pictures that I believe Mr. Perian has copies of, of a number of weapons seized in that— we arrested him for possession of a machinegun and found a variety of military explosive weapons including live land mines and hand grenades, which were illegal only because they were possessed in a residential area (which is a State violation); and, the Julius Eichman incident in which officers received information that a shipment of arms via Railway Express was to be delivered to a Hollywood bookstore. Investigation proved the information to be reliable in that four mortars and one antitank gun were sent from Pennsylvania to the bookstore and were picked up by a young adult who gave his name as Paul Hunt and said he was picking them up for Mr. Eichman. The possession of these weapons is not illegal, and, therefore, they could not be seized.

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30" and are as follows:)