sulting from impulsive rage. Only 12 percent are committed during the commission of another serious crime. How many crimes of passion would be prevented by legislating severe penalties? Doesn't the passion murderer often run the risk of paying the supreme penalty of execution anyway? Is he deterred by this possibility? Of course not. Commonsense tells us, however, that if a gun is not handy, in all likelihood, the probability of a murder being committed is greatly reduced. The legislation I would have in New Jersey does not seek to prohibit the law-abiding citizen, with desire to hunt or target shoot, from enjoying his sport. It would attempt to set forth standards and require persons handling firearms to meet these standards which are designed to serve only as restrictions upon those whom logic dictates should not be trusted with firearms. I will cite for you, certain tragedies which may have been prevented if we had the law which, I believe, is so necessary to give teeth to S. 1592 at the local level. In April of this year I received a special delivery letter from a New Jersey mother, excerpts of which read as follows: My son, age 9, was killed by a neighbor's son who had parental permission, if you please, to kill snakes in a heavily populated neighborhood. Three months to the day before the assassination of our beloved President * * * Our only beloved son-please, please know that most people feel as you do *** we will give you any support you require. Our blessings in your purpose. I wonder if the gun buffs would say this letter was prompted by an emotional response to the heinous crime of Lee Harvey Oswald. On June 30, 1964, a 22-year-old man purchased a .22 caliber rifle from a local dealer in Orange, N.J., using a fictitious name and address. He hitchhiked to a summer home owned by his parents on Cranbury Lake, N.J., where he fired a shot from a window of the bungalow, striking a fisherman about 200 feet away. When a New Jersey State trooper responded to an emergency call he was shot in the chest as he approached the bungalow. It was later determined that the perpetrator had a prior mental record and been released from the Trenton State Hospital in February of the same year. On May 21, 1965, an indictment was returned against a woman in one of our county courts alleging that on April 11, 1965, she killed a migrant worker companion with his own shotgun. The deceased, who purchased the shotgun in Florida a year ago for hunting, had a lengthy criminal record in that State and had been convicted of an offense in New Jersey on October 13, 1963. Under the law I would have in New Jersey he would have been denied a permit to carry his weapon in New Jersey. I would like to comment, if I may, on the testimony presented to this subcommittee by the Honorable Gordon Allott, Senator from Colorado. He pointed out, and a Member of Congress did this morning too, that had Oswald not used a mail-order gun to commit his crime, he could very well have "purchased a rifle of the same quality across the counter and he would not have violated any law in doing ." Further, he pointed out that Jack Ruby had a permit for the weapon he used. so." While Senator Allott cited these facts in his opposition to S. 1592, I can think of no better argument in favor of S. 1592 and local legislation similar to that which the President has asked for and which I would have adopted in New Jersey. This, very frankly, is the best example I can think of to highlight my support for S. 1592. Without S. 1592 Oswald was able to obtain his mail-order murder weapon. Even with S. 1592 he could have made a legitimate over-the-counter purchase. With S. 1592 and local legislation, however, his dubious background would have prevented him from doing either. This being the case, Jack Ruby would have had no cause to use the weapon for which he had a permit. Both the life of John F. Kennedy and that of his assassin might have been spared, and it takes only a simple exercise in logic to come to this conclusion. Although I will not make specific reference to the series of questions Chairman Dodd enclosed in his invitation to me to appear before this subcommittee, my comments which follow will bear primarily on these consideration. First and foremost, S. 1592 will assist us in our efforts in New Jersey, provided we pass an effective law of our own, by enabling law enforcement officials to concentrate their attention on the outflow of firearms from legitimate licensed firearms dealers. Section 2 of the bill will accomplish this by prohibiting the shipment of firearms to other than firearms dealers licensed by the State. Presently, there are approximately 1,900 federally licensed dealers in New Jersey, as compared to 450 State retail licensees. This means that about 1,450 Federal licensees will have to apply for State licenses. A great many of them will not be issued these State licenses, however, because of the fly-by-night nature of their operations. Although S. 1592 will not put local dealers under an obligation to refrain from selling to narcotics, alcoholics, criminals, subversives, and the like, it will make it relatively simple to accomplish this effectively through implementation by local legislation. Not only will this be important with respect to the controlled registration of rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers as covered in the law I would have in New Jersey, but it will also cut off the wanton and unregulated importation of "destructive devices" as defined by section 1(4) of S. 1592, including bombs, rockets, grenades, bazookas, and the like, by bringing under strict Federal control their shipment in interstate and foreign commerce. There are also numerous examples where this bill, combined with supplementary local legislation, may have resulted in the saving of lives. On October 13, 1964, in Delanco, N.J., a woman, under the care of a psychiatrist, shot and killed her 4-year-old daughter and committed suicide with a 12-gage shotgun. The weapon was purchased from an out-of-State department store and was delivered to her home by United Parcel shortly before the shooting occurred. If the Member of Congress who testified just previous to me were not so disturbed about going down to sign for his weapon-and he probably would have received it so very readily when he did-rather than be disturbed at that-if he would hear this example, he would know why local police would prefer to have the owner of that weapon come down and sign, so that they could determine who the person was. In February 1962, in Secaucus, N.J., several high school youths were caught shooting high powered war surplus rifles in the New Jersey meadows. The bullets traveled over 2 miles in distance, penetrating a house trailer and smashing the window of a private residence. Fortunately, no one was injured by the use of these Italian, Russian, British, and German rifles which were purchased as military antiques,. not guaranteed for firing. On November 17, 1964, two Trenton, N.J., policemen were detailed to investigate a complaint of a tavern owner who stated that he had just evicted a person from his establishment who was threatening to explode a hand grenade. When the police arrived at the tavern, the evicted person exploded the grenade, killing himself, one of the policemen, and a bystander. On December 26, 1962, two young adults and a juvenile were found. conducting a private war game on the Cherry Ridge Rifle Range in Sussex County, N.J. The weapons used were a 20-millimeter antitank gun, such as you have in the rear here, six rifles and two .38 caliber revolvers. (Photographs of the antitank gun and ammunition seized in this. case were marked "Exhibits Nos. 92 and 93" and appear on pp. 402-403. Extensive damage was done to buildings on the range, as well as the destruction of a bulldozer by a missile fired from the antitank gun. Without S. 1592 and local legislation consideration must also be given to the possibility of extremist groups availing themselves of firearms or heavy weapons in New Jersey or any other State. As Attorney General Lynch so vividly pointed out in his testimony with regard to the situation in California, these "self-styled saviors of our Nation" pose a very real threat to the security of freemen. A bill has been introduced in the California Legislature which will make it illegal for any two or more persons to— associate or assemble as a paramilitary organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons. Perhaps this approach is worth consideration by other jurisdictions wishing to clamp restrictions on the activities of these private armies. which thrive on hate, intolerance, fear, and prejudice. Presently, there are no laws in New Jersey, to control the sale of firearms to extremist groups. Any such group could legally arm itself with semiautomatic weapons, antitank guns, bazookas, mortars, and the like. Fortunately, there is no indication that the magnitude of the problem posed by these groups is anywhere near as great in New Jersey as it is in California. I am sure you recall, however, the case which occurred on December 11, 1964, when three Cubans were arrested for plotting to assassinate the United Nations representative from Cuba, Che Guevara, as he addressed the General Assembly in New York City. These three Cubans were found to have a stockpile of illegally possessed machine guns, pistols, revolvers, and hand grenades to be used by their organization to overthrow the Government of Cuba. Notwithstanding the relative paucity of armed extremist groups in New Jersey, I believe now is the time to take preventative measures that will protect against the possibility of such occurrences in thefuture. Without S. 1592, of course, the pursuance of effective measures. at the State and local level will remain remote. |