Mr. DICKEY. I saw no such release that they had testified at this hearing. Senator DODD. I have it. Who would put out such a release? Senator DODD. I know very well they did not testify here. Mr. DICKEY. And I know they did not testify here. As far as I know, they were only here a couple of hours one morning. And I have not seen any press release that said they testified at the hearings. Senator DODD. How much money have you spent on this type of release I mean the ones I read earlier-in opposition to this bill? Mr. DICKEY. Well, those go out in very small quantities to outdoor writers. They do not go to all the papers across the country or the radio stations. I cannot tell you offhand what my budget has been. I would be very happy to supply you with the figures, if you will give me the particular time that you want the figures for. Senator DODD. Oh, I will take, say, from January 1 of this year to today. Do you have any idea how much you spent? How many other people did you transport here besides the two television cowboys? Mr. DICKEY. The two television actors? Senator DODD. I understood they were cowboys. Mr. DICKEY. They are actors, professional actors, I think. Senator DODD. Did you hire a public relations man to handle the television stars, as you describe them, when they were here? Mr. DICKEY. I employed a man to assist with public relations here— not for that specific purpose. He worked with them while they were in town. Senator DODD. Is that Mr. Gilmore? Mr. DICKEY. William Gilmore; yes, sir. Senator DODD. Now, you have, in your releases, or at least in one, stated that persons reloading ammunition would have to pay a $1,000 a year license fee. Don't you know that is not so? Mr. DICKEY. Suppose they were reloading ammunition over half an inch in caliber, British 554. As I interpret the bill and the definitions, that would be an explosive device. Say they were loading something of 600 caliber. Senator DODD. That isn't what the bill says at all. Were you here when General Orth testified and admitted that was not true in a release which the National Rifle Association put out? Mr. DICKEY. Yes, sir; and I thought that might have pretty well been settled down. Senator DODD. You admit that it is not so. Mr. DICKEY. I will admit that I should have used $500 in most cases. Senator DODD. Well, you know, this is very interesting. Your organization spends quite a considerable sum of money, apparently, putting out this misinformation, these false statements about this legislation. You seem to have plenty of money to hire publicity men, bring television stars to stand in the back of the room, and then tell the papers out West that they testified. What are you trying to do? Are you actually trying to tell the truth about this bill or are you trying to confuse the sportsmen of this country? Mr. DICKEY. Well, I would like very much-as you know, Senator Dodd, there has been a great amount of confusion about the various versions of your bills among sportsmen in the last 3 or 4 years. Senator DODD. Yes. And I think you've helped to create it. Mr. DICKEY. And I think that we would like to see the sportsmen fully understand them. Senator DODD. Well, I think you want to see him misunderstand it, when you tell him the license fee is $1,000. All you have to do is read the bill and you would know it is $500. This was put out after the NRA official testified here that that was not so. Mr. DICKEY. No; I have put nothing out since then. I put that way out in advance of any testimony by the NRA, before these hearings started. Senator DODD. Well, this is what we have been up against-I certainly have been. And I think much of the misinformation, misunderstanding, the confusion that has caused an absolute blizzard of mail coming to the Senate and the House, has been as a result of your activities. You are one. I don't say you are the only one. But you are one. Mr. DICKEY. I don't think I could raise a blizzard of mail. I wish we had that big a force and budget. But we are a very small out fit, and we could not possibly raise a blizzard of mail. Senator DODD. I don't mind anyone-of course, I don't mind—I welcome people giving their views. But I expect them to be truthful. And I do not think that is very much to ask. Can we get all of your bulletins and releases now? Mr. DICKEY. Yes, sir. Senator DODD. I will help you. I have arranged for a subpena to be served on you this afternoon so you can produce them. Mr. DICKEY. You say you will arrange? Senator DODD. I have arranged. Mr. DICKEY. All right. Well, arrange it, and I will get them down here as soon as I can. Senator DODD. Yes; I think I should tell you, too, we've also arranged to have Mr. Gilmore provide us with his releases and bulletins. By the way, are you a registered lobbyist? Mr. DICKEY. I am not. Senator DODD. You are an educator. Is that how you describe yourself? Mr. DICKEY. My title is director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Senator DODD. Has it ever occurred to you that you are lobbying on this legislation? Mr. DICKEY. I have engaged in no lobbying activity on this Hill at all. Senator DODD. Well, lobbying is not confined to this Hill by any means. Mr. DICKEY. Well, if you mean have I sent out any information on 1592; yes, I have sent out a digest of it, and I have sent out copies of the complete bill. Senator DODD. Now, on April 19, on your own stationery, you put out a bulletin. I want to read you the opening paragraph: Would you please help us get word to America's hunters and shooters on U.S. Senate S. 1592. Although the word "registration" is not mentioned, the bill would give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to register all firearms with a central registration bureau in Washington. Where did you get that from? Mr. DICKEY. From the seven places within the bill that gives the Secretary of the Treasury unlimited authority to set up rules and regulations as he so chooses. Senator DODD. Now, rules and regulations are one thing. But registration-I think you fully well know-has a very particular connotation, particularly to sportsmen and gun enthusiasts, doesn't it? Mr. DICKEY. Well, apparently it has one connotation to you and one to me. I think that if you give him unlimited authority in seven different places, if you so chose, he could require that any future sales of firearms be registered by a serial number, that the purchasers would have to be fingerprinted and so forth. And as you well know, these are things that sportsmen object to. Senator DODD. Do you really mean it when you say he has unlimited authority? Mr. DICKEY. Well, it seems unlimited to me when he can set up his own rules and regulations in seven places. Senator DODD. I don't know whether it's ignorance or willfulness, but if you ever bother to read the bill or look into the Administrative Procedures Act, or read any of the decisions of the courts, I don't know how anyone could sit here and say that the Secretary of the Treasury has unlimited authority. You know, actually I think you do know that the Secretary of the Treasury has the same authority under this bill, if it is passed, that he has now and has had for years under the Federal Firearms Act. You know that perfectly well, don't you? Mr. DICKEY. No, I don't know that. Senator DODD. Well, in the process of educating people about this bill, I should think you would have taken the time to learn it. I am going to put in the record a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the letter which your organization put out. The analysis was made by the Treasury Department. I think it ought to be made part of the record. Your letter is replete with misstatements, false statements. (The information referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 83" and reads as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 83 PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS Paragraphs 1 and 2 are introductory and require no comment. The remaining paragraphs of National Shooting Sports Foundation letter No. 41465 are quoted below, followed by an analysis of their treatment of S. 1592. Paragraph 3 "SECTION 1. The term 'firearm' means any weapon, by whatsoever name known, which will, or is designed to, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; or any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device." Analysis This is an accurate statement of the definition for "firearm" as contained in section 1(3) of the bill. The proposed definition represents a slight modification of existing law (15 U.S.C. 901(3)). The revised definition has been extended to include any weapon by whatsoever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive. This represents a much needed clarification and strengthening of existing law designed to prevent circumvention of the purposes of the act. As under existing law, the definition also includes weapons designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive, and firearm mufflers and firearm silencers. The present definition of this term includes "any part or parts" of a firearm. It has been impractical to treat each small part of a firearm as if it were a weapon. The revised definition substitutes the words "frame or receiver" for the words "any part or parts." In addition, the definition of the term "firearm" is extended to include any "destructive device" as defined in the proposed new definition of this term contained in paragraph (4) of section 1. The effect of this inclusion is to make the provisions of the act applicable to such destructive devices. Paragraph 4 "SEC. 1. Would not allow big game hunters to own rifles of larger than onehalf-inch caliber unless permission was obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury. Collectors of large-caliber rifles, particularly English rifles, would have to get permission from the Secretary to own them." Analysis The coverage of "destructive devices" under the Federal Firearms Act as provided in S. 1592 was intended to bring under control highly destructive weapons, such as grenades and bombs, and large caliber military-type weapons, such as bazookas, mortars, antitank guns, etc. It was not intended to include genuine historical collectors' items, such as obsolete field pieces, historical cannon, antique muzzle-loading muskets, etc. If more specific exceptions for antiques or for genuine sporting-type large caliber hunting rifles, or for legitimate uses of large caliber weapons is shown to be advisable by the testimony at the hearings, it would, of course, not be inconsistent with the purposes of the legislation to provide specific exceptions to cover such situations. However, this is no basis for opposing the controlling of highly destructive weapons. Paragraph 5 "SEC. 2. Would ban all mail-order sales of firearms (including handguns, rifles, and shotguns) to consumers in interstate commerce. This would inconvenience thousands of farmers and ranchers who do not live close to sporting goods stores. (Certain political publicity has about succeeded in making 'mail order' a dirty name.) There are more than 400 old-line, respectable houses that have mailed sporting arms to consumers for years. They include such names as Sears, Montgomery Ward, Speigel, and Abercombie & Fitch. Hundreds of small houses that make receivers and frames and conversions would be put out of business." Analysis This statement greatly exaggerates the potential effect of S. 1592 on mailorder sales. The main purpose of the interstate shipment controls which affect mail-order gun transactions is to assist the States in their regulation of local gun traffic. The bill would not prohibit shipment by a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of a firearm to a person in the State where the licensee's business is located. Since the sales and shipments by licensees to persons within the same State would be transactions within the jurisdiction of the State, the States could effectively impose such conditions on such sales and shipments as they deemed necessary. Further, a mail-order firm which maintained a retail store (or catalog order store) in a State could consummate the sale through the branch retail (or catalog order) outlet in the State and have the firearm delivered at or shipped via the outlet in the State. Also, since interstate mail-order shipments to nonlicensees would be stopped, there would be an incentive for local businessmen to qualify as firearms dealers to supply locally the firearms previously procured direct by purchasers from interstate mail-order dealers, importers, or manufac turers. The purchaser could select from the catalog (or catalogs) the firearm of his choice. The local dealer could then procure the firearm for the purchaser from the importer, manufacturer, or mail-order dealer (as the case may be). Under this procedure, the law-abiding citizens who wished to procure firearms previously ordered from an out-of-State mail-order shipper could continue to obtain such firearms by procuring them through a local dealer. However, since these transactions would be consummated through a local dealer, the mail-order procedure could no longer be used to thwart and circumvent State and local controls. Further, there would be a local record of the transaction maintained by the local dealer which would be of aid for law enforcement purposes. Paragraph 6 "SEC. 2. A sportsman could buy a handgun only in his home State." Analysis This is substantially true. By the same token, criminals and incompetents would also be limited to home State purchase and thereby subject to local laws governing acquisition and use of guns. Paragraph 7 "SEC. 2. A competitive pistol shooter traveling from California to New York for a match would have to get a permit from each State he traveled through, or have the pistol transported for him under such conditions as the Secretary would prescribe." Analysis This is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation of section 2(a)(2) of the bill. S. 1592 imposes no permit requirement. This particular provision would merely point out that a gun-carrying traveler may be subject to gun control laws of States through which he travels and make his failure to comply with such State laws a violation of the Federal Firearms Act. A person carrying a gun within a State which controls the carrying of guns has now and always has had the duty to comply with those laws to the extent they are applicable to him. Paragraph 8 "SEC. 2. The dealer could not dispose of any firearm to any person without following procedures regulated by Secretary of the Treasury; the regulations are not spelled out and presumably the Secretary could make any regulations he wanted to." Analysis This statement is a ridiculous distortion implying that the Secretary has dictatorial powers. S. 1592 spells out all the requirements imposed on dealers. The regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary can only fill in the details. Under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1001–1011), notice and opportunity for hearing is afforded to all interested parties prior to the issuance of substantive rules and regulations, and the NRA and other gun interests have in the past taken full advantage of such opportunity to express their views regarding proposed regulations relating to firearms. If a regulation were outside the statutory standards established by the Congress for the Secretary's action, or if it were not reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of the statute, or if it were arbitrary or capricious, or if it were unreasonably burdensome, or if it were irregularly issued, it would be declared invalid by the courts. Thus, any rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury must be reasonable and designed to effectuate the provisions of the statute. Paragraph 9 "SEC. 2. A consumer could not buy a handgun over the counter if he is under 21 ; he could not buy a shotgun or rifle if under 18. Certainly there should be reasonable controls over young people but S. 1592 applies the same rules to a New York City boy as a farmboy living in Wyoming. It is apparently in invasion of States rights." Analysis This is one of the areas which the President, in his March 8 message to the Congress, noted as particularly in need of Federal controls. There seems to be a general concurrence in this position as indicated by letters to the President rela |