STATEMENT OF LEONARD E. REISMAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY LT. PATRICK F. LEARY; DETECTIVE JOSEPH PICCININI; AND DETECTIVE WALTER HEASE

Mr. REISMAN. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appear this morning as the representative of the city of New York and of the police commissioner to state their position on this proposed amendment to the Federal Firearms Act.

As you are undoubtedly aware, we, in New York City, are presently engaged in an all-out war on crime, particularly on crimes of violence.

We have taken drastic steps to implement that fight and we welcome this and other opportunities that may be presented to lend our support to efforts, legislative and otherwise, to suppress crime and criminal activity.

Our fundamental aim is to prevent crime and to make its incubation almost impossible wherever and whenever we can. To that end, we strongly believe that the bill being considered before this committee today, if enacted into law, would greatly assist us in this endeavor.

To focus on our problem, it is necessary that I present a few statistics for your consideration and evaluation:

Last year in our city, there were a total of 2,615 arrests for the illegal possession of dangerous weapons. Of these 1,136, or slightly over 43 percent were of persons under 21 years of age. By far the most popular instruments of violence among these young people are firearms, and this general category includes homemade zip guns, converted starter pistols and blank guns, in addition to pistols and revolvers originally manufactured as such and obtained from various sources and illegally posessed in our city.

New York State has some of the most stringent restrictions on the sale and possession of pistols and revolvers. Therefore, attention naturally focuses on the efficacy of our procedures in terms of curtailing illegal traffic in weapons and in the prevention of crime. May I briefly set forth the present legislative enactments of our State? In the State of New York, no one, with certain statutory exceptions, may legally possess a pistol, revolver, or other firearm of a size which may be concealed upon the person unless he has first been issued a license therefor. The procedure for obtaining such a license is very detailed and involves intensive investigation both of the applicant and of his need to possess a firearm.

In addition, no one may legally deal in firearms or engage in the business of gunsmith unless he is licensed. Again, the procedure for licensing is most detailed and the investigation is most intensive. Applicants for any of these licenses must be fingerprinted. The fingerprints are then checked not only by our own police department, but also with the New York State Department of Correction, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Additionally, applicants are screened by name with the department of mental hygiene of the State of New York to determine whether at any time the applicant suffered a mental illness or disability.

Part of the processing of applications includes a field investigation by the local police authority. In New York City our police department makes this investigation and it involves verification of all statements made by the applicant and interviews with him, as well as with all references of character vouchers supplied by him.

The State law further provides that no pistol, revolver, or other concealable firearm may be sold except by a licensed dealer in firearms or by a person in legal possession of the firearm, and then only to a person who is in possession of a specific form issued by the licensing authority which enables the purchaser to legally purchase the firearm.

These laws have been described as stringent. They are meant to be. In New York City, only about 17,500 persons out of over 8 million possess pistol licenses. It is our belief that the severity of our laws regarding the possession of concealable weapons has resulted in the saving of many lives which may have been lost either through careless or calculated misuse of such weapons.

Notwithstanding the rigidity of our laws, there is a great deal yet to be accomplished. During 1964, the ballistics bureau of our police department examined and tested 3,924 firearms of one kind and another, of which 3,092 were received in connection with criminal cases.

The property clerk of the police department received over 6,000 firearms of various types during the same year. Of these about 2,271 were obtained as evidence in criminal cases. The impression which may arise from a cursory view of these figures would be that our laws are not as effective as we would like to believe. I assure you, that is not the case. What these figures do indicate is that despite State legislation which undertakes to control the indiscriminate possession and sale of firearms, there is a definite need for overall legislation at the Federal level to control the interstate traffic in these weapons. In the ideal situation, from the point of view of New York City, it would be most desirable that each of the 50 States enact a uniform firearm act with appropriate licensing provisions which would control the sale and possession of pistols and revolvers to all persons, as well as rifles and shotguns to juveniles. However, this is something that, though highly desirable, remains far in the future.

The effectiveness of any legislative procedure controlling the sale and possession of dangerous weapons must be evaluated in two areas: The first of these, and in many discussions the only consideration, is the degree to which availability of contraband weapons exists. There is no doubt that the New York law has not wholly eliminated the illegal traffic in pistols and revolvers.

But it has had a great effect in reducing such illegal traffic, as evidenced by the fact that many criminals have armed themselves with rifles and shotguns, because of the problems involved in seeking to obtain pistols or revolvers.

However, as long as criminals can obtain weapons more easily in other States both through the mails and by personal purchase, the effort to eradicate the illegal traffic in small arms in the State of New York can never be completely successful.

This does not mean that our laws are ineffective. Rather it emphasizes the urgency of more stringent control in other jurisdictions and on a national basis.

Another means of evaluating the gun laws of the State of New York is to consider the simple fact that we are able to make many arrests for the illegal possession of pistols and revolvers before the possessor has had the opportunity to commit a crime of violence.

On this score we have had a substantial degree of success. We have been able to prevent many crimes of violence by such arrests. Many of those convicted for illegal possession of pistols and revolvers were undoubtedly planning armed robberies, assaults, and even homicides.

I would like to emphasize as strongly as possible this vital point of crime prevention. One of the most important theories in criminal law-and one of the most important functions of law enforcement— is the prevention of crime wherever possible.

In many areas the law makes certain conduct illegal and criminal before the actual violent act has occurred. The whole theory of prosecuting for conspiracies and for attempts reflects the community desire to afford protection whenever possible by stopping a course of criminal conduct before violence has erupted. We should not have to wait idly by until robberies have been perpetrated or citizens murdered before the forces of law and order are brought into play.

Thus, in our considered judgment, and based on our accumulated experience, stringent gun laws are of inestimable value in the fight against crime and should be supported and extended wherever possible. And, I repeat, the lack of complete effectiveness in the enforcement of New York State's gun laws is based in large measure on the lack of uniformity of such laws throughout all of our States. Only when this is accomplished will the objective of keeping illegal weapons to an absolute minimum be attained.

But getting to the bill presently under consideration, an area of considerable concern to anyone interested in public safety would be covered by its ultimate enactment. That is the matter of starter pistols (blank cartridge) which are sold widely through magazines by mail order and are also imported into this country. These are of concern because of their extremely low price, about $6.95 retail, and the relative ease with which they can be obtained by almost anyone by mail, regardless of age, and converted into working concealable fire

arms.

One example of the abuses possible under existing legislation was unearthed by our police department when it was discovered that one type of starter pistol with a plugged barrel was being imported into our State, followed by a second, separate shipment of bored, rifled barrels, threaded at one end. By removing a pin, unscrewing the plugged barrel and replacing it with a bored, rifled barrel and then replacing the pin, the starter pistol was converted into a working, lethal firearm, capable of firing a .22-caliber bullet. The entire conversion took a matter of minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I refer you to the display board at my right. In the upper lefthand corner of that board is the type of weapon that I have been referring to. You see there the starter pistol as originally shipped, and right under it the additional barrel which can be inserted in a matter of moments.

In this same area in another case, a do-it-yourself gunsmith was making out-of-State bulk purchases of starter pistols at a cost of about $5.80 each. He would then, at his residence, disassemble these pistols,

and, using an electric hand drill mounted in a drill press stand, bore out the plugged barrel and enlarge the cylinder chambers to accommodate .22-caliber cartridges. Reassembled, these guns were ultimately sold with a box of .22-caliber cartridges to members of youth gangs on street corners for $20. From records seized in connection with this case, it was estimated that the conspirators had disposed of approximately 100 such firearms, and again, Mr. Chairman, I refer you to the display board. That type of weapon is in the upper righthand corner of that board.

Incidentally, our police department ballistics bureau in 1964 reported a sharp increase in the number of converted starter pistols received as compared with 1963, and this was coupled with a sharp decline in the number of homemade "zip gun" variety of pistol. Apparently the relatively inexpensive and easily obtainable and convertible starter guns made it unnecessary for the criminal-minded to bother with the construction of zip guns which would be more primitive than a converted starter pistol, and would also have the disadvantage of firing only one shot, whereas some starter pistols can be converted to fire up to six without reloading.

There are many cases of similar nature to these occurring daily all over the United States. I have mentioned these because I feel that they vividly emphasize the need for Federal action to restrict the ease with which such potential firearms can be obtained by almost anyone, regardless of age, at nominal cost.

It is our opinion that the provisions of the proposed bill, particularly section 2(b), subdivisions 2 and 3, as well as section 2, (f) and (g), would greatly aid in correcting situations such as those I have cited, as well as innumerable other cases of like nature. These provisions would greatly hamper elements of the criminal community and the neocriminals among our young in their efforts to obtain firearms. While we are well aware that the diehard criminal will find a way to obtain a weapon, regardless of the severity of restrictions, it is submitted that a removal of some of the easy methods presently available to circumvent our State laws will result in an appreciable decrease in the number of crimes perpetrated with firearms.

Subdivision 2(b) (2) would prevent the sale of concealable firearms to an individual under 21 years of age and a rifle or shotgun to an individual under 18 years of age.

Subdivision 2(b) (3) would prevent persons, adults and youngsters alike, in our State from going into another State to purchase a firearm not available to them under our State laws. At present this practice is all too frequently followed by persons unable to legally purchase a concealable firearm in New York State.

Subdivisions 2 (f) and (g) would close off the mail-order gun business to unauthorized persons by providing in subdivision (f) that it shall be unlawful to mail or deliver by common carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce any package or other container in which there is a firearm without written notice to the Postmaster General or his delegate, or to the carrier (as the case may be), that a firearm is being carried, and then by providing in subdivision (g) that it shall be unlawful for any common or contract carrier to deliver or cause to be delivered in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any person who does not exhibit or produce

evidence of a license obtained under the act, except for those cases falling under section 2(a) (1), (2), or (3) of the act.

This committee has already been told, I believe, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics reveal that in those areas where firearms regulations are lax the homicide rate by firearms is substantially higher than where more stringent regulations are in effect. Actual statistics for various cities have been cited for you in this connection. We in New York are convinced of the validity of this basic premise and, accordingly, together with the five district attorneys of the counties comprising New York City, are supporting additional State restrictions on the sale and possession of rifles and shotguns.

On the State level, we are asking for legislation requiring the licensing of dealers in rifles and shotguns, the registration of all such weapons now possessed by individuals, the obtaining of a certificate of eligibility, which recites that the individual has not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor and has not been institutionalized for mental illness, before a rifle or shotgun may be purchased.

Finally, we support legislation for the limitation of the sale of ammunition to those persons who possess a certificate of registration or of eligibility for the weapon for which the ammunition is designed. Under existing State law, there are no restrictions as to who may do business as a rifle or shotgun dealer, or as to whom such weapons may be sold, other than that the purchaser must not be an alien and must be at least 16 years of age.

Undoubtedly to some, these proposals may seem severe, but we feel that they are fair and logical. Our intent is to curb the easy accessibility of rifles and shotguns and ammunition. These weapons are no less lethal than pistols and revolvers. They are, in fact, designed for one, and only one primary purpose: to kill. All other uses are collateral and incidental to that primary purpose.

Since World War II, the criminal use of rifles and shotguns has increased. The Police Department of the City of New York reports that in the year 1963, there were 490 crimes wherein the weapon used was a rifle or shotgun. Even more startling is the fact that in the same year, rifles or shotguns were used in 37 homicides.

Again, Mr. Chairman, if I may refer to that display, the bottom three weapons are sawed-off rifles and shotguns. Two .22's and a 12gage shotgun, which emphasizes the point I made before, that the primary purpose of these weapons is to kill, and have been redesigned by the criminals for whom these weapons were seized in connection with crimes for that purpose.

In recent years, the country has been flooded with rifles and shotguns from foreign and domestic sources to such an extent that no reasonable estimate of their number can be made. Increased interest by the public in the collateral uses of these weapons has put them into the hands not only of the law abiding, but of the criminal, the demented, and the deranged.

If the types of control contemplated by this Federal proposal and by our State proposals had been in existence, it is possible that we would not have had a deranged youth, seated on a hillside overlooking a highway in one of our States, shooting at and killing two innocent motorists and then himself with a rifle too easily obtained. It is also possible that another emotionally disturbed youth in our own