Mr. HILLIARD. I had made various points. But in the summary paragraph, on page 5, I mentioned the affidavit for across-the-counter purchase. The second point is the defining of the Treasury's authority. The third one, and most important, is to require notice and hearings in the statute. Again, the Administrative Procedure Act, it seems, would give the agency the option to waive hearings if they didn't feel it was in the public interest. Senator DODD. All right. Mr. HILLIARD. I certainly appreciate this, Senator. Senator DODD. Well, I am certainly thankful to you for coming here and giving us the benefit of your experience, which is extensive, of course, in this area. And I assure you again we will give your recommendations most careful consideration. We all want the best bill we can get. I am sure it can be improved. In the course of these hearings I have heard three or four suggestions that make sense to me. I don't know of any member of this subcommittee who just says it is a perfectly drawn bill. We don't say that at all. I am sorry we detained you. I hope your family improves. Senator DODD. Is the attorney general of New Jersey here? Mr. Sills, would you mind if we delay your statement a few minutes? I would like to have the Members of the House have a chance to be heard. Mr. SILLS. Surely-no problem. Senator DODD. Congressman Dingell? STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN Mr. DINGELL. Senator, I appreciate the courtesy of being here this morning. Senator DODD. Sorry we were delayed. Mr. DINGELL. I left another committee in which I was presiding this morning to come over here-it was scheduled at 10:30. I brought with me a bag of assorted criminal weapons. Zip guns, billies, a sword cane, more zip guns, none of which would be covered under this statute-all of which were furnished me by the Police Department of the city of Washington, having been confiscated for sundry and assorted violations of law. Those are brass knuckles there. This was during recent weeks. For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is John D. Dingell. I am a Member of Congress from the 16th Congressional District of Michigan. Senator DODD. Yes, I know who you are. I knew your father. He was a wonderful man. I served with him in the House. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He had a great deal of affection for you, sir. At the outset, let me say that as a Member of Congress, a former prosecuting attorney, and an ardent conservationist, I am vitally concerned that the public interest be protected in the matter of laws governing the sale and distribution of firearms. This should go without saying. Unfortunately, however, certain editorial proponents of this proposed legislation have been guilty of greatly oversimplifying the issue of Government regulation of firearms. As a result, many citizens opposed to S. 1592, such as myself and other Members of Congress sincerely believing its enactment not in the public interest-have been the targets of editorial misrepresentation and unfair attack. I find it ironic that some of the editorial endorsers of S. 1592, while clamoring for a dialog and free exchange of views in other areas of public controversy, apparently would foreclose and silence the other side of the argument in the case of firearms control and regulation. These editorialists have sought broadly to characterize and condemn all opponents of this bill as paramilitary fanatics or extremists of some form. Yet, in their frenzied and loosely reasoned editorial broadsides on the subject, they have been guilty of the very emotional excesses so injurious to the body politic-as the extremists they purportedly warn against. At this point I would say I noted that the chairman made some very useful comments yesterday on the subject of the Minutemen. I would point out that I think I am qualified to speak with regard to the Minutemen, since it so happens that during the last year or so I was one of the several Members of Congress who was threatened by the Minutemen. But I don't happen to view them as being any particular threat to the security of the Republic. I think they are a rather loosely organized group of kooks. And I think we can well handle them under existing law, without going after them under anything as deadly to our ancient liberties as the legislation presently pending before the committee. Public hysteria-whether fanned in the back alleys of political extremism or in the editorial conference room-disrupts and endangers the democratic deliberative process. Much of the editorial treatment given the subject of firearms control and regulation in recent months, has aimed at frightening rather than informing the American public. Nevertheless, I am certain that the members of this committee recognize that a broad base of responsible and respectable opposition exists regarding this proposed legislation. S. 1592 is not only opposed by a large number of professional, business, and public-spirited organizations, but by many leading experts in the field of criminology and firearms control. The Legislature of Arizona has introduced and passed House Memorial No. 2 opposing the enactment of S. 1592. Similar resolutions are now pending in other State legislatures. On the other hand, a resolution offered in the Maryland House of Delegates supporting the bill was rejected. A major radio and television station which had supported restrictive firearms legislation in the past, after examining S. 1592 has refused to endorse this bill and has in fact gone so far as to urge its defeat. The question is asked: Why should anyone object to a Federal law, the purpose of which is to place added legal controls on the sale and distribution of firearms to criminals? Indeed, no one argues against this ostensible purpose of S. 1592. But those of us opposed to this bill respond with the question: If enacted, will S. 1592 accomplish this purpose, or will it-like so many nobly intended laws before it-merely compound the very social problem it seeks to remedy? Consider the fact that we now have on the lawbooks of this Nation over 20,000 laws governing the sale, distribution, and use of firearms. Contrary to what some of the more zealous antifirearms editorial writers would have us believe, the situation in the United States is certainly not one of unrestricted and unregulated firearms sale and usage. S. 1592 is directed at keeping firearms out of the hands of the criminally irresponsible. Yet, despite 20,000-odd laws which, one way or another, are directed toward the same purpose, a rising national crime rate gives alarming evidence that the criminal element does not want for weapons with which to wage war against our lawabiding citizenry. Consider the fact that in the one State where the manufacture and sale of handguns is absolutely prohibited-the State of South Carolina-the rate of homicides and assaults by firearms is among the highest in the country. This is further evidence that while restrictive firearms laws may succeed in disarming the law abiding, they are ineffective in dealing with the lawbreaker. Consider the fact that in New York, where the stringent Sullivan Act is aimed at disarming the individual, a soaring rate of violent crimes has made city streets unsafe for the unarmed, law-abiding citizen. Not long back a young woman was assaulted by an individual, and in defense of herself pulled a switchblade knife. It was rather promptly reported in the papers. And as a result of this, in defense of her virtue and chastity, having exercised what I regard as the common and ordinary right of self-defense, she was threatened with prosecution, and indeed was actually brought into the criminal procedures for prosecution by the authorities of that State-while she was seeking solely to defend her person as a law-abiding citizen. Theoretically, and according to the records, only 17,000 of New York City's 8 million inhabitants can lawfully possess handguns. But daily we read in the papers of persons assaulted by slings and billies, knives and switchblades, by zip guns of the type that I have here on the table before me, with literally no right to protect and defend themselves against these. Although the law-abiding citizen cannot acquire a license for a handgun without searching police scrutiny, the criminal element is not the least bit hampered by the Sullivan Act. S. 1592 is but another theoretical approach to a real problem-and it is doomed to fail in its purpose of disarming the criminally irresponsible. Even if S. 1592 had been in effect on that tragic day in November of 1963, President Kennedy still could have been assassinated by the same person with the same or better weapon at the same time and place. The fact that it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits of Dallas, and that murder is a capital offense in Texas, did not prevent this heinous crime. If we are really interested in passing legislation to outlaw the assassination of our Presidents, we might give serious thought to pushing through legislation of the type which I have joined in sponsorship, and that is to make it a crime, punishable by death, to assassinate the President or the Vice President of the United States. The same or better weapon could have been procured from a police auction, as a war trophy, from a hardware or sporting goods store, from loan by a friend or neighbor, by theft, or by inheritance. The threat to our society today is not the weaponry of crime, but crime itself. As these exhibits I have with me demonstrate, lawbreakers are no more apt to abide by laws governing possession of deadly weapons than they are to abide by general criminal laws. Here we see illegal firearms and weapons-zip guns, sword canes, brass knuckles, chains, and "billies"-a gallery of deadly devices used by the criminally inclined. Neither S. 1592 nor any other firearms control law enacted by any other governmental agency is capable of stopping the traffic in these weapons. They can be made in the alley, in the backyard, in the basement, in the kitchen, or in the garage. To accomplish that end, we must get to the cause and control of crime itself-not simply the tools of the criminal. This is borne out by the overwhelming weight of studies made regarding possible relationship between crime and firearms. I will cite two such authoritative studies for the committee's consideration. First, an exhaustive study of firearms licensing and its effect on crime rates was conducted by the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library for the State legislature. This report offered conclusive evidence that there is no relationship between the commission of crime of any type and the State's gun licensing statutes. The study did point out, however, that New York, with its rigid firearms regulation laws, has a higher rate of murder and nonnegligent homicide than Kansas, Minnesota, or Wisconsin-none of which have any licensing requirements. Senator DODD. Do you have a copy of that study with you? Mr. DINGELL. I don't have it with me, Senator, but I will be happy to submit it for the record. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 91" and is as follows:) EXHIBIT NO. 91.-COPY OF A STUDY OF FIREARMS LICENSING CONDUCTED BY THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE (Submitted by Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat, of Michigan) XXIII. DOES LICENSING HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE CRIME RATE? TABLE 5.-List of States according to type of restrictions placed on firearms Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library, "The Regulation of the Firearms by the States," Madison, July 1960. Research Bulletin 130. At head of title "A Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library Report.' |