Answer: Registration provides a record that is useful in solving crimes and tracing weapons in the real, present-day world. The fear that a citizen underground will have a useful function and will be betrayed by gun registration is theoretical in the extreme. If it were not, the NRA membership list would be the single most useful blacklist for enemy agents. Argument: Gun laws calling for licensing or registration would penalize the law abiding, who would comply, and not touch criminals, who would not comply. Thus, such laws do not reach the real problem. Answer: It can be said of any law which most obey, while some do not, that it penalizes the law abiding (for example, traffic speed laws). The point is that most people obey regulatory laws, which brings about at least some degree of control over the problem. Moreover, the Government then has authority for punishment of those who do not comply. Argument: We should not disarm householders and leave them at the mercy of armed burglars and other criminals. Answer: The most commonly proposed forms of licensing or registration would not have that effect. Householders and shopkeepers could be permitted to keep registered guns. Argument: A gun is only dangerous if misused. No gun ever shot a person by itself without someone firing it. Therefore, the appropriate legal remedy is to punish illegal misuse of guns, not to hamper mere ownership. Answer: Severe criminal sanctions against carrying concealed guns and against armed robbery, armed assault, and murder have not been adequate to prevent those crimes from reaching serious proportions. Since a pistol has such an attraction for criminals and such a particular efficiency for inflicting injury or death, we must do something more to control access to guns. The ownership of pistols should be recorded and dangerous categories of persons must be altogether forbidden to own pistols. Argument: The second amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to every private citizen the right to bear arms, including pistols. Answer: The second amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This amendment was intended as a guarantee of State militia legislation against Federal interference and does not create a private, individual right to keep or carry firearms. This purpose was made clear by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 301 U.S. 174 (1939), upholding a conviction under the Federal Firearms Act for carrying an unregistered firearm across a State line. Other Federal courts have similarly emphasized the purpose of the amendment to preserve the power of State legislatures in militia matters, rejecting any notion of a federally protected individual privilege to carry arms in defiance of local law. E.g., Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942); United States v. Tot, 131 F. 2d 261 (3d Cir. 1942), reversed on other grounds 319 U.S. 463. The argument that the second amendment guarantees unlimited individual freedom to bear arms is wholly inconsistent with the fact that many States, including the District of Columbia, have passed laws forbidding any private ownership or possession of submachine guns, switchblade knives, brass knuckles, sawed-off shotguns, blackjacks and the like, all weapons which have some utility in defense of self or country. What should be the main elements of a District firearms bill? Here, reasonable men may differ, depending upon their individual evaluation of the need, the workable and the politically possible. The major alternatives thus far proposed appear to be licensing or registration. They are very different. The purpose of a licensing bill is to reduce or limit the possession of guns. Under a licensing bill, such as New York's Sullivan law, possession or ownership of a pistol is forbidden (and criminally punishable) unless a license is first obtained. Qualifications for a license must be satisfied by the applicant (need, good character, reputation, mental and physical health, perhaps absence of children in the house). Opinions differ whether New York's Sullivan law has been effective in minimizing the pistol population; no one knows how many unlicensed guns are outstanding or whether the figure is smaller than it would be with no Sullivan law on the books. A registration bill, by contrast, is primarily designed to ascertain and record outstanding guns and their serial numbers, owners, and transfers. Most regis 49-588-65- -28 tration laws also forbid certain persons to have a gun at all (felons, addicts, habitual drunks, etc.), and registration affords the police a means of checking compliance with those prohibitions. A registration law normally would impose a lesser burden of investigation on the police than a licensing law, since registration would not forbid possession as broadly. At present writing, the main probable elements of a District gun bill are: 1. The proposal is likely to be a registration bill rather than a licensing bill like the Sullivan law. A registration bill would keep within manageable limits the investigative duties which would be imposed on the police. In addition, such a bill should be easier to enact than a very stringent licensing law which broadly forbids ownership of guns. 2. The bill is likely to be limited to pistols rather than include rifles and shotguns, since statistics and daily experience show that the public danger is largely identified with pistols. Here, too, such a limitation would be intended to yield the maximum benefit and reduce the opposition. 3. New categories of persons will probably be prohibited from having pistols, such as persons convicted of misdemeanors involving the use of pistols; persons under 18 years of age; frequent offenders for drunken driving or habitual intoxication, and persons found to have mental or personality disorders. 4. Criminal penalties would be provided for nonregistration of pistols and for failure to notify the police of transfers, thefts, or losses of pistols. 5. Stiffer penalties would be provided for carrying a pistol on the person (except at home or place of business). 6. Registration fees would be nominal, to avoid any substantial expense to bona fide collectors. 7. Sellers of pistols (now required to supply the police with data identifying buyers and the guns sold before making delivery) would have to give more notice in order to allow the police more time to check criminal records. 8. Mail order shippers of pistols into the District would be required to get police clearance of the consignee in a manner analogous to 7 above. A bill containing these main elements would be relatively easy to administer and ought to be politically feasible. It would not stop all crimes committed with pistols but it should reduce the number of guns in the hands of the irresponsible, the criminal and the mentally unfit and should provide helpful data in tracing guns which have been used in crimes. In the Federal administration, in the District and in Congress, the conviction is growing that the District is not the Tombstone, Ariz., of recent romantic memory and that it deserves gun laws befitting the Capital of a great and responsible world power. The 89th Congress has the most promising opportunity in many years to make this aspiration a reality. We will recess this hearing at this time until Monday at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene Monday, June 7, 1965, at 10 a.m.) FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1965 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Washington, D.C. The subcommittee (composed of Senators Dodd, Hart, Bayh, Burdick, Tydings, Hruska, Fong, and Javits) met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas J. Dodd presiding. Present: Senators Dodd and Burdick. Also present: Carl L. Perian, staff director; and William C. Mooney, Jr., chief investigator. Senator DODD. The subcommittee will come to order. This morning we have Senator Joseph Tydings, of Maryland, the distinguished Member of the Senate and a member of this subcommittee who has taken a great interest in this particular bill. Senator, I am very happy that you took the time to appear here this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here not only to testify myself, but also to have the privilege of introducing to you and to the subcommittee two distinguished members of the Maryland Legislature, Delegates Palmisano and Blondes. Mr. Palmisano is a delegate from Baltimore City and Mr. Blondes is from Montgomery County. I would like to preface my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I consider myself as something of a gun and sporting buff. I own five shotguns myself. I have been shooting ducks, geese, skeet, almost as long as I can remember. I can remember accompanying my father to the duck blind, at least to sit with him and watch him shoot when I was only 9 years old back in the third grade before he would come to Washington in the morning. So I consider myself at least one who can speak and represent the responsible sportsmen and hunters across the country. I would like to say that shooting is possibly my favorite hobby, one of my favorite sports. I love to shoot. I am not the best trap or skeet shot, but I do enjoy it. So much for the preparatory remarks, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I am pleased to be here to support your bill, S. 1592, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act. My primary reason for cosponsoring this bill is because we need effective controls on the movement of firearms in interstate commerce. Too often these firearms find their way to juveniles, criminals, and other unstable persons who may misuse them. This bill does not restrict legitimate ownership and possession of firearms. It would simply terminate interstate traffic of mail-order firearms and prohibit the sale of firearms to persons under 21 years of age, except that shotguns and rifles could be sold to persons 18 years. of age or over. I am acutely aware of the enormous volume of mail in opposition to this legislation. I am persuaded however, that many of the opponents of this legislation are misinformed concerning the provisions of the bill. This bill would not hinder the importaton or sale of firearms for lawful sporting purposes or the importance of antique and unserviceable firearms. Gun collectors and sportsmen likewise need have no fear that this bill will hamper their leisure activity. Nothing in this bill prevents a citizen from purchasing a gun from any sporting goods or hardware store in his State. Nothing in this bill prevents any citizen from taking a gun or pistol across State lines for lawful purposes. Nothing in this bill prevents or restricts guns from being sold and distributed in every State by reputable licensed dealers. As I said before, I, too, am a hunter and skeetshooter and possess firearms for this purpose. This will not restrict the possession and use of sporting guns. The fees contained in this bill relate to dealers, manufacturers, and importers and not to individual purchasers and owners. These fees are designed to insure that no person shall be permitted to import firearms and/or ammunition, or to manufacture, or deal in these items unless he is a legitimate, reputable person. While the fees provided in this bill may seem high, they are designed to stop the illegal flow of firearms through interstate commerce. Under this legislation, various abuses in the existing Federal Firearms Act licensing system would be eliminated and the hazard and dangers of free-flowing mail-order traffic in firearms reduced. With our ever-increasing crime rate and statistics showing an extremely high percentage of crime committed by persons bearing firearms, I feel this legislation is a very much needed one. I need not cite the evidence which illustrates the ever-increasing crime problem in this country. The record of these hearings and that of this subcommittee during the past 4 years is replete with such documentation, as you know, Mr. Chairman. Let me address a few remark to a problem area which you, Mr. Chairman, discussed on the opening day of these hearings. I refer to the results of the inquiry conducted by Treasury agents who looked into the purchase of firearms in Prince Georges County, Md., by residents of the District of Columbia. Quite understandably, I was disturbed by the results of that inquiry, because of an apparent weakness in the Maryland statute relating to the trade in firearms in Prince Georges County. Residents of the District of Columbia with criminal records could buy firearms in that jurisdiction. I am delighted to note on May 27, just 2 weeks ago, the commissioners of Prince Georges County approved an ordinance to regulate the sale of pistols in that county. The ordinance requires a 5-day waiting period before one can purchase a gun. During that time, the police will have an opportunity to make a check and to determine whether the applicant is a law-abiding citizen. Prince Georges County thus becomes the only jurisdiction in Maryland outside Baltimore City, with gun control legislation. Earlier this year, the Maryland Legislature refused to enact such legislation on a statewide basis. Only yesterday, Senator Dodd, in our second largest political subdivision in the State of Maryland-Baltimore Countya pistol registration bill was up for a vote. It was defeated by a vote of 4 to 3. The deciding vote was cast by a commissioner or councilman who stated that he did not think the regulation would be effective in Baltimore County until we had a national gun control act similar to the type that you have introduced and enacted by the National Congress. That is one more incentive for me, as a Maryland Senator, to support your bill here today. The commissioners in Prince Georges County are to be congratulated for their courage in enacting this much-needed law and our State's attorney, Mr. Marshall, is entitled to great credit for supporting it. They ought to be commended because their action was taken in the face of strong opposition from the National Rifle Association. Although the National Rifle Association has consistently offered, in its national publicity, support legislation to control the export and sale of firearms, its opposition to this proposed ordinance, which is now law in Prince Georges County, was most vocal. On June 8, 1965, a legislative bulletin published by the NRA was issued to all NRA members in clubs in Prince Georges County, Md. That bulletin is in reference to, and I quote: A bill, No. 13, to require a waiting period for the transfer of a pistol. The bulletin sets forth the provisions of the Prince Georges County bill and urged sportsmen and shooters to attend the hearings on the measure or inform the board of county commissioners of their view. The bulletin concludes with the following sentence: When giving your opinion, be objective and persuasive, and never abusive. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, does this not infer opposition? Would the National Rifle Association member be abusive if he were in favor of the legislation? When hearings were held on the bill in June of 1964, the Washington Star, of June 17, reported Gun buffs sale proposals for Prince Georges County gun dealers, collectors, and sportsmen fired a double-barreled blast at proposed handgun restrictions in Prince Georges County. Armed with articles, statistics, Federal and State statutes, they fired away at the proposal as being too expensive, too restricted, unconstitutional, and unenforceable. Mr. Chairman, there is no evidence to indicate that these opponents submitted constructive alternatives to the proposals being considered by the county commissioners of Prince Georges County. I cannot escape the conclusion that those who opposed the bill, Senate 1592, are opposed to any regulation of firearms. |