Mr. CAPLES. Now, I have several other cases here. I could go on through the entire records bureau that we have. We have done much work.

Just-here is one I think probably would be-in October of 1964, a homicide in Boston, October 10. An unknown white male; subject traveled throughout New Hampshire, purchased a total of nine different snubnose revolvers from several dealers in that State, on the same day. On all these occasions he furnished a fictitious name and address. Two of the nine weapons were subsequently found in the possession of a Boston resident, a George McLaughlin, known as Punchy, who at the time of the sale was being sought for murder and was considered by the FBI to be one of the 10 most wanted criminals in the country.

We have another case here, a 16-year-old Cambridge youngster, made numerous trips via bus to the State of Maine, where in the course of 7 months he purchased a total of 16 firearms, including 3 handguns. He subsequently sold these to local boys and girls, and they were used in several neighborhood crimes. This boy used fictitious names and addresses at the time of the purchase. Upon investigation, he reported to the investigators that the dealers never questioned his age nor his intentions.

We have another case in Arlington, Mass., of a double homicide, fatal shooting of a 28-year-old mother and 6-year-old son by a 33-yearold father and husband. A 303 British-made surplus rifle, purchased from out of State, via mail order.

Walden, Mass., a fatal shooting of a police officer during the attempted robbery of an A. & P. Supermarket. Peter LaDedo, convicted slayer, admitted purchasing the two weapons from a gun dealer in Lewiston, Maine. Advised the investigators the dealer asked him: "What name do you want me to put in the salesbook?" La Dedo furnished a fictitious name, since he had a previous criminal record.

I can go on with many of these cases, and we will put them into the record after my testimony. But I feel many of these things are vital to bring home that these are actual instances that occurred in Massachusetts.

(The cases referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 87" and will be found at the end of Commissioner Caples' statement, p. 366.)

Mr. CAPLES. I am disgusted by the knowledge that so many of our felonious crimes are accomplished with the help of these weapons so leniently acquired. Six out of the last seven police officers killed or wounded by criminal action in our Commonwealth fell before blazing guns purchased or procured in other States. I recall that an unknown male subject toured one of our New England States last October and purchased a total of nine snubnosed revolvers on the same day, and in each case he furnished a ficitious name and address. Two of those nine weapons were subsequently found in the possession of a man being sought for murder, who at the time of the sale was considered to be one of America's 10 most wanted criminals. Few of our critics are aware of the fact that the gun used to kill the master of the Middlesex House of Correction during the escape of two murderers awaiting trial was purchased at a sporting goods store in an adjoining State and that the lack of suitable records prevented detection of the identity of the buyer.

Escapes from the Suffolk County House of Correction on two separate occasions by infamous desperadoes was accomplished through the assistance of firearms sold over the counter in that same State. The weapons used by two wild and reckless brothers during a blazing gun battle with police, in which a young mother and her infant child were killed, were found to have been purchased in one of our adjoining States. A very tragic case recently brought to our attention involving fratricide revealed that the defendant, while on probation for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon in which a police officer was the victim, had traveled to this same New England State and purchased the pistol that he used against his own brother a few days later.

This holds true in case after case, in robbery after robbery, in murder after murder; and there seems to be no end to this terrible condition. A survey of the sales records of four dealers from one of our neighboring States was completed in the latter part of 1963. It indicated that in the preceding 12 months the 4 dealers had sold a total of 988 handguns; and that 690 of the buyers were residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the vast majority of sales, the buyers furnished fictitious names or addresses. Å similar survey of two dealers from the southern section of another State showed that within 6 months they had sold 241 handguns to buyers from our area.

A recent progress report of conditions today has indicated that the trend is continuing, and will continue until State or Federal law stops this practice. Of 39 Massachusetts buyers who purchased handguns from 3 dealers during the off-season months of November-December of last year, only 4 were found to be qualified under our own existing law. This list of midwinter buyers contains the names of several residents of our metropolitan city of Boston. Among them were two who were subsequently arrested for robbery and many others who were well known to the local police because of their previous felony records.

(Chart showing purchases of firearms outside of Massachusetts was marked "Exhibit No. 88" and will be found on p. 352.)

Mr. CAPLES. In Massachusetts, the shocking facts show that we have only been able to scratch the surface in our attempt to ferret out the truth. We have no idea at this time of the number of additional weapons that have been added to the criminal warehouses throughout our Commonwealth.

I respectfully submit that any law, State or Federal, that allows a transaction to be completed upon the presentation of any name, together with any address, is not serving its intended purpose. It is essential that some form of reliable proof of identification be mandatory before delivery can be made.

We are of the opinion that a signed slip of paper attesting to the buyer's self-proclaimed character is as useless as a bucket of sand in the Sahara Desert.

In Massachusetts, we have tried to solve these problems on a local and regional level. Our attempt to produce a suitable firearms code for the six-State region has been denounced by leading sportsmen and shooting interests.

One sold to RESIDENTS of MASSACHUSETTS

EXHIBIT NO. 88.-Chart showing purchases of firearms outside of Massachusetts by Massachusetts residents.

Actually, preceding the completion of our study, which we mentioned before, this organization-these organizations were well ahead of us in lobbying before the report had come out.

Now, is this a case of a few people who want to take and make money, dollars and cents, against one life? These are what-these are the figures we are talking about today.

Conditions have changed since the days of civilian militia. Sportsmen, target shooters, firearms dealers, and collectors must accept the fact that there is need for corrective legislation.

We should hope that they would provide us with the necessary tools to ferret out the violators, and this is what we are trying to do.

The wrath of an offended public with far more stringent laws will bring about the results that we are now seeking.

Federal legislation appears to be the only answer to our current gun problem. Massachusetts has tried. They have pioneered. But they are now helpless. We need this Federal legislation.

Some opponents to Senate bill 1592 would have our citizens believe that the suggested changes as contained in the present draft are without merit; that no part of this bill is worthy of consideration. This, of course, is not so. We know that all legislative documents cannot be all bad. Perhaps there are some changes necessary, and I am sure this committee, in its wisdom, will do something about those.

Many varied views and interests are involved, and we realize this. But we feel that in Massachusetts it is our duty and responsibility to speak in favor of that in which we believe, that will help the majority of citizens in the Commonwealth, but also in our surrounding States. Certainly not without reservations where they might be called for.

In reviewing the contents of Senate 1592, several matters of concern stand out. But these minor points, again, as I say, can be well taken care of.

I am just trying to eliminate some of the things that may have duplication.

Senator DODD. That is all right. Go ahead with your statement. Mr. CAPLES. I am quite sure that loud objections will be heard during your hearings to the so-called broad powers that the Secretary will enjoy under the proposed bill. I have in mind the different sections that allow wide discretion in formulating rules on the interstate transportation of firearms-subsections 2 and 3 of section 2, and the power to determine the meaning of "authorized service" as the term appears in subsection 3 of section 2. Similar provisions in other sections throughout the act that permit the Department to determine the extent and latitude that might be utilized in various cases. Opponents to Senate 1592 have indicated that they are afraid of these unlimited powers and therefore these provisions are extremely dangerous.

I cannot share this unfounded and unproven concern, for I am convinced that any unjustifiable conduct or behavior on the part of the Secretary or members of the Department would be quickly subjected to public scrutiny and immediately followed by judicial condemnation or legislative censure. With this in mind, I cannot foresee any problems and therefore support these provisions.

During my discussion of our local problems involving firearms, I have attempted to indicate that much of our concern is caused through over-the-counter sales in adjoining States. The provisions of part (3), subsection (b) of section 2 of this bill would prevent future sales to our Massachusetts criminals or by dealers in our adjoining States. This provision is very much desired in our area, and therefore receives my strong endorsement.

I am aware of the concern held by many of the opponents of this legislation with regard to the increase in license fees. We suggest that perhaps there could be classes set up for manufacturers and dealers so that the fees would be fairer. In other words, we could