Mr. ORTH. No, sir; I don't-for several reasons. I think that the great patriotic organizations of America, nonprofit organizations, such as the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Rifle Association of America, and others, should have on public issues, concerning their membership-should have an opportunity to discuss these things with the Members of the Congress and with others who are interested for the benefit of the people as a whole. It has nothing to do with monetary or personal profit. It is for the purpose only of the good of the United States.

Senator DODD. Well, I understand that. It seems to me that your organization is doing what I would call lobbying against this measure. I think your comparative statement of income and expenses shows that this must be so.

In reading over the Lobbying Act it seems to me this kind of activity gets pretty close to it, if it is not actually engaged in lobbying under the act. I only mention it because I think it is something you ought to take a look at.

Finally-well, there is one other point I think we should make for the record.

On page 16 of your statement you indicate as follows:

I should like to see a further delineation of terms under which the Secretary of the Treasury could deny the issuance of a license if that officer felt that the applicant is, by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connections not likely to maintain operations in compliance with this act. Were you here when Mr. Cohen, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, testified?

Mr. ORTH. Yes, sir; I was here.

Senator DODD. Well, he said here on the record that this standard not only has been recognized by the courts as reasonable, but, in effect, it is a standard suggested by the Supreme Court.

Don't you think that this is all that we can expect? can we do?

What more

Mr. ORTH. Well, I think that more specific terms can be used and the types can be designated.

Senator DODD. All right.

Finally I am sure you heard the testimony here of the relative ease with which criminals in Washington, D.C., can buy guns in Prince Georges County, Md. Don't you think something should be done about that?

Mr. ORTH. Yes, sir. I think that we have a problem, and I think that a uniform kind of law is necessary. As a matter of fact, during the 1930's, when the Commissioners relating to uniform State laws were meeting, we tried to work out with them the proper type of law for use by the States. But the problem was that only seven States finally adopted it.

Senator DODD. This is something that troubles me. An effort was made in the State of Maryland to do something about this, and your organization opposed it. Yet you argue today you want it done by the States. Yet you put out a bulletin on June 8, 1964, in opposition to bill No. 13 of the Maryland Legislature to require a waiting period for a sale of a pistol.

How do you square that with what you say today?

Mr. ORTH. Well, as far as we are concerned, I just testified, as far as extending the waiting period in the District of Columbia this past week, and that I took the position that this was perfectly proper. We had suggested the uniform State law be adopted. I will look into that, I will find out about it. I don't happen to know about it-have it on the tips of my fingers. I think it should be examined and I think it is proper that you have called it to my attention.

Senator DODD. I am glad to hear you say that. I have the bulletin. It is dated June 8, 1964, "A bulletin issued as a service to its members by the National Rifle Association, 1600 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.," signed by Mr. Frank C. Daniel.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 61" and appears on page 216.)

Well, the significance of this is that here was the State of Maryand trying to get what I think is some reasonable and necessary control by State action. There was a public hearing. It ran into violent opposition. And among those who were heard were some of those who have been active against this bill. And they opposed it. It was not passed; it was defeated.

Mr. ORTH. Mr. Chairman, I understand there was a great deal more in that bill than just the waiting period that that wasn't particularly the frame of reference for the objection.

Senator DODD. Well, I have gone over that. There were other features to the bill, of course. But I observe that your organization never made any suggestions-just opposed the thing outright.

Mr. ORTII. Well, there have been, I think, cases where we have agreed with the legislation in the States, where we have urged it, and where it has been supported. And, as I say, during the past week in respect to the District of Columbia bill, I did testify for the extension of time, waiting period, for the police, because I think it is proper.

Senator Dopp. Yes; I wish you had done that, or someone else, when the Maryland Legislature tried to get that bill through. It sort of characterizes what we have been up against.

I am not speaking of you personally. But I think it is fair to say that many of those who support your organization-they opposed the first bill I introduced. When the situation worsened I had to amend it. They opposed that. The situation has further worsened. I have introduced a new bill. Now they go back and say they would take the first or the second one, but they would not take them at the time.

It seems to me we have been in a crossfire. I wonder if they really want anything done at all?

Mr. ORTH. I am sure that they do.

Senator DODD. I hope so.

Mr. ORTH. Mr. Carter is here, and I think that he can make a statement on the record to that effect, also.

Senator DODD. Well, I know Mr. Carter, think very highly of him. I would be glad to hear him.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Senator.

We certainly have a problem here in that we can make decisions, but we have not necessarily convinced all of our 700,000 members.

We do our best to exercise whatever instruments of leadership there are available to us.

TO:

SUBJECT:

June 8, 1964

All NRA Members and Clubs in Prince George's County, Maryland

Bill No. 13, to Require a Waiting Period for the Transfer of a Pistol

An ordinance has been proposed by the Board of County Commissioners to amend the existing weapons law of the County.

A public hearing on the proposed firearms ordinance will be held at the Court House in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, on Tuesday, June 16, 1964 at 1:00 P. M. The ordinance will be acted upon on that date.

The principal provisions of the proposed law are as follows:

a. Wholesale and retail dealers in pistols must register with the County
Superintendent of Police. No person or firm may engage in the business
of selling at retail or renting pistols without having a properly approved
registration statement from the Superintendent.

b. No dealer may sell or transfer any pistol to any person under 21 years
of age, or to any person who the dealer has reasonable cause to believe has
been convicted of a crime of violence, has been committed to an institution
for mental illness or drug addiction and has not been discharged there from for
a period of 3 years preceding the date of application, or to any person who
has been validly denied the right to purchase or acquire a handgun by the
Superintendent of Police.

c. No registered dealer may deliver any pistol to the purchaser until 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) have elapsed from the time the application has been received by the Superintendent of Police. On the day of receipt, the Superintendent shall mail a card to the dealer, stating the time and date of receipt of the application.

d. A person who wishes to purchase a pistol must fill out an application
stating his name, address, occupation, place and date of birth, date and hour
of application, and a statement that he has never been convicted in this State
or elsewhere of a crime of violence, that he is not an habitual drunkard, or
a drug addict, and that he has never been committed to an institution for
treatment of mental illness.

e. The Superintendent must destroy all applications within 10 days of receipt,
but must maintain registration of such pistols.

£. If the dealer does not receive, in writing, a disapproval from the
Superintendent within 10 days, the dealer may transfer the pistol to the
purchaser.

g. A denial by the Superintendent may be appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners. A confirmation of the denial by the Board may be appealed
to the Circuit Court of the County.

h. Among the exceptions to the ordinance are: (1) rental of pistols by
persons over 21 years of age while upon a supervised range; (2) purchases
of handguns by a registered dealer; (3) the delivery of a pistol to its
lawful owner by any person with whom such pistol has been left on consignment,
for safe keeping, or for repairs.

The principal purpose of this proposal is a waiting period for the purchase, borrowing, renting or otherwise acquiring of a pistol from a registered dealer. The majority of jurisdictions in the Greater Washington Metropolitan area already have a waiting period requirement. Only Montgomery and Prince George's Counties do not have such a requirement. However, a similar proposal was recently tabled by the Montgomery County Council.

The citizens of Prince George's County should judge for themselves whether or not such a waiting period, in the light of existing conditions and atmosphere, will be a desirable addition to the present County law.

The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the County, and whether or not the length of the waiting period is reasonable.

Recent reports in the press stated that the County Grand Jury recommends more regulation than a waiting period. This body went on record as favoring a permit for. the purchase of a handgun by any person, without exception.

As to the proposed minimum age of 21 years for the transfer of a pistol, it should be noted that existing Maryland law prohibits the sale of any firearm or ammunition to any minor under the age of 18 years without the express permission of a parent or guardian of such minor.

Shooter-sportsmen should make an effort to attend the hearing on Tuesday afternoon, June 16. If this is not possible, then the sportsman should--by wire, phone call or personal visit--let the members of the Board of County Commissioners know what he thinks of this proposal. Their address is County Commissioners, Prince George's County, Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

When giving your opinion, be objective and persuasive--never abusive.

Frank C. Daniel
Secretary

Members of the Prince George's County Board of Commissioners:

Frank J. Lastner, Chairman

M. Bayne Brooke, Vice-Chairman

Jesse S. Baggett

Gladys Noon Spellman

Robert F. Sutphin

The principal idea is that we wish to be in a position of responsibility. I have recently appointed a committee, an NRA committee, on law and order, to do the thing in the organization which we have always attempted to do as individuals.

We really do feel a keen sense of responsibility here. And it is partly a responsibility of leadership.

We believe in the objectives that you are working for, and we believe in the objectives in the President's statement on crime, on March 8, this year.

Senator DODD. Yes; I think that the NRA could be a tremendous influence for good in this field, and it should be. I know the attitude of their officers, in general and particular. I have consulted with them often, I am glad to say publicly.

The thing I have been having great trouble with has come from the members, some others in the organization who certainly were not following his lead, as I think they should have. And the net result has been a tremendous amount of confusion in this regard.

I remember going on television and radio, being asked what about the NRA. I said over and over again, its officials are for this legislation. My colleagues in Congress, would say, How in the world can this be true, when they get this mountain of mail from the membership? So that is where we find ourselves this morning.

I hope maybe in the new newsletter you can straighten this out and correct the mistakes, and perhaps saying you are for some legislation. Mr. CARTER. We will certainly be happy to give that consideration, Senator.

Senator DODD. Thank you.

I thank you, General. I hope you and I continue to work together and get this bill through.

Mr. ORTH. We shall.

(The N.R.A. newsletter of April 9, 1965, referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 62" and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 62

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

Washington, D.C., April 9, 1965.

DEAR NRA MEMBER: In January 1965, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (Connecticut) introduced S. 14, a bill designed to regulate the mail-order sale of guns. Senator Dodd declared his intention to be the regulation of mail-order gun business for the purpose of eliminating sales to juveniles, criminals, and persons who would be in violation of State law or local ordinance in receiving the gun.

On March 22, 1965, Senator Dodd introduced S. 1592, recommended by the administration. This bill goes far beyond the previously stated purpose of regulating only the mail-order gun business.

S. 1592, the latest bill, prohibits all mail-order sales to individuals and permits such sales only between licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers. Thus it places harsh and unreasonable restrictions upon law-abiding citizens who wish to order sporting firearms (rifles and shotguns) by mail, especially those citizens who do not have convenient access to licensed dealers for over-the-counter sales. This bill, if enacted, would give the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, unlimited power to surround all sales of guns by dealers with arbitrary and burdensome regulations and restrictions.

Anyone engaged in the manufacture of ammunition would be required to have a $1,000 manufacturer's license. Apparently this would apply to a club engaged in reloading for its members. Anyone selling any rifle ammunition, even .22 caliber, would be compelled to have a $100 dealer's license. This would eliminate the usual hardware and other small store sales.

If you transported your rifle or shotgun to another State for a lawful purpose, such as hunting, you would have to comply with such burdensome restrictions and redtape as might be required by the regulations.

A dealer could not sell to a nonresident of his State. This provision, and the restrictions on transporting guns from one State to another, could be unduly restrictive on a great many people who live near State boundaries or those who must go into another State to shop.