knife or something else. And if it hadn't been a knife, they would have used a bottle, or a club, or some other thing, an icepick, and so on. So I don't know.

Senator DODD. Well, I only wanted to ask, because this argument has been made time and again. You quoted the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation this morning. He says that a gun is seven times more deadly than all other instruments used in assaults, murder, and aggravated crimes.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Well, I think that is right. And that perhaps is the reason why so many people use this method whenever they feel that they are going to do something.

But what we are trying to do, as I see it, is control the criminal element in this country, and in so doing I think certainly-and J. Edgar Hoover has said this very clearly-the place to start is to cut out this leniency.

Senator DODD. I don't have any argument with you about that. I think there is something to be said for this view.

But I don't see how this is a valid argument against this effort to get some kind of control over this dreadful traffic in firearms which, according to the law-enforcement people, is a great problem all across this Nation. There are many other things we have to do. But this is one thing it seems to me that we can do that will help. It won't stop everything, but it seems to me it will help somewhat.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I agree with that.

Now, there are certain things that disturb me, and disturb me no end. When I say me, I mean literally millions of people across this country, because in the last few days-again I have talked with a great many people about this publicity. It disturbs me, for example, Senator, to see this display back here.

Now, I was here the other day at the hearings, listening to this Mr.— what is it Margrave, or whatever his name is, and he indicated that they have adequate rules or laws that could control these weapons. Why is all this stuff displayed up here before we people and the TV cameras? What does this have to do with the problem? Why haven't we stopped the sales of this stuff long ago!

Senator DODD. Well, I agree. But we haven't. And it is hereMr. GUTERMUTH. OK. Like the guy says, let's get at that. Senator DODD. I am trying to.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Now, then, on your bill-and I told you this morning—we will cooperate and will work with you. In fact, for 2 years, a lot of the people with whom we are closely associated have worked, trying to assist your committee and you to perfect the kind of thing that you want.

Senator DODD. What disturbs you about these exhibits?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. What disturbs me-about these exhibits—is that I don't think they are pertinent.

Senator DODD. Let me point something out to you. You see the three rifles on the first board. They were guns used to commit murders in the District of Columbia.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right. But the sale of most of that other crap, as I call it, could have been stopped long ago. There isn't any reason to permit this sort of stuff to be spread across this country.

The antitank guns and all of those things-they are the things I was referring to when I pointed over my shoulder.

Senator DODD. Yes. But let me point out to you these weapons are being bought by people across this country in great numbers. I consider this a dreadful situation.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I do, too. And, of course, you have your bill in here, S. 1591, I think it is, which is a noble effort to control that situation. But, as I indicated this morning, if we are going to make changes, I would rather see the present laws that we have, the National Firearms Act, and the Federal Firearms Act, strengthened by what you want to do. I can't help but think that since we have those potent laws on the books, what we ought to do is strengthen them with whatever strengthening provisions are necessary.

Senator DODD. You know why we have these things here? We hired a man to join the Minutemen, and he did. He was instructed to get weapons. And so he went out and bought them. I am trying to get this bill through. And I am trying to demonstrate by exhibiting them what the situation is. I think it is a mighty important thing to do.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Well, you see, the point I wanted to make is, though I have no argument with your intentions. But I don't think that there is a single person in this room, Senator Dodd-there is not a single person within the hearing of my voice who doesn't agree with you that the sale of this bunch of stuff should be stopped.

Senator DODD. I don't think we have much difficulty on that point. Mr. GUTERMUTH. We have no argument about that. My only concern is that they make a big issue of this when we are in full support of the things that you want. Now, as I indicated this morning, if we could do some of the things that your original bill called for, in the control of concealable weapons, and if we could at the same time in drafting this legislation make provision where law-abiding citizens could do the things that are necessary to take care of law-abiding people, then we would have what you want. We would get at the criminal element.

Senator DODD. Well, anyway, we agree we ought to do something about this type of weapon.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Definitely; yes, sir.

Senator DODD. This morning you said:

Interestingly, it is in the metropolitan areas where the crime problem is most disturbing, and where the pressures of population appear to create the most cases of emotional instability.

I think there is something to this. But I think I should point out to you, and ask you to comment, if you care to do so, that according to the FBI statistics for the year 1963 the incidence of gun homicides in cities was 53 percent, in suburban areas it is 62 percent, and in rural areas, it is 68 percent.

Now, what do you say about that?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Well, of course, I would not even attempt to answer these things, because I must confess, as I said earlier, that these statistics floor me. They are based on population, they are based on concentration centers. One thing I do know, we have plenty of crime in New York City where we have had an effective Sullivan law for many years. And when I listened the other day to the state

ments on the rate of crime in the various big metropolitan cities, I saw that the city of Philadelphia was one of the lowest, and still the other day they handed-or I will say foisted, on the citizens of that city, one of the most restrictive pieces of firearm legislation that I have ever seen.

I don't know--I am going to watch with a great deal of interest to see whether or not that law has a material effect on crime in Philadelphia.

Senator DODD. Yes; I know about that. I complimented the member of the city council who introduced the ordinance. I felt it was a very good thing. And I think one of the reasons why Philadelphia has a low crime rate is that it has strict regulations.

But I am not arguing with you. You made the statement-I didn't as I read it to you, that it was in the metropolitan areas. I just point out to you that the experts in the field don't say so.

You can say what you want to about it. It is not for the purpose of arguing. But I am anxious to get accurate information here, and your information is inaccurate.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Well, I am not sure that it is actually inaccurate. It is a question of definitions again. On these statistics-I mentioned a minute ago they involve population concentration.

Senator DODD. Now, these FBI figures are just as available to you as they are to me, you know.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right.

Senator DODD. If you want to dispute them, that is your business.
But I want on the record what they show.

Now, on page 6 of your statement you pointed out the number of nonresident hunting licenses issued during 1963, and you went on to indicate that a nonresident hunter could not purchase a pistol or revolver outside of his home State.

Now, is not the long gun or the rifle or shotgun, as I asked this morning, the firearm most commonly used by hunters and sportsmen? Mr. GUTERMUTH. The rifle and shotgun-yes.

Senator DODD. I also was troubled about your testimony this morning concerning the age at which a youngster should be allowed to purchase a gun. We talked about that.

I don't want to go over it-except to say that as I understood you, you said that in several States, as I recall it, young persons are permitted to buy hunting licenses and to hunt in company of older persons. I am sure that is true. The language that I am most interested in-and I think it is the key phrase in this respect, is, "to hunt in the company of older persons."

Well, now, there is no intent in this bill to prevent young people from hunting. Under this bill a parent could purchase a rifle or a shotgun for his son or daughter, for that matter. But I think the important consideration is parental knowledge that the youngster has the gun. And that is why we put in the age limitation.

A lot of these youngsters have guns that parents don't even know about.

You remember this very recent case in California where a youngster had been well behaved, no reason to suspect him to do anything such as he did. But he took this gun and went out on the hillside and killed people and wounded them. His parents didn't know he had that gun.

How would you get control of this if you don't use an age limitation? Mr. GUTERMUTH. Well, of course, I tried to bring out this morning that you have a wide variation in this matter of age. You brought up driver's licenses this morning. That varies with a great many States.

One of the things that disturbs me

Senator DODD. It varies in a great many States, but I don't know of any State that doesn't have some regulation as to age.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right. And that is the reason I said this morning that I didn't think I was qualified to say where you should start. The thing that should be given consideration is to find a way to get around an ironclad regulation that provides no discretion or consideration at all for varying circumstances.

Now, I believe that there is a way to do this. I think that youngsters, as I brought out in my statement this morning, who go out here and cut grass-and it has been a practice in the family to own a gun, and he wants to buy a .22 rifle-I think his child, if his parents consent to it, and he meets all of the other measures of good citizenship, that he should be permitted to buy his gun.

The idea of him not being able to exercise his right as a future citizen of this country, and cannot buy a gun, I think it would be most unfortunate. The idea of having his father buy it for him and loan it to him, as I brought out in that statement, I don't think that this quite satisfies true Americans. They like to feel they are Americans, and they like to feel they are living in America.

Senator DODD. Would you have any suggestion to make as to what age parental consent could be given?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I don't know whether the age-I would not argue too much about your 18 age, if there was a provision in the bill that made it possible for some kind of an affidavit or clearance, where the parent could pass on it and that parental consent is required.

Now, there are many other people who could give you perhaps better ideas of how to approach this than I. But I think this is one of the ways of doing it.

Senator DODD. Very well. I am trying to learn. I don't know how you would ever get any control that way. Children of some of the best parents have committed some of the worst crimes.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Well, that is right. But then you never are going to get away from that, either.

Senator DODD. That is right. And that is why the bill was introduced.

Senator Burdick, do you have any questions?

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Gutermuth, I think you have covered the waterfront very adequately. I simply want to say that you have made a very fine statement. I shall endeavor to give it full and thorough consideration when we mark up the bill.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Thank you very much, Senator Burdick.

Senator DODD. That is a very ominous remark.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Thank you.

(The supplemental statement referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 81" and reads as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 81

QUESTIONS ON S. 1592

In my statement, I remarked that several of the witnesses have been asked by the committee to point out language in S. 1592 to substantiate their contention that the bill would inconvenience and handicap sportsmen. I said further that many were unable to do that, because the lack of specificity and the omission of safeguards in S. 1592 are the very reasons why sportsmen are concerned. The potential threat they find in S. 1592 arises as much from what the bill does not say, as from what it seeks to do. Sportsmen have had many unhappy experiences with firearms legislation. They have seen restriction followed by restriction in some places, all to the detriment of the law-abiding owner and user of firearms, without material gain in the reduction of armed crime. They are sincere in their belief that most firearms legislation is misdirected and that it should be pointed squarely at the misuser.

It will take a lot of explaining to convince the conservationists that S. 1592 offers no threat to the rights of sportsmen, and that its enactment and implementation would not seriously affect them. Sportsmen have grave doubts about what would be forced upon them if Congress decided that the proposal should become law. I wish to comment on some of the things that provoke widespread

concern.

*

In section 1, paragraph (3), a firearm is defined as "any weapon In paragraph (4) of the same section, the following language appears with respect to the definition of a destructive device and the prohibition against barrels having a bore diameter of one-half inch or more: "Provided, That the Secretary may exclude from this definition any device which he finds is not likely to be used as a weapon."

Shotguns having a barrel length of more than 18 inches would be excluded, but not rifles. This means that muzzle-loading rifles with a bore larger than a half-inch would be considered a device and not exempt unless the Secretary determines that the rifle is not likely to be used as a weapon. As you know, many muzzle-loading rifles have a bore diameter greater than one-half inch.

Sportsmen ask how the Secretary will find that such a rifle with more than a half-inch bore "is not likely to be used as a weapon" when the definition in paragraph (3) declares that "The term 'firearm' means any weapon Either it is a device, which is banned, or a firearm which is a weapon.

In section 2, paragraph (1), we are unable to interpret the implications of this language set off in parentheses "or having such shotgun and rifles transported for him under such conditions as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe." No one can say, of couse, what regulations the Secretary may prescribe, but what does the word "transported" mean? What regulations will apply? Will my friends be permitted to transport my shotgun to Maine so that I may join them at a later date? Will I be required to obtain and complete an involved form or execute an affidavit attesting that I have authorized a certain person to transport a described firearm in a certain automobile over a prescribed route to a specific destination? Will I have to specify if the authorization is for a one-way or round trip? Can the authorization be altered if my plans change? Will the firearm have to be broken down or be sealed in a carrying case of a certain kind?

Frankly, I do not know. Neither does anyone else. The Members of Congress cannot vote for that provision with any assurance of its meaning.

The same paragraph suggests that a firearm owner or his delegate could transport a rifie or a shotgun in interstate commerce "if such transportation is for a lawful purpose." How will that phrase be interpreted? What would happen if a nonresident hunter mistakenly shot a doe deer rather than an antlered buck as required? Would he be subject to Federal prosecution due to a game law violation even though resident species of wildlife traditionally have been the legal responsibility of the States and not the Federal Government?

Under section 2, paragraph (2), what would be required so that the owner of a pistol or a revolver may have it transported for him in interstate or foreign commerce? That provision would ban the transport of a handgun across a State line for sale to another person. It also appears to mean that after the enactment of S. 1592, I would be forbidden ever to sell or trade a handgun to a friend, relative, or other person not resident of the State in which I live. Does that apply, without exception, to reputable, law-abiding persons everywhere?