lation. This deep interest has developed over the years with special emphasis placed on these matters during the past 15 to 20 years.

When our department conducted an extensive investigation and study of the local firearms problem during the fiscal years of 1955 and 1956, their findings and recommendations were submitted to the Massachusetts Legislature in the form of a written report in November of 1956. This bill was subsequently identified as bill 3075, and it was adopted by the Massachusetts General Court.

This resulted in an entire revamping of our firearms law. We are happy to report that this legislation has been a big improvement for us in the Commonwealth.

Again, in recent years, when new problems arose concerning firearms, and they developed in the Massachusetts area during the spring and summer of 1963, our State police officers collected substantial information along with the Police Department of the City of Boston, of evidence to indicate that the overcrowded sales of handguns in our adjoining States was producing a steady flow of weapons into our Commonwealth for unlawful purposes. This information was presented to the New England State Police Administrators Conference in September of 1963. A subcommittee was formed for the very purpose of studying the problems and developing suggested drafts for uniform legislation.

It was the intent to prepare uniform controls that would be acceptable to all of our six New England States. Strong opposition did develop from organized sporting and shooting interests long before this subcommittee had completed its investigation.

Some of the spokesmen for State associations indicated that they would unite and oppose any recommendations for any changes to the existing laws.

Now, it is a shame that opposition would unite blindly and condemn progressive changes without appropriate discussions and hearings. But this was the case.

I say to those people who infer that members of our department have only become interested in the problem since the 1963 tragedy of the assassination of our President Kennedy that this is wrong, because we can go back through the years and point to a 1957 law which made many corrective changes.

Approximately one-half of the 1034 million people of the New England area reside in the Commonwealth. It is only natural that our crime statistics would exceed those of any other New England State. Consequently, we are burdened with an outrageous number of violent crimes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has indicated in their annual reports for the last 10 years that we have experienced a total of 693 murders, 9,349 robberies, and more than 9,000 aggravated assaults.

The four eastern counties of the Commonwealth, with a combined population of greater than 3 million persons, has contributed to better than 50 percent of these crime statistics.

During this same period of time, we had more than 6,000 defendants prosecuted before our district courts on weapon violations.

It is also distressing to note that two firearms identification bureaus in the Commonwealth have processed more than 7,500 criminal cases involving the unlawful use of firearms.

Firearms are like natural magnets to those in Massachusetts who would prey upon the honest and God-fearing members of our society. Reports on file at the State Police Headquarters reveal that our investigators participated in 226 homicide investigations during the last 10 years. It was also noted that 121 of the victims in these cases died as a result of gunshot injuries.

Handguns are the most frequently used in the commission of crimes of violence in Massachusetts. The close relationship between the unscrupulous hoodlum and his deadly gun is apparent to us in the law enforcement field. This should be apparent to all of the citizens who care to view the situation with a sincere objectivity. Easy accessibility and procurement of firearms through the over-the-counter sales in some of our adjoining States has been a major contributory factor in our reported crimes of violence. Something must be done to stop this irresponsible conduct on the part of a few of the so-called businessmen who are located in the adjoining States. They are nothing more than parasites reaping their material harvest with misery and death as a byproduct.

(Chart showing percent of guns used in crime purchased outside of Massachusetts was marked "Exhibit No. 84" and will be found on p. 346).)

Mr. CAPLES. Massachusetts has some of the most stringent firearms laws of any State in this great Nation. Yet satisfactory concessions to the sporting and shooting fraternities has been interwoven into our legislative acts. Residents and nonresidents are required to have a license to carry handguns on their persons or in any vehicle. Retail dealers and gunsmiths are subject to numerous but fair regulations, and these controls are vigorously enforced. The license to carry has a photograph on it. This is a special permit to purchase and must be presented for inspection by the dealer before a pistol or revolver can be sold. The individual offender who is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of our weapons statute is subject to mandatory imprisonment. These are but a few of the more effective regulations now in effect in Massachusetts.

Now, Massachusetts dealers and sportsmen have not suffered as prelegislative arguments would have you believe, and as, when I was a member of the great General Court, were given to me as today you are receiving some of the same abuse and some of the avalanche of mail.

Irresponsible guesswork on the part of self-styled experts in this field should not be allowed to replace established facts. The facts are that we in Massachusetts have over 1,100 licensed retail dealers doing business under a stringent law, and that in the last 8 years they have sold more than 126,000 handguns. The fact is that our stringent laws have allowed over 41,000 persons to be licensed to carry pistols and revolvers, and that during the peak period of 1962 to 1963 this figure was as high as 63,000.

Our records show that less than 1 percent of all the licensees in the Commonwealth have been prosecuted for violations of law or regulations. Another very important fact is that less than one-half of 1 percent of all weapons ever sold or voluntarily registered in the Commonwealth since 1922 have ever been used in the commission of a crime.

Many of these critics would have you believe that stringent firearm legislation will serve no useful purpose because criminals use stolen guns. We can't speak for the rest of this country, but we do know that is not the case in Massachusetts.

This chart shows that of 4,506 weapons confiscated from criminals, and through the courts, only 6 were found to have been stolen.

(The chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 85" and is as

EXHIBIT No. 85.-Chart showing number of guns used in Massachusetts crimes identified as stolen by Massachusetts State Police.

Mr. CAPLES. Now, we have here-and Massachusetts is a leader, Massachusetts State Police-and I think if this system were followed we would be able to track and trace all of those firearms that are sold by their numbers and related names.

If the committee would like a more detailed file on this, we could offer it through Lieutenant Collins, who will make it available.

But we have through this been able-as previously reported guns that have been stolen-we have been able to check them out in six instances only. Our ability to trace ownership of handguns sold within our jurisdiction through a search of our centralized sales record section has kept these weapons out of the hands of those who travel in criminal circles and has forced the lawbreakers to seek another source of supply. Again, critics have said that our stringent laws have failed to prevent murders, robberies, and serious assaults. They apparently forgot that the provisions of these statutes permit effective surveillance of dealers and buyers within our jurisdiction, and accordingly prevents the procurement of the weapon needed for these criminal acts.

We are convinced beyond any doubt that the less stringent or the nonexistent laws in some of our neighboring States have stood as open invitations to our criminal element to travel to these States and purchase the much desired guns. Case after case can be cited for this committee, and if time would allow I could go through some 65 that I have available here.

But it is interesting to note-and we have taken just a few of the guns that were in our possession. Here you have Gun No. A. It is a .32 Colt automatic, purchased in Farmingdale, Maine, by one Robert Stirling. It was used in a homicide of a cabdriver in Boston, February 12, 1965.

We have a 9-millimeter Walthers, used in a bank robbery in Medford, purchased in Portland, Maine, April 1960.

We have another item here, C, a 32.20 Colt revolver.

I might note, Senator, that this gun B was the same type of gun that was used in the attempt to assassinate former President Truman. And gun C is a 32.20 Colt revolver, used in shooting one Mr. Philip De Vlaminck, who was a gas station dealer in Saugus, Mass.; bought in Kittery, Maine.

Gun D, .45 Colt automatic, used in an armed robbery in Cambridge, Mass., by one Robert Lucy, alias Frank Albertelli, purchased December, 6, 1961, in Kittery, Maine.

A .32 Colt, purchased in Kittery, Maine, by a Vincent Donovan, who is now under indictment for a second-degree murder.

This is gun E, October 25, 1963.

Gun F, a .32, Iver Johnson Trailsman, purchased in Salem, N.H., July 13, 1964, by Paul J. Griffin, carried and fired in Greater Boston area in violation of the law.

Gun G, .32 Colt Cobra, purchased in Manchester, N.H., by a Buddy-by a person, first name Buddy, notorious criminal. It was a name, Senator, I should not have used at this time. But this is a notorious criminal who had purchased many other weapons on October 10, 1964, in Manchester, N.H.

Gun H, a .22 Derringer pistol, purchased in Nashua, N.H., by a Warren Carroll, of Brockton, Mass. This was used in several armed robberies prior to his arrest in Sturbridge, Mass., on August 30, 1962.

We have taken just these samples to give you and show you how accessible they are, and you can see from the chart how impossible it is for us to adequately work against these people who can just go a matter of 50, 60 miles and get around this whole thing.

(The chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 86" and is as follows:)