Mr. MCLEOD. That was a provision which was designedly incorporated in our State law enacted this year, 21 years of age, chosen, and deliberately; in the preparation of the bill I left the age blank and the legislature itself filled it in.

Senator DODD. Twenty-one years?

Mr. MCLEOD. Yes, sir.

Senator DODD. I am glad to hear that. We thought it would be reasonable to put in such a limit.

Mr. MCLEOD. That seems reasonable, sir.

Senator DODD. Well, gentlemen, your testimony is helpful with your distinguished experience as law enforcement officials. We value your testimony.

Mr. MCLEOD. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator DODD. We have two distinguished Members of the House here. Congressman Robert Sikes and Congressman John Dowdy are here. We are anxious to hear both of them, both of whom I know well and am glad to greet here. Go right ahead, Mr. Dowdy.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOWDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Dowdy. Mr. Chairman, I will take as little time as I can.
Senator DODD. Go right ahead.

Mr. Dowdy. Many of the people of my district, which is located in east Texas, have advised me of their strong opposition to S. 1592, which they feel is a serious and unnecessary encroachment on their peaceful possession and use of firearms, and I am of the same opinion.

I believe that this bill, which would prohibit the shipment of firearms in interstate commerce to any person other than a licensed individual, represents a distinct threat to our national defense capabilities.

I certainly do not even remotely think that this possibility ever crossed the minds of the sponsors, but I do think that the ramifications of the bill are such that this could be a possible result. I will develop this thought by showing what effect such a prohibition on the commerce in firearms would have on a large segment of my constituency. I represent the Seventh Congressional District of Texas, which is comprised of 13 counties covering approximately 12,000 square miles and a population of slightly over 266,000. Living in an essentially rural area, many of my people were taught the proper and skillful use of firearms at a tender age, and I was one of them.

Stalking the deer or shooting the high-flying goose or hunting quail or doves is as much a part of the life of the people of my area as is the daily commuter ride for some less fortunate individuals. This familiarity with firearms, which we know is long a source of enjoyment in sports and recreation, has enabled great numbers of the young men of my district to more than hold their own as members of our Armed Forces in times of national emergency, in days past of course, and even today in this age of so-called sophisticated weaponry it is still true because the brushfire engagements in which our country is presently involved continue to prove that our best weapon is the foot soldier, the infantryman, or the Marine who knows how to shoot straight and to make each one of his shots count.

In answer to those people who discount the value of the GI and his rifle in this nuclear age, I can only refer to the fact that I have yet to hear of the first hydrogen bomb being dropped or atomic missile being discharged in either Vietnam or the Dominican Republic.

Familiarity and skill of firearms can result only after a great deal of practice either in the field or on the range. The availability of the equipment necessary for such practice is a prime factor in the development of such skills. This type of equipment is available in my district in the small hardware store and occasional-and it is a very occasional-sports store, or in other outlets that cater to the hunter, and mostly as a convenience to the patron.

In most instances the sales of rifles and shotguns and the ammunition therefor is not the source of a great deal of profit for the storekeeper. I am firmy convinced that precious few of these small businessmen could afford the drastic rise in dealers fees that is contemplated by S. 1592.

Even if a few dealers could afford such a fee, they would be so few and so far between in an area as large as my district as to be so that there would be very little benefit to most of the people, and benefit only those few people who live close by, and certainly not the majority of my constituents.

The outcome of this rise in dealer's fees-which could be called class legislation as far as I am concerned, since only the more wealthy dealer could afford the fee-together with the prohibition of the interstate commerce of firearms except to only the licensed few would be at first a gradual but soon a drastic curtailment of the peaceful use of firearms by the law-abiding citizen, not only in my district but also in many like areas throughout our entire Nation.

The effect of these barriers raised by this bill to the peaceful use of firearms will be felt in time in the ranks of our Armed Forces, and in the cadre of regulars who on so many occasions have been called upon to train our citizen soldiers in the arts of warfare on such short notice and with so little time.

In war there is no substitute for experienced fighting personnel and good shooters. However, when the opportunities to gain that experience under more leisurely circumstances are curtailed to a point of virtual nonexistence, then the Nation as a whole must suffer.

I am well aware of the need for some control of the accessibility of firearms to those individuals who would use them in such manner as to jeopardize life, limb, and property. I cannot support, however, any legislation the effects of which would punish the vast majority of our people by taking away existing freedoms in an effort to curtail the possible wrongdoings of a very small segment of our population. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee, and for these reasons I am opposed to S. 1592.

Senator DODD. Well, Congressman, you know I have great respect for you and your opinions.

Mr. DowDY. Thank you.

Senator DODD. My colleague with whom I was privileged to serve. I think you are mistaken about this.

Mr. Dowdy. We have difference of opinion, of course. That makes lawsuits and everything else.

Senator DODD. But it is valuable to hear from the Congress and to be informed on this subject. You have certainly made a contribution to our record. One of the big problems I face here is fees. They are too high. Undoubtedly, as the bill comes out, there will be a reduction in the fees, particularly with the local dealers.

Mr. DowDY. The people I speak of are the small hardware stores. In the bird season they sell some birdshot for the shotguns, and in the deer season they sell a few

Senator DODD. I know. I think you are right about it. Perhaps we can agree on that. I have never been able to convince myself about the value of gun experience with respect to national defense. There is something to it. But I do not think it is that much.

What bothers me particularly is that Secretary of the Army Ailes, who testified earlier this year, said he did not think the passage of the bill would impair national defense.

More importantly, I think, so far as I can learn, there has not been any study made of the value and the effectiveness of the program that the Army has conducted in connection with the NRA. Perhaps this would show just what you have said.

In any event, I express my appreciation.

Mr. DowDY. Thank you. I think if youngsters in the course of growing up learn whether they can shoot the eye out of a squirrel out of the top of a high tree that that sort of marksmanship would be helpful in the armed services.

Senator DODD. I am sure it would. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, sir.

Senator DODD. Congressman Robert Sikes, also an old colleague of mine-not an old colleague but a colleague of long standing-will be our next witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen. Copies of my statement have been sent to the desk. If others are needed, I have them here.

I appear in opposition to S. 1592. I have noted the changes which have been proposed by the administration to the Dodd bill. I recall that it has been but a very few months since the bill itself was proposed. The changes which have now been suggested would indicate there is an acceptance by the administration of the fact that the original bill is much too restrictive and that it would do more harm than good. We have another term for it down in my country; it is called going off half cocked. I think the administration went off half cocked in its proposal for highly restrictive gun laws earlier this year. Now there has been an admission that this is the case, in the fact that modifications are recommended. As the administration becomes better acquainted with its product, it is entirely possible there will be further dilution of the stringent provisions of the bill.

I am not here to recommend that nothing be done to curb unrestricted sale of firearms. However, I do urge most respectfully that this matter be approached with care and that the free exercise of the rights which the American people have enjoyed throughout our history in this field not now be stripped away from them overnight.

I recognize the fact that there is a need, certainly in some areas, for some restrictive legislation in this field, in the sale of firearms. Í am disturbed by the fact that unsupervised juveniles, criminals, dope addicts, and others with no justification for the ownership of weapons can acquire them very readily. I feel that the Dodd bill of last year would go far toward correcting this situation. It would provide a reasonable start in the new field of restriction of the ownership of weapons. It would give us an opportunity to see how legislation in this field would work, time to acquaint the public with the need for responsible restrictions, time to educate them to the problems. Probably there would be a need for modifications of the legislation in the future. But we would have approached the problem carefully, we would have felt our way, instead of jumping in over our head without really knowing what we were getting into. This, more than anything else, is what I plead with you to do in this new field of legislation which affects so many Americans so vitally.

Taking away a man's rights to own a gun is not a light or a little thing in the United States. I doubt that any proposal in recent years has stirred up a greater hornets nest than the proposal that this legislation be enacted, for in effect the original administration proposal would take away a man's right to own a gun. The fact that modifications have been recommended does not lessen my suspicion of the bill or my objections to it.

The distinguished chairman of this subcommittee has shown great courage in attempting to bring about a solution to the grievous problems associated with unrestricted ownership of weapons. He has shown leadership in many fields. I had the privilege of serving with him in the House a number of years ago. He is an able and dedicated public servant. The bill which he introduced last year with some perfecting amendments, such as those proposed by the National Rifle Association, will provide a workable approach to the problem of denying guns to criminals and to irresponsible elements. I believe that nearly all of the Congress can unite behind such a proposal. I am equally confident the Congress will not support the present administration bill.

I urge that you and your committee set aside the administration bill, S. 1592, with its conflicting provisions until we know better just how far we will need to go to insure the passage of sound but useful corrective legislation in this field.

Thank you very much.

Senator DODD. Well, I am grateful to you for taking time to come here. I know you supported my previous bill.

Mr. SIKES. That is correct, Mr. Dodd.

Senator DODD. And I am grateful for that. I am not clear as to whether or not you would support the inclusion of rifles and shotguns. Is that what is bothering you?

Mr. SIKES. Senator, the inclusion of rifles and shotguns would disturb me somewhat, but even so, I feel that the bill which you

introduced last year is so much more preferable than the legislation now under consideration that I think the American people could live with that bill, and that there would be much less objection to it, though I do think that rifles and shotguns should be deleted.

Senator DODD. As I said to Congressman Dowdy, I felt, and I still feel, that the only way we can really get control over these mail-order weapons is by a prohibition certainly in the case of handguns. State laws are so different one from another. Even under the bill which I introduced originally, with the affidavit, it was not effective enough to really get control.

Mr. SIKES. Well, Senator, we don't know how effective it would be. I think the very fact that there would be legislation on the statute. books would in itself be a considerable deterrent to the wrong type of individual trying to acquire a weapon. I think that it would work successfully. I think it would be worth a try.

If it doesn't, we can always come back for another bite. I don't believe it is necessary to go all the way at one time. I think it would be highly injurious to go as far as the present legislation proposes.

Senator DODD. And finally let me say to you I don't suggest this bill is perfect. I am sure it is subject to amendment and change before it is voted out. I indicated that about the dealers' fee and perhaps other aspects of it.

But you and I know this is true about every piece of legislation that

comes out.

Well, anyway, I am not going to argue with you. I have too much respect for you, and I know you have strong views. I think I can bring you to the light sooner or later.

Mr. SIKES. Let's say we may be able to approach the light together. Senator DODD. Thank you very much.

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Senator, and gentlemen.

Senator DODD. Mr. William J. Waldman.

Mr. Waldman is the executive vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., Chicago. He is accompanied by Mr. Sidney Hess, Jr., counsel. Glad to have you both here.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. WALDMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY SIDNEY J. HESS, JR.

Mr. HESS. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator DODD. I think it would be best if you proceed with your

statement.

Mr. WALDMAN. Thank you.

My name is William J. Waldman. I am executive vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., with which company I have been associated for 17 years. In my capacity as such officer, I am in charge of administration and general operations. I appear here as the representative of the company at the invitation of Senator Thomas J. Dodd, chairman of the subcommittee. It is my hope that I can contribute to the objectives of the subcommittee. The gentleman accompanying me is our attorney, Mr. Sidney J. Hess, Jr., of the law firm of Aaron, Aaron, Schimberg & Hess, of Chicago, Ill.