In February 1962 an arsenal of weapons belonging to Nussbaum and his two companions was captured in a farmhouse raid. The arsenal included 4 bulletproof vests, several thousand rounds of ammunition, an automatic carbine rifle, a dozen semiautomatic and submachineguns, 17 revolvers and hand grenades, and two 10-foot-long antitank guns.

Nussbaum purchased nearly all of these weapons from what were alleged to be legitimate sources. Clearly the Federal Firearms Act didn't work. No questions were asked. None are really required by the law.

It is obvious, when such individuals can acquire firearms, that something must be done to put some brake upon the ease with which they acquire them. Your bill proposes to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act in a number of ways. One of these is by requiring licensed dealers to ask questions.

Nussbaum is opposed to firearms controls. As he told me, personally, he doesn't believe that they will work. He shares the arguments of the National Rifle Association.

Senator DODD. That is very interesting.

Mr. BENNETT. He was, as a matter of fact, once a member of the National Rifle Association. One reason may be that he was once a member of the National Rifle Association and several other gun clubs.

What gets me is how representatives of the National Rifle Association can come here with tongue in cheek and talk about how our security is being protected by an armed citizenry. That's pure humbug, as the Secretary of the Army's testimony showed, and they know it, and so do the 8 out of 10 American citizens who believe something is needed to curb the indiscriminate sale of firearms.

And when they get away from these and a dozen other similar specious arguments they begin to nitpick at minor and inconsequential provisions of the bill, to argue over the meaning of words about statistics, and even to complain about provisions which, in fact, are not in the bill at all. You know, Senator, that some lawyers, when they cannot make a valid case, or when defending a guilty client who has no real defense, undertake to obscure and becloud the fundamental issue, confuse and confound the jury, raise unfounded fears, arouse emotion and prejudice, and trump up irrelevancies or very remote possibilities. Several of these tax-exempt associations, federations, and foundations who regularly oppose firearms control legislation at the Federal, State, and local levels have become very proficient in these techniques.

Now take this argument that the bill places too much power in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury and he will use it to harass legitimate sportsmen and hunters. Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation (p. 270 of the transcript), made much ado about the fact that there are seven places in the bill which give the Secretary of the Treasury authority to implement the statute by filling in specific procedural details by regulations, such as, for example, the information to be shown on the application for a dealer's license. Of course he didn't bother to say that the Secretary of the Treasury has had the authority under the Federal Firearms Act for 27 years to do precisely this, to prescribe the information on the license application form and that no evidence of abuse of the authority can be shown.

No more information than as shown on this form has been required of applicants on any such form in the past 27 years. Half of the questions on the form can be answered by merely placing a check mark in the appropriate box. All of the questions are clearly relevant to the obtaining of the license. The form is on one side of a regular-size sheet of paper, as you see. The average time which it should take to execute the dealers' license application form should not exceed 5 or 10 minutes. I have the form, Senator, which I shall file for the committee, a very simple little form. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 105," and is as follows:)

5. Home address (No. and street, city, county, State) (If a partnership, indicate address of each partner. If a corporation, indicate address of principal place of business)

The undersigned hereby applies for a license under the Federal Firearms Act (15 USC 903) to transport, ship, and receive firearms and ammunition in interstate and foreign commerce and states as follows: The applicant is not a fugitive from justice as defined in itle 15 507 901(6) and is not under indictment for, and has never been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term

Che year.

1 declare that the above statements are true and correct. (Any person***who makes any statement in applying for the license***provided for in this Act, knowing such statement to be false, shall upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both (15 USC 905).)

15. Date of application

16. Signature

17. Title (State whether individual owner, member of

firm, or officer of corporation)

INSTRUCTIONS

All questions must be answered fully. If additional space is required, use additional sheets which must be identified as a part of the application, properly signed by applicant, and securely attached to application. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement in applying for this license is subject to criminal prosecution (15 USC 905).

1. Manufacturers and dealers desiring licenses shall make applícation on this form to the District Director of Internal Revenue for the district in which is located the applicant's place of business. A separate application must be submitted for each place of business. Each application shall be properly completed and signed by the applicant.

2. Licenses are effective for a period of 1 year from the date of issuance.

3. The term "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the manufacture or importation of firearms or ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets or propellent powder for purposes of sale or distribution. A "manufacturer" must obtain a Federal Firearms Act license as a manufacturer in order to lawfully transport, ship or receive firearms, or any parts thereof, pistol or revolver ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. The license fee for manufacturers is $25.00 per annum.

4. The term "dealer" means any person engaged in the business of selling firearms or ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets or propellent powder at wholesale or retail, or any person engaged in the business of repairing such firearms or of manufacturing or fitting special barrels, stocks, trigger mechanisms, or breech mechanisms to firearms. A "dealer" must obtain a Federal Firearms Act license as a dealer in order to lawfully. transport, ship or receive firearms, or parts thereof, pistol or revolver ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. The lf'cense fee for dealers is $1.00 per annum. A Federal Firearms Act license will not be issued to any person who is not engaged in the firearms business, or does not intend to be engaged in the firearms business. Persons who only intend to purchase firearms or ammunition for their own use and not for sale; to acquire such articles to further a hobby of gun collecting; or to rely on a Federal Firearms Act license as authority for carrying a concealed weapon OS a Federal, state, or local permit, should not make application for a Federal Firearms Act license,

5. A license shall not be issued to any person who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or who is a "fu gitive from justice", as defined in 15 USC 901 (6).

6. The license fee must be remitted with the application. Make. remittance payable to "TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES".

7. The term "firearm" means (1) any weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by action of an explosive; (2) any part or parts of such weapons; and (3) a firearm muffler or firearm silencer.

8. The term "ammunition" means only pistol or revolver ammunition; however, no distinction is recognized between "new" and "reloaded" ammunition. It does not include shotgun shells, metallic ammunition suitable for use only in rifles, or any .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

9. The license requirement of the Federal Firearms Act is in addition to, and not in lieu of the qualifying requirements of the National Firearms Act (United States Code, Title 26, Chapter 53). On the other hand, special (occupational) taxes required under the National Firearms Act are in addition to and not in lieu of the license required under the Federal Firearms Act (United States Code, Title 15, Chapter 18).

10. Under USC Title 15, Chapter 18, Section 902, penalties are provided for the transportation, shipment, or receipt of firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce by manufacturers and dealers not licensed under the Act, and for other unlawful acts.

11. The exportation or importation of any arms or ammunition aliber .22 or larger is subject to the requirement of a license issued by the Secretary of State. For information concerning this matter, contact the Office of Munitions Control, Department of State, Washington 25, D. C. The State Department license is in addition to, but not in lieu of, the license required by the Federal Firearms Act, and the requirements under the National Firearms Act.

Mr. BENNETT. Now just exactly what is so burdensome or horrendous about this exercise of authority?

This talk about "putting the regulations in the statute" is purely nonsense, as anyone knows who has drafted legislation. I think this approach is being used to confuse and befuddle the real issues. It is a stalling technique to delay action on this bill.

Mr. Orth, of the National Rifle Association, as I understood his testimony, said he had no intent to mislead his members when he filed that famous letter saying that the bill would give unlimited power to surround all sales with arbitrary and burdensome regulations and restrictions. How can he come here with a straight face and try to disclaim this, as unintentional, or weasel out of it on the grounds that the statement was prepared by a committee on which there were lawyers? I say in all sincerity this was sheer hypocrisy.

Certainly no objective or knowledgeable lawyer can believe the Secretary of the Treasury would issue regulations so arbitrary or capricious or complicated or impracticable or so burdensome that they would eliminate the private ownership of guns. There is nothing in the bill that would authorize this and if any attempt was made to do so there can be abundant appeal to the courts, the top administrative machinery of the Government and to Congress. Let them cite any case where the Secretary of the Treasury has abused the powers given him under the present Federal or National Firearms Acts to issue regulations.

Incidentally, there is seldom, as you know-I could almost say never-a bill before Congress that does not vest large discretionary powers in a Government officer whether it's a voting rights bill, a tax

49-588-65-33

statute, a selective service act, or a firearms bill. I remember, Senator, you had a good deal to do with the endorsement of the Selective Service Act. You know that act could not possibly have been endorsed and we could not have carried out the war if there had not been some sort in the head of the Selective Service System to issue regulations. Regulations are necessary to provide flexibility and to take care of problems which may be unforeseen by the legislators. This flexibility is just as advantageous to those subject to the laws and regulations as it is to the administrator. Once on the books, an overly detailed law which, because of its specificity, is cumbersome to administer and unnecessarily restrictive in some areas may take several years to amend. Regulatory provisions found impractical or unwieldy may, subject to the hearing procedures prescribed under the Administrative Procedure Act, be changed with comparative ease. Those that are administered are now, Senator, as you know, brought in to discuss these matters before the authorities when they are amending the regulations. They have a hearing and an opportunity to present their objections.

There are, possibly, some parts of the bill that may need clarification or further study. I am sure the committee intends to do this, but I predict they will be without substantial help, or constructive criticism from these blind and irreconcilable opponents of the bill. Despite their verbalizations they really don't want to see it perfected, fearing it might pass.

Some attempt to further confuse the issue by expressing approval of substitute legislation which would purport to "punish misuse of firearms" and impose no controls over their sale. My years of experience in law enforcement work and with penal institutions should qualify me to express the opinion that such an approach to crime deterrence would be inadequate and ineffective. Punishment after the commission of the crime is certainly a poor substitute for action which might have prevented it in the beginning, and I seriously doubt the value, as a deterrent, of the availability of one more charge, that of carrying or using a gun in the commisson of a serious crime, against a person who would otherwise be subject to a long prison sentence, or even execution in some instances, if convicted.

Senator, we had an inmate at Levenworth Penitentiary by the name of Leonard Smith. He had been a very troublesome man in the institution. He had been committed originally for a bank robbery charge. He assaulted another inmate while he was in the institution. We held him to his maximum time and then released him. He went almost straight away to Los Angeles. En route, he bought a gun in Flagstaff, Ariz. No questions were asked. Of course, he was ineligible to work. He bought this gun in Flagstaff, went to Los Angeles and he was with a girl friend and she was attempting to cash a check in a store in Los Angeles. Two policemen who were in plain clothes undertook to question him. He said to them, "Are you cops?" And he whipped out this gun which he had acquired at Flagstaff and killed them both. He was tried and is now awaiting execution in California. Now the thought of execution did not stop him or bar him from acquiring a gun and committing this murder.

I am familiar and you are familiar with others who are characterized in that way. At least we can do something to slow up these

people. We are not going to cure crime through this statute, but we are going to slow it up, reduce it, and we are going to make more difficult these most serious offienses. I am sure that bank robberies will go way down if a gun is not easily available. People do not commit bank robberies, and I am familiar with all the techniques they use, they do not, many of them, commit bank robberies with other than a pistol, one they have acquired.

We just had one, Senator Tydings, as you know, right out here in our neighboring county. We have not yet found where that gun was acquired, but I think it will be found that he acquired it very easily when he is once apprehended.

We had a killing here the other day in Nebraska, ruthless, done by a disturbed person, I know-I am sure-and I do not know, yet, but I think it is quite possible we shall find this gun was easily acquired. I am familiar, Senator, with a large number of mentally disturbed persons. As you know, we run a mental hospital where we examine and give custodial care to people who are mentally disturbed and who commit various kinds of crime-some of the most fantastic sorts of crime. We have, for instance, out there now something like 30 men who have made serious threats or attempts against the life of the President of the United States. To let those men go out there who will tell you to their face that the next time they are out, they are going to hold court on the spot, to let those fellows leave that institution and go and buy a gun is just a ruthless disregard, I think, of what can be done to prevent crime.

And every State has these people. They have them in their mental institutions.

We can pretty well predict what those people are going to do and we must find some way of keeping some control over them, which bill would do so far as the acquisition of firearms is concerned.

your

Your bill by making a common instrument of crime less readily available to the criminally inclined is a preventive measure. It certainly will not eliminate crime, as I say, but it is one sound, logical step in the direction of curbing our increasing rate of crimes of violence. It is my sincere belief that the Congress should follow the President's recommendation urging the Federal Government to do its part in combating crime by effectively regulating interstate and foreign commerce in firearms in order to prevent the frustration, the negation, of State and local firearms laws. He said in his message that crime will not wait while we pull it up by the roots, that it is a national problem and that the Federal Government must play a more meaningful role. Your bill, Senator, is an important forwardlooking, progressive step in this direction.

I appreciate your attention and would be glad to help you in any way I can.

Senator DODD. Well, you have been very helpful today as you have been on many occasions in the past. I think I have made it a matter of public record that I have consulted with you, I do not know how many times, to get your views on this bill or the earlier bill which I have introduced, because I know you are an expert and know what you are talking about. I wish everybody in this country could have heard your testimony. And everything you say, of course, is so pertinent,

so true.