1. Section 2, page 5, line 25, and page 6, line 1

"SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL ACTS.-(a) It shall be unlawful for any person (except an importer, manufacturer, or dealer licensed under the provisions of this act) to transport, ship, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, except

"(1) that in the case of a shotgun or rifle (other than a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle) nothing in this subsection shall be held to preclude an individual traveling in interstate or foreign commerce from transporting such shotgun or rifle (or having such shotgun or rifle transported for him under such conditions as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe), if such transportation is for a lawful purpose;".

Comment: A legitimate owner of a shotgun or rifle traveling across State lines, because of circumstances beyond his control, often desires to have his firearms shipped or transported to him. One example might be a businessman who finds, during the course of a business trip, that an unplanned opportunity arises while in another State for him to enjoy a day or more of hunting, competitive shooting, etc. Normally he would write, wire, or phone his home and ask his wife or family to ship the desired firearm to him.

There is no possible way of knowing at this time what regulations the Secretary might prescribe but past experience leads us to believe such regulations likely would involve filling out forms, perhaps obtaining a permit, and other timeconsuming efforts. We believe legal means of such shipment or transportation should be spelled out now and should be available for public and congressional review. They likewise should be measured in terms of what the effect, if any, might be on the criminal misuse of firearms.

2. Section 2, page 6, lines 10 and 11

"(2) that in the case of a pistol or revolver, nothing in this subsection shall be held to preclude an individual traveling in interstate or foreign commerce from transporting a pistol or revolver, possessed and carried in conformity with the law of each particular State into (or through) which the pistol or revolver is transported (or having the pistol or revolver transported for him under such conditions as the Secretary or his delegate shall by regulations prescribe ***" Comment: Since it is already illegal to ship a handgun through the mails, we would assume the intent of this delegation of power to regulate to the Secretary is designed to permit similar restrictions on shipment or transportation by common carriers. Again, however, we see no reason for permitting any individual unlimited choice of regulation. We have no objection to placing control over the shipment of concealable guns-but we feel such controls should be spelled out in the law.

3. Section 2, page 6, lines 22 and 23

"(3) that in the case of a shotgun or rifle (other than a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle) or a pistol or revolver, nothing in this subsection shall be held to preclude a person from shipping such a firearm to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer for authorized service and return of such firearms to the sender under such conditions as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe:".

Comment: Since the Federal Firearms Act already requires every licensed manufacturer, importer, and dealer to keep complete and accurate records on every firearm received and disposed of, we question the need for any additional regulations on the shipment of a firearm for normal service and repair. And, as Congessman John P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, recently discovered, local authorities, police officials, and even the Secretary of the Treasury can take advantage of broad authority and impose unnecessary and illegal regulations on such shipments.

4. Section 2, page 7, lines 17 and 18

"(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearms to any person"(1) without following the required procedures for ascertaining (in such a manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe) the identity and place of residence ***.”

Comment: Ascertaining the identity and place of residence of any person is comparatively simple. We fail to see the need for granting the Secretary additional authority in this regard. The law could very easily spell out the means

49-588-65- -18

of proof (driver's license, draft registration, hunting or fishing license, etc.) of identity and residence.

5. Section 3, page 11, lines 13 and 14

"SEC. 3. (a) No person shall engage in business as a firearms or ammunition importer, manufacturer, or dealer until he has filed an application with, and received a license to do so, from the Secretary. The application shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe. Comment: We have no objection to granting the Secretary authority to prescribe the form and information to be included in an application for a Federal license. This is basically an administrative problem, rather than a legal problem. 6. Section 3, page 16, lines 14 and 15

"(g) Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, and sale and other disposition, of firearms and ammunition at such place, for such period and in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe."

Comment: We feel that Congress should spell out in detail the form in which licensees shall keep records on the receipt, sale, or disposition of firearms. Attention should be called, however, to regulations already in existence (p. 177 of title 26, Code of Federal Regulations). We cannot see the need for any additional regulation.

In this connection, we should point out that the real weakness in the present Federal Firearms Act is not so much in the records kept by dealers, manufacturers, and importers as it is in their apparent legal right to accept a simple signed statement by the purchaser that the firearm he is to receive is one to which he is entitled by State and local law and that he has not been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of 1 year or more. We question whether or not licensees really have the right to accept such a simple and unsworn statement in the case of handguns or concealable weapons which are so closely regulated by State and local laws and are commonly used in committing crimes of violence. Certainly there is overwhelming evidence that many criminals and juveniles are acquiring firearms through mail orders-firearms to which they are not legally entitled. We would suggest to the Congress that an investigation be conducted to ascertain why dealers who made such shipments, and the criminals or juveniles who received them, have not been prosecuted for illegal ownership and possession. Since present law provides that licenses can be revoked and Federal penalties involving fines up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 5 years imposed on anyone who sells or ships firearms to criminals or to those not entitled to them by State and local law, we likewise would suggest a much greater enforcement effort be made to apply the law where it will do some good-namely, on unscrupulous dealers and on known criminals and juvenile delinquents who illegally order guns from such dealers.

7. Section 3, page 17, lines 18 and 19

"(i) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify (or cause to be identified), in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer."

Comment: We feel that Congress should specify how firearms should be marked or identified rather than grant additional harassment authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. Most American-made rifles and handguns now contain a manufacturer's serial number and this presents no problem to the manufacturer or the owner.

Mr. KIMBALL. I would last like to comment in connection with the comments made by the Attorney General, where he states-where he comments about the NRA objections, and the letter which described this measure as one which "conceivably could lead to the elimination of the private ownership of all guns."

The Secretary says:

I am compelled to say that this is not conceivable. I am compelled to say that there is only one word which can serve in reply to such a fear, and that is preposterous.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I beg to disagree with the Attorney General on this statement.

I think that with these seven provisions in the bill, which has been given to an executive or a Cabinet officer in the executive branch of the Government, such wide discretionary authority could conceivably lead to the elimination of the private ownership of all guns. Continued harassment by making people fill out forms, to appear before agencies or notary publics, to have waiting periods, and then when you appear if you are emotionally upset in the eyes of some officer or member of the executive branch of the Government, conceivably you would have to come back again, ad infinitum. And with thesethis broad authority, if you had a Secretary of the Treasury who was inclined to harass in a way, conceivably I think he could, to the point where most people would give up and say it is not worth owning or possessing a firearm to have to go through all of this.

So I would say it is not preposterous that this could happen under the provision of Š. 1592.

Now, the reason that I say this, Mr. Chairman, is that some statements may have been made by several members of Congress and the Attorney General in connection with the objectives of this bill. Again, I am quoting from the Attorney General dealing with the constitutionality of this bill.

With respect to the second amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago made it clear that the amendment did not guarantee to any individual the right to bear arms. I offer for the record a second memorandum which I have had prepared in consultation with representatives of the Secretary of the Treasury. It documents the opinion that the right to bear arms protected by the second amendment relates only to the maintenance of the militia.

Now, does this mean, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury feel that the individual in America does not have the right to bear arms, and is this their objective in this particular bill?

I think that the committee ought to request some specific comment from these individuals on this particular record that has been made.

One other comment now that I would like to make in connection with the statement made by Senator Robert F. Kennedy, on May 20. He said:

Every year thousands of Americans are killed by firearms, 9,300 in 1964 alone. The great majority of these deaths would not have occurred if firearms had not been readily available, for the evidence is clear that the availability of firearms is itself a major factor in these deaths.

I don't like to put words into Senator Kennedy's mouth, but this raises the question in my mind at least as to whether or not the solution then is to make firearms not available, because as long as we permit individuals in this country-and there are 20 million of them nowto have guns, and to use them for lawful purposes, they are going to be readily available. And the only way that we are going to remove that availability is to take their guns away from them. And it is expressions such as this which gives us considerable concern about the intent of S. 1592.

Now, if the concern is about crime and the use of guns in crime, this is one thing.

If it is to make guns unavailable to the American public, then this is another.

And from the statements that have been made before this committee, it leaves some doubt in my mind as to just what this objective is.

So that in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that our organization is just as interested as the members of this committee in reducing the crime rate in America and in enacting a law which would assist in reducing this crime rate as it relates to the use of guns.

As I have stated before, we concede that the committee has built a very fine record in connection with the problems of concealable weapons. We feel that in this area of legislation now it ought to be concerned solely with concealable weapons-that the use of rifles and shotguns should be eliminated.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but if you includes rifles and shotguns, you are opening up a whole new era of gun legislation in the United States. There is only one other State in the United States that has any restriction on the sale and possession of the sporting long gun, rifles and shotguns, and that is the State of Hawaii. And if this legislation, S. 1592, is enacted, it will say in essence that--to the States and to the local entities, that the control of concealable weapons is not enough, that you now must proceed to enact laws which would bring the rifle and the shotgun under control at the local and State level.

And, also, Mr. Chairman, I question whether or not criminals really are going to pay any attention to the law anyway. We have plenty of laws on the statute books now which make it unlawful for criminals to do what they do. And merely enacting another law is not going to reduce the crime rate.

I think that the energy best be spent in encouraging our courts to dispose of the great amount of individuals who are to be tried for crimes of violence-as in New York, only 10 percent of them. I think that by providing additional money for additional law enforcement-I have read here in the District they cannot hire enough policemen to meet the number they have authorized now, and there is talk about the need to double that force. The pay that the law enforcement men receive, their condition of recruiting all these things have a bearing on the crime rate. And this is the area of activity which I think needs considerable looking into and strengthening if we are to make any real headway in solving our crime problems in this country.

(The prepared statement referred to follows:)

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

Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation which maintains its headquarters here in Washington, D.C. The federation is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. Our organization, with 175,000 associate members, other supporters, and affiliated State organizations, is comprised of approximately 2 million persons interested in conservation and the proper management of this Nation's natural resources. Mr. Chairman, the Sport Fishing Institute, of Washington, D.C.-a nonprofit, professionally staffed, national fish conservation organization, has asked to be associated with these remarks, and with your kind permission, may the record so state.

The federation appreciates your invitation to express our views on the subject of firearms control, specifically the bill now under consideration (S. 1592). Many of our members use sporting arms in hunting and competitive shooting. Like all Americans, we deplore the misuse of firearms by a very small minority of our citizens and are deeply concerned with the shadow cast by these criminal or accidental acts over the legitimate use of firearms by the great majority of lawabiding persons.

Some persons may wonder why our organization is concerned with the sale, transportation, ownership, and use of firearms. Our basic objective is to create and encourage an awareness among the people of this Nation as to the need for wise use and sound management of our natural resources—soils, waters, forests, minerals, plants, and wildlife. Like you, and all members of this subcommittee, however, we believe conservation should start and end with the most valuable natural resource of them all-human life. Because of this concern, we feel it is our duty to express our beliefs on the use of firearms by the American people.

We believe, furthermore, that America's greatness stems in large part from our heritage of being a nation of marksmen and skilled riflemen. From the moment when the "shot heard round the world" was fired on that Lexington green almost 200 years ago down to this very day, we Americans have been recognized, and respected, as being the world's best armed and most powerful country. Throughout every generation and in every war or police action in which we have been involved, our freedom has been preserved by men armed with guns-the foot soldier carrying a rifle, carbine, or pistol. Even at this very moment, our security and that of the free world is being protected, not so much with jet aircraft or guided missiles or atomic bombs as it is with individual riflemen in the jungles of Vietnam and the strife-torn cities of the Dominican Republic.

We are concerned, finally, with firearms legislation-particularly with any laws that would unnecessarily restrict the sale and legitimate use of sporting arms and ammunition, because of the effect such restriction would have on the conservation movement in the United States. Ever since the birth of this great effort to conserve and wisely use our natural resources, there has been a lot of talk about conservation. Like motherhood and patriotism, everyone is for it. But, unlike most people, the sportsmen of this country, licensed to pursue game in season, have done something about it-not only physically but financially.

Last year more than 14 million licensed hunters in the United States spent more than $132 million for hunting licenses permitting them to participate in a healthy, challenging form of outdoor recreation. This money forms the backbone of the conservation movement. It supports-and in most States is the entire support of-State game and fish agencies charged by law with the protection and management of all types of wildlife. Their efforts go far beyond taking care of only the game, or hunted, species and include protection of the song and insectivorous birds, the birds of prey, furbearing animals, and other valuable species. This money has been used to purchase wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other types of land which are open to all the public for recreational use, regardless of whether or not such use involves hunting during established open seasons. These hunting fee funds also finance law-enforcement activities which protect nongame as well as game species.

Licensed hunters of this Nation have made even greater contributions to the cause of conservation because of their willingness-indeed their insistencethat they be required to pay an 11-percent Federal excise tax on all sporting arms and aminunition purchased in the United States for the purpose of wildlife restoration, research, and improved management. Carried out under terms of the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, this great program has involved the expenditure of $255,727,125.45 since its inception-each three of these Federal dollars matched by one State dollar contributed exclusively by hunting license purchasers. In total, the hunters of this Nation who depend on their use of shotguns and rifles as the basic equipment for their sport have financed the cause of wildlife conservation to the extent of $340,969,500 in this one program alone-a program that benefits not only themselves but all other citizens who enjoy the sight and sound of wild creatures. We are therefore gravely concerned that the harassment of law-abiding citizens in their efforts to acquire and become proficient in the use of firearms by law enforcement and Government bureaucracy could lead to a diminution of wildlife management financing. Like all law-abiding Americans, however, we deplore the misuse of firearms for any purpose. We stand ready, willing, and able to do our part in aiding proper authorities in their attempts to control the criminal use of firearms. The federation under resolutions passed unanimously by official delegates to our annual meetings, has a longstanding policy of supporting those principles which would impose greater restrictions and penalties on the sale, possession, or use of firearms by criminals, juveniles, mental incompetents, and habitual drunkards or dope addicts. At the same time, however, we believe the right of responsible, adult citizens to possess, bear, and use firearms for lawful purposes must not be infringed.