this one, it is apparently all too easy to become confused as to the actual situation. I submit that some supporting this measure have also tended to add to this confusion. In this line I would submit to the committee three articles-one an editorial from the Boston Herald. Saturday, May 22, 1965. Basically, the information in here is correct, but the public is misled by the statement-paragraph The Dodd bill would not stop legitimate sportsmen, trapshooters, marksmen, collectors, or people who want to be able to protect themselves from owning firearms or from buying them locally or by mail.*** Since there is a prohibition against mail order, except within intrastate commerce, this partially tends to mislead the public on this matter. Senator DODD. No, it doesn't. I know the editorial very well. I have read it many times. It tells exactly the truth about this bill. Mr. FOOTE. Senator, when it states that nothing would bar people from buying firearms by mail Senator DODD. Nothing will. You can buy it by mail through your local dealer. Mr. FOOTE. This assumes, Senator Dodd, there is a representative of the local dealer in the State in which you live. So it does restrict it to intrastate shipments. Senator DODD. It is not a misleading editorial. You can take your view of it. I want it on the record, it is my view that it is not misleading in any respect. That is a very responsible newspaper. Mr. FOOTE. I am aware the newspaper is responsible, sir. But I think to that extent it is misleading. Senator DODD. They have written many editorials about this bill They have all been good. (The article referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 125" and is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 125 [From the Boston Herald, May 22, 1965] GUNS BY MAIL Hearings on gun legislation have started in Washington. Among those speaking in favor of further restrictions for regulating the sale of firearms have been Attorney General Katzenbach, Senator and former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and, of course, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (Democrat, of Connecticut), who has been leading the fight in Congress. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee and a former FBI agent, introduced his bill back in 1963. It has met stiff opposition from gunmakers, sportsman's associations and other groups. And it has never been very clear why. The bill in its present form is quite simple. It would require purchasers of mail-order firearms to submit to the seller a sworn affidavit that they are over 18, have not been convicted or indicted on felony charges, and that it is not against local law in their community or State to purchase a firearm. The mailorder house would then be required to forward the statement to local police officials. The most often used argument against the bill is the second amendment of the Constitution which provides that "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But in a nuclear world we are no longer dependent on an informal militia and we already have local laws in many States, including Massachusetts, which regulate the sale and possession of firearms. The Dodd bill would not stop legitimate sportsmen, trap-shooters, marksmen, collectors or people who want to be able to protect themselves from owning firearms nor from buying them locally or by mail. But it would help keep firearms out of the hands of minors and criminals. It would give the police the means with which to keep tabs on firearms which not only would help them in the battle against crime but would benefit the legitimate owners when their firearms are stolen or lost. And yet all sorts of dirt is thrown on this legislation. Said one opponent: "The Dodd Bill represents a further attempt by a subversive power to make us part of one-world, socialistic government." And a recent resolution offered in the New Hampshire Senate said that the bill "could have a crippling effect on the economy of the multi-million-dollar sales and service business associated with the recreational use of firearms in New Hampshire and would only result in further loss of American liberty, add to the work of law-enforcement and police forces and inconvenience and penalize law-abiding citizens." This is stuff and nonsense. We prefer to go along with J. Edgar Hoover, who said a few days ago that "Surely the public has a right to expect both the distributor and purchaser of deadly weapons to meet certain regulations and qualifications." The Dodd bill is no threat to civil liberties or sport or business. It is merely a sound attempt to protect the citizen from violence. Mr. FOOTE. I would further submit an article from the Christian Science Monitor, a paper with an international reputation for impartiality and accuracy, May 26, 1965, under the byline of Josephine Ripley. We have two statements in this article which tend to add some confusion to this matter. I would read them, with your permission. Senator DODD. Well, if you want to read them, go ahead. We are very familiar with all these editorials. We know Miss Ripley very well. Mr. FOOTE. This is a news article, not an editorial, although it might be considered to be an editorial. Senator DODD. We read those editorials, too. If you want to read them, it is all right. But we are familiar with them, I assure you. Miss Ripley is usually here. This is one of the few days she hasn't been at the press table. Senator HRUSKA. I would suggest, Mr. Foote, you insert it in the record, unless you have some comment on it. Mr. FOOTE. I do have some comment. Another thing the Dodd bill seeks to do is eliminate the $1 gun dealer. Under present law, anyone may become a gun dealer on payment of $1. There are some restrictions. The present law, particularly relating to convicted felons. Many have become dealers as a means of acquiring guns. The Dodd bill proposes raising the fee to $25 to discourage applications from persons not genuinely in the firearms business. Section 31 (c) of S. 1592 plainly states the fee is $100, not $25. The main purpose of the legislation is to stop the traffic in mail-order guns. These guns, under present laws, or lack of laws, may be purchased almost at will by juveniles, criminals, or the mentally disturbed. This type of gun was used in more than half the murders committed in 1964. The figures that I have seen, Senator, indicate that approximately 56 percent of all murders are committed with firearms. This statement says here that more than half the murders were committed with mail-order guns-this type of gun, referring to mail-order guns. This, then, requires us to assume that over 90 percent of all murders committed with firearms are committed by mail-order guns. We cannot accept that conclusion. (The article referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 126" and is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 126 CONTROVERSY AND CONFUSION SWIRL AROUND GUN BILL (By Josephine Ripley, staff correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor) WASHINGTON.-Any proposal for gun legislation always seems to generate controversy and confusion. Even the mildest and least restrictive bill arouses anxiety. Sportsmen write to their Congressmen in agitation. Their guns are going to be taken away, they say; they can't go hunting; they will have no weapons to defend home and family. It is in this atmosphere that Congress is holding hearings on a proposed bill to ban mail-order guns and close some loopholes in the law. While the present bill, introduced by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat, of Connecticut at the request of President Johnson, is more restrictive than the Dodd bill of last year, it is not designed to curb the activities of the sportsman. It will not take away his gun. There is nothing in the bill which suggests this. It will not prevent a hunter or any man who transports a gun for legitimate purposes from taking that gun across State lines. It will not prevent a man from purchasing a shotgun or rifle in another State and bringing it home. MURDER WEAPONS The main purpose of the legislation is to stop the traffic in mail-order guns. These guns, under present laws or lack of laws, may be purchased almost at will by juveniles, criminals, or the mentally disturbed. This type of gun was used in more than half of the murders committed in 1964. The administration does not say that cutting off the present unrestricted flow of mail-order guns will prevent criminals or others from arming themselves, if they set out to do so. But it will make it more difficult. The easy accessibility of guns via mail order has become nothing less than a national scandal. Only a month ago Mayor Francis Graves, of Paterson, N.J., determined to show how easy it is to buy a gun by mail. He ordered a .22-caliber revolver from a mail-order house in Chicago. Other than his name, address, and a money order for $13.85, he sent no information. RESIDENCE RESTRICTION He received his gun. Commented the mayor: "The company that sent me this gun had no way of knowing whether I was a convicted murderer, what my intentions were, or whether I was 5 years old or 105 years old." Another thing the Dodd bill seeks to do is eliminate the "one-dollar gun dealer." Under present law anyone may become a gun dealer on payment of $1. Many have become "dealers" as a means of acquiring guns. The Dodd bill proposes raising the fee to $25 to discourage applications from persons not genuinely in the firearms business. A particularly important provision in the bill is one which would limit sales of handguns to residents of the State in which they are sold. This is to prevent the flaunting of State laws "by gunrunning" from a neighboring State where there may be little or no restriction on gun purchases. For instance, the District of Columbia operates under the uniform firearms law which calls for a waiting period for investigation before a person may claim the gun he has ordered. But this law means little when residents of the District may go to some counties in nearby States and purchase a handgun with no questions asked. The records of one dealer in Maryland showed that 58 percent of his handgun sales during 1964 and early 1965 were to residents of the District. The proposal to restrict sales of handguns to out-of-State purchasers has been misinterpreted. Sportsmen have protested to Congress. But this proposed regulation does not apply to sporting-type firearms, such as shotguns and rifles. Thus the sportsman would not be restricted from going into a nearby State to purchase this type of gun. MISINFORMATION Nor would he be hindered from taking his gun from one State to another "for a lawful purpose." Much misinformation has been disseminated with respect to the legislation; much misunderstanding has resulted. So much so that it is proving difficult for Senator Dodd and administration spokesmen to clear the air. It may well be that the legislation needs refinement; that some of its restrictions would work a hardship; that exceptions may be needed; that some things should be spelled out more clearly. But the purpose of the proposed tightening of the Nation's Firearms Act is to deal with a serious aspect of crime-the all too easy accessibility of guns. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Democrat, of New York, in testifying for the legislation, said: "We have a responsibility to the victims of crime and violence. It is a responsibility to think not only of our own convenience but of the tragedy of sudden death. "It is a responsibility to put away childish things; to make the possession and use of firearms a matter undertaken only by serious people who will use them with the restraint and maturity that their dangerous nature deserves-and demands." Mr. FOOTE. I would refer to one more article from a very respected paper, the Reporter magazine, October 8, 1964, commenting on the general subject of firearms legislation, an article by Elizabeth Brenner Drew, entitled "The Gun Law That Didn't Go Off." There are statements made that the U.S. Department of Defense issues machineguns, flamethrowers, and aerial bombs to the NRA each year in order to improve civilian marksmanship. Having been connected with that program voluntarily for some 10 years, I can assure you, sir, that statement is not correct. This is not related directly to 1592, but has tended to mislead the public in this whole field. (The article referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 127" and is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 127 [From the Reporter, Oct. 8, 1964] THE GUN LAW THAT DIDN'T GO OFF (Elizabeth Brenner Drew) Among the news items given out to a shocked nation following the assassination of President Kennedy was the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald had purchased his weapon, a 6.5-mm. Italian carbine, from a Chicago mail-order house under an assumed name. The rifle was sent, no questions asked, to one "A. Hidell," in care of a post office box in Dallas. The transaction was routine in the mailorder trade; about 1 million guns are sold the same way each year. At the same time, a bill was pending in Congress to tighten regulation of the rapidly expanding mail-order business in guns. By the ordinary rules of the game, the events in Dallas should have insured prompt enactment, just as the news of thalidomide-deformed babies had provided the long-needed impetus for passage of stricter drug regulations in 1962. But Congress did not act-a testimonial to the deadly aim of the shooting lobby. Two existing statutes presumably deal with the gun traffic. Both were passed in reaction to the gangsterism of the prohibition era. But because of limited coverage, problems of proof, and various other quirks, they have had a negligible impact on the increasing gun traffic. The investigation of the mail-order traffic in guns began in 1961 under the auspices of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Engaged in a study of the rising crime rate among youth, the subcommittee became aware of the increasing use of inexpensive, usually foreign-made guns in juvenile crimes. For more than 2 years the subcommittee, headed by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat, Connecticut, investigated this gun traffic. In addition to many examples of murders committed with mail-order guns, the subcommittee found that 25 percent of the mail-order guns sent to the District of Columbia went to recipients with criminal records. The police chiefs of Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, and Pittsburgh told the subcommittee that the figures for the Nation's Capital would apply to their own cities as well. I found that any juvenile. any disturbed person, any criminal, or anyone else who does not want to attract local attention could simply answer any of the myriad ads placed by the several hundred mail-order houses in the 100-odd national and regional magazines that appeal to gun enthusiasts. ("Now the World's Finest Pocket Pistol Can Be Yours"; "New Amazing Ball Point Pen Gun *** Writes like a ballpoint pen, BUT cleverly built into the other end is a .22-caliber pistol, only $4.95"; "Submachinegun for Father's Day.") On August 2, 1963, Dodd and four cosponsors introduced a bill requiring purchashers of mail-order guns to submit to the seller a sworn affidavit that they are over 18, have not been convicted or indicted for a felony, and that it is not against local law to purchase a gun. The statement would then be forwarded by the mail-order houses to local police officials. For tactical reasons, at first the bill covered only pistols and revolvers; the sponsores hoped to neutralize the hunting interests. It had been carefully worked out in a series of behindthe-scenes meetings with representatives of the gun industry, Government agencies, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and sports magazine editors, who gave the bill their blessings. But after the assassination in Dallas, with the approval of the NRA representatives, rifles and shotguns were brought under the coverage of the bill. The sponsors did not claim the Dodd bill would have prevented the assassination or it would be foolproof. They did argue that it would have a substantial impact on mail-order sales to juveniles and those who seek guns illegally. A MIXED BAG Because the bill was based on the Government's power to regulate interstate commerce, it was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. The committee has many members from old frontier and hunting States, and 9 of the 17 Senators are up for reelection this year. They soon found themselves under the sort of political pressure that no politician can ignore. On the alert against any legislation to tighten control over gun ownership, the shooting interests came to the fight already organized and flush with a recent victory: an amendment to a 1963 bill extending the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's authority specifying that the Disarmament Act did not propose to take guns away. There are an estimated 20 million hunters and trapshooters in the United States, and it is clear that a sizable number of them are convinced that the Disarmament Act, the Dodd bill, or any other gun legislation poses a clear and present danger to the right "to keep and bear arms" guaranteed in the second amendment to the Constitution. The amendment, in effect since 1791, provides: "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." The gun business is big business. Gun enthusiasts currently spend between $1.5 and $2 billion a year. It is encouraged by a wide array of interests that form a peculiar agglomeration: the sports magazines, the gun manufacturers and dealers, various wildlife and preservation organizations, the gun clubs, the Department of Defense, and the rightwing. The largest of the recognized gun lobbies is the NRA, which, in the words of its own brochure, "represents and promotes the best interests of gun owners and shooter-sportsmen and supports their belief in the ideals of the United States of America and its way of life. It is dedicated to firearms safety education as a public service, marksmanship training as a contribution to individual preparedness for national defense, and the sport of shooting The organization, which went on a "Build NRA" campaign in 1960, now has a membership of more than 600,000 individuals, plus some 11,000 affiliated clubs. Its income for 1963 was $3.9 million. It states that "The strength of the NRA, |