Senator DODD. Will you let us have it? Mr. BLONDES. Be very happy to. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 95," and is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 95 [Legislative Bulletin, National Rifle Association, Washington, D.C., Mar. 21, 1963] To: All NRA members and clubs in Maryland. Subject: A bill to regulate the possession, use, and receipt of firearms by minors. Proposal: House bill No. 1072. Sponsor: Delegate Leonard S. Blondes, Montgomery County, Silver Spring. Status of proposal: Introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS (a) No minor under 18 years of age may carry, use, or possess any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon unless he has in his possession at the time a permit issued by the Maryland State Police. (b) No minor under 18 years of age may receive through the mail any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon unless he has filed with the mailer of such weapon or ammunition a permit from the Maryland State Police. (c) No person or firm may sell or otherwise transfer any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon to any minor under 18 years of age unless such minor has exhibited a permit from the Maryland State Police. (d) No person or firm may mail any firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition to any minor under the age of 18 years unless the mailer has received a State police permit authorizing such mailing. (e) A permit to possess and use or a permit to receive a firearm or other deadly weapon or ammunition for such weapon shall be issued by the Maryland State Police only after (1) payment of a $1 fee; (2) consent under affidavit of a parent or guardian; (3) evidence satisfactory to the State police that applicant is of good moral character: (4) a certificate of successful completion of a firearm safety course, conducted by an organization approved by the superintendent of State police, and the content of which course also approved by the superintendent. COMMENTARY The net result of this bill would be the elimination of all junior marksmanship activities in the State of Maryland by all youngsters under the age of 18. There would be no junior shooting clubs and no junior shooting programs. Aside from the practical effects of this proposal, there is a serious inconsistency in its provisions. On the one hand, a person under 18 years of age must have a police permit in order to possess and use a firearm; on the other, he cannot obtain such a permit unless he successfully completes a course of study in the use and handling of firearms. Obviously, a person cannot successfully complete such a course unless he handles firearms, but the use of firearms is prohibited without a permit. Members will recall that Delegate Blondes introduced House bill No. 233 to prohibit the purchase or use of firearms by minors. This bill was killed in committee because of the widespread opposition by shooter-sportsmen. The present bill by Mr. Blondes is in no sense an improvement over his previous bill. PERSONAL OPINION You may express your opinion on this bill by letter, card, telegram, or telephone to the sponsor, your senators and delegates in the general assembly and to any or all members of the committee listed below. (If you do not know the names of your lawmakers, you may obtain this information from your city or county clerk.) Your legislators may be reached at the statehouse, Annapolis. F. C. DANIEL, Secretary. MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE Delegate Thomas Hunter Lowe, chairman, Talbot County. Delegate Noel Spier Cook, Alleghany County. Delegate Irma George Dixon, Baltimore City, District No. 4. Delegate Sol J. Friedman, Baltimore City, District No. 5. Delegate Frank H. Harris, Cecil County. Delegate Carter M. Hickman, Queen Annes County. Delegate Martin A. Kircher, Baltimore City, District No. 3. Delegate Chester G. Kosakowski, Baltimore City, District No. 1. Delegate Robert Charles Biggy Long, Somerset County. Delegate H. Kemp MacDaniel, Baltimore County. Delegate Frank J. McCourt, Baltimore City, District No. 2. Delegate Wilbur W. Magin, Carroll County. Delegate Richard M. Matthews, Dorchester County. Delegate Frank G. Perrin, Charles County. Delegate Mark O. Pilchard, Worcester County. Delegate Edgar P. Silver, Baltimore City, District No. 5. Delegate R. Noel Spence, Washington County. Delegate Norman R. Stone, Jr., Baltimore County. Delegate James A. Wise, Caroline County. Senator DODD. I gather that you feel pressures which were applied against your bill and against you were initiated by the NRA or by an affiliated organization in Maryland. Is that correct? Mr. BLONDES. Yes; I feel it basically stems from this newsletter we are all familiar with just as the one that went out in reference to your bill. This was as vicious and as ugly a letter as I have ever seen and I mentioned to Mr. Perian when I talked to him over the phone that I was very tempted at that time and yet, I felt I am sure that you, too, realize it as well, but I felt that was the most misinterpreted piece of informaion I have ever seen. I am sure it was the same type of situation that you have run into. Senator DODD. I know just what you are talking about. Did I also understand you to say that you have seen telegrams from persons who purported to support your bill but, in fact, opposed it? Do you have copies of those telegrams? Mr. BLONDES. Yes. Senator DODD. Could we see them? Mr. BLONDES. Be very happy to give them to you. Senator DODD. It would be helpful to the subcommittee in showing the type of opposition that has been encountered. I would also appreciate it if you would supply us with the names of persons who have conferred with you. You said that you talked to them for several hours and if they have the same people following up in opposition I would like to know that as well. Mr. BLONDES. I would be very happy to give that to your committee. Senator DODD. I think that would help show that there is a plan in opposition all across the country by these organizations to make it first appear they want to cooperate and then go to work on the bill behind the backs of the legislatures who support it. Mr. BLONDES. I will supply all of that information and names to you, Senator. (The information referred to was subsequently provided to the subcommittee, marked "Exhibit No. 96," and is as follows:) Mr. CARL PERIAN, EXHIBIT No. 96 HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Annapolis, Md., July 19, 1965. Staff Director, Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, DEAR MR. PERIAN: Please be advised that to the best of my recollection I talked with Messrs. Daniels, Mountain, Knight, and Basil of NRA on 16th Street shortly after introducing my first gun legislation. The two gentlemen who had worked with us in the subcommittee of the House, who later sent wires to the Senate asking that the bill be killed were William Printz and John C. Carroll. Yours very truly, LEONARD S. BLONDES. Mr. BLONDES. Senator Dood, do you ever have the opportunity on occasion to read the Rifleman magazine? Senator DODD. Yes; I have read it, and ad nauseum. Mr. BLONDES. When you read those articles about State legislation and Federal legislation, it says the same thing in the magazine as we see in those informative letters and it is the same tactics that are used continuously by the same people, the same innuendoes, the same type of comments and recommendations to its membership. Senator DODD. I know what you are talking about, but it will take some encouragement, I think. I think the people of the country are catching on to them real quick and I think when we are through with these hearings there will be an abundant evidence of that. Mr. BLONDES. I surely hope so. Senator DODD. Thank you again, very much. Mr. BLONDES. Thank you. Senator DODD. We will now hear from Mr. Palmisano. Mr. Palmisano, as I said to Mr. Blondes, we are very glad you could come here this morning. I know that you are a member of the Maryland House of Delegates and that you have been concerned with firearms legislation. (Correspondence relating to Mr. Blondes' testimony was subsequently received, marked "Exhibits Nos. 97, 98, and 99," and reads as follows:) Hon. THOMAS J. DODD, EXHIBIT No. 97 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, DEAR SENATOR DODD: I have considered, for some time, how best to react to the testimony given before your Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency on Tuesday, June 8, 1965, by Maryland Assemblyman Leonard S. Blondes. I have decided to put the facts in a letter to you and to rely on your fairness and sense of justice to "set the record straight." It was apparent, I think, that the presence of Mr. Blondes before the committee was not so much to testify in favor of the provisions of S. 1592 as to discredit the National Rifle Association of America and to represent us as a "lobbying" organization that would resort to almost any means, fair or foul, to prevent any firearms legislation from being enacted, no matter how worthwhile or constructive it might be. Delegate Blondes said many things in his testimony that were slanted to bring discredit upon the association and its members, but two comments in particular were so damaging in their implication and so completely false, that I cannot permit them to go unchallenged. I am enclosing, as exhibit A, an excerpt from Mr. Blondes' testimony containing the statements to which I refer. I would direct your attention first to the statement in the opening paragraph in which Mr. Blondes says, with respect to Maryland House bill 233, that the bill, "* * * proposed a 72-hour waiting period, which, of course, required a check into the person himself: whether or not he was a felon, dope addict, or derelict. This also required a compulsory training program and restrictions as to juveniles and to mail orders." I am sending you, as exhibit B, a copy of Maryland House bill 233 and would point out to you that this bill does not propose a 72-hour waiting period; it does not require a check of the person himself; it does not mention a compulsory training period or any other training period. What this bill would have done would have been to bring to a complete halt every NRA or other junior marksmanship program in the State of Maryland. I send you, as exhibit C, a copy of our Legislative Bulletin reporting this bill to our members in the State of Maryland. I think you will find it a fair and objective digest of the bill's provisions. As a result of the public reaction to this bill, Delegate Blondes did, indeed. make an appointment with us and visited here for several hours on February 27, 1963. He discussed his legislative proposal with Mr. Jack Basil and Mr. Dan Mountin of this staff. Following this visit, and in a further effort to be helpful, we wrote Delegate Blondes at some length, and I enclose a copy, marked "Exhibit D," of our letter to him dated March 7, 1963. This represents the last contact we had with Delegate Blondes. We have not spoken nor corresponded with him since that time. Delegate Blondes testifies: "However, I felt then after lengthy discussion with the general (Lt. Gen. Milton A. Reckord, Maryland adjutant general) that the NRA was basically a cosponsor of the bill. It was interesting, however, that by the same day house bill 1072 was dropped in the hopper, that is March 21, 1963, the NRA 'informative letter' was mailed, knifing each and every proposal of house bill 1072. It was mailed to all members of the house of delegates and to the committee members of the judiciary committee and the chairman giving each and every provision of house bill 1072 and, of course, they knew every item of the bill because we had worked them out item by item. * * This statement, and its implication, are equally and wholly false. I am sending you, marked "Exhibit E," a copy of Maryland House bill 1072, also a photocopy of the introduction notice provided us by the Commerce Clearinghouse. You will note that this bill was not introduced on March 21, 1963, as Mr. Blondes testified, but on March 13. We had absolutely no knowledge of the provisions of the bill until a draft copy was sent to us from Annapolis, reaching us on March 20. Our legislative bulletin was dated March 21, 1963. This bulletin was mailed to NRA members in the State of Maryland and only to NRA members. We do not and we have never mailed NRA legislative bulletins to members of State legislatures or committee members. I send you, marked "Exhibit F," a copy of our legislative bulletin with reference to Maryland House bill 1072. I believe you will find that it does not take words or phrases out of context and that it is, in fact, an objective and correct digest of the bill's provisions. Mr. Blondes' implication that we had advance knowledge of the provisions of the bill, that we had worked them out with him, and that we then worked to defeat the bill behind his back, is absolutely false. You may wish to check with General Reckord. He tells me that, to the best of his recollection, he has never met Delegate Blondes nor spoken with him. General Reckord has served the State of Maryland for many years. His reputation for fearless honesty is well known. That he would resort to the sort of double dealing implied by Delegate Blondes would stagger the credulity of anyone who knew the general. I am not, Senator Dodd, making the content of this letter public. turbed and, frankly, hurt over the rift that has opened between us. I am dis- cerely anxious to do nothing that would widen it. I do think and feel strongly that the attacks that have been made against this association, without opportunity for defense, are shameful and reprehensible. As an association of sportsmen we have every right and duty to keep our members informed with respect to legislation, Federal, State, and local, which affects their legitimate interest in firearms. I know you to be a fair and sincere person, and I know you will not permit false and wholly misleading statements to appear in the record of the hearing on your bill without correction. I ask that this letter and its attachments, at the proper time, be made a matter of the record on these hearings. Because, from his own testimony, it is apparent that Senator Tydings of Maryland also has had his thinking colored with respect to the activities of the National Rifle Association in legislative matters, and since he introduced Delegate Blondes to your committee, I am taking the liberty of sending him a copy of this letter and its attachments. Cordially yours, Attachments. FRANKLIN L. ORTH, Executive Vice President. EXHIBIT A EXCERPT FROM TESTIMONY OF LEONARD S. BLONDES, ASSEMBLY MAN, ANNAPOLIS, MD., HEARING HELD BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, S. 1592, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT, TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1965 In my freshman year I introduced house bill No. 233, not realizing the force and effect of an organization which, I think, we have heard about during the last many months and years: the National Rifle Association. The bill proposed a 72-hour waiting period which, of course, required a check into the person himself whether or not he was a felon, dope addict, or derelict. This also required a compulsory training program and restrictions as to juveniles and to mail orders. Shortly after the introduction of the bill I was deluged with letters, telegrams, and telephone calls in opposition thereto. However, several of the letters suggested that my thoughts were good and that the National Rifle Association would like to be helpful in correcting a few of the problems existing in the bill. This was the first time I began feeling the effect of the NRA. I appreciated the offer. I proceeded to make an appointment with the gentlemen on 16th Street and spent several hours with them preparing a new bill, later to be known as house bill 1072. It was recommended that for the final touches I discuss the matter with General Reckord of the State of Maryland. It was a real honor to discuss the matter with the gentleman and I had felt, after lengthy discussions with the gentleman, that I really had a partner in my firearms legislation. However, I felt then after lengthy discussion with the general that the NRA was basically a cosponsor of the bill. It was interesting, however, that by the same day house bill 1072 was dropped in the hopper-that is March 21, 1963-the NRA "informative" letter was mailed, knifing each and every proposal of house bill 1072. It was mailed to all the members of the house of delegates and to the committee members of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman, giving each and every provision of house bill 1072 and, of course, they knew every item of the bill because we had worked them out item by item so they were one step ahead of me at that point, and any point where I thought we were working together. By taking certain words and phrases out of context, it was suggested that I was trying to disarm the Nation and deprive our youth of their right to firearms instruction. Senator DODD. I must say that has a familiar ring. Mr. BLONDES. Senator, this is just a little background of how I, too, have felt the pressures of this organization. This was a gross misrepresentation and a devious method of attempting to destroy the legislation. Incited by their printed words and suggestions, the telephone calls and letters came again, but this time more ugly, obscene, and threatening to my wife and children. |