EXHIBIT No. 145 Mr. CARL PERIAN, WASHINGTON STATE SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL, INC., Edmonds, Wash., May 14, 1965. Staff Director, Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PERIAN: I have been informed that hearings on Senate bill 1592 scheduled for May 19, 20, 21 have been reserved for proponent testimony on 19-20 and a few opponents on the 21st. I also understand the hearings have been extended to June 2, 3, 4. I am chairman of the Washington State Sportsmen's Council Committee on Firearms Legislation. I wish to be scheduled to testify in behalf of the sportsmen of this State at the earliest date possible. To my knowledge no other sporting organization is anticipating sending a representative but will rely on me to represent them or mail in a statement. As a practical matter, we feel it imperative that the people of the Northwest be represented at these hearings and I assure you the testimony will not be run of the mill. I would appreciate receiving a reserved date and an alternate date as soon as possible. For your convenience coordination may be expedited through Mr. Lou Clapper of the National Wildlife Federation. Sincerely, SAMUEL L. MAXWELL. EXHIBIT No. 146 MAY 17, 1965. Mr. SAMUEL L. MAXWELL, DEAR MR. MAXWELL: I am replying to your recent letter with regard to S. 1592, an amendment to the Federal Firearms Act. The bill has been referred to this subcommittee for public hearings and I shall include your name among those who have requested to testify on the bill. We expect to convene hearings sometime in May, and they will continue through June. I appreciate your interest in this problem, and I shall advise you as to the dates on which the hearings will be held. DEAR MR. MAGNUSON: As I noted in my letter of May 14, 1965, I planned to attend the hearings on S. 1592 (Dodd bill) and submit a statement from Washington State. I am dismayed at the lack of cooperation I have received from the subcommittee staff. Senator Dodd answered my request with "We expect to convene hearings sometime in May, and they will continue through June," and that "I shall advise you as to the dates on which the hearings will be held." The letter was dated May 17, the envelope postmarked May 21, and I received same on May 25 due to an address error. As you know the May hearings were beld on May 19, 20, and 21. It is rather obvious the letter was not intended to relay any valid information to me but was a poorly arranged stall. I have received no further correspondence. I have since contacted the Dodd committee, Miss Beaten, through your office and through Mr. Lou Clappar of the National Wildlife Federation several times. The committee refused to divulge any information except to say that I am 1 of 46 scheduled to testify and later amended to say I am 1 of 67 scheduled to testify. Frankly Senator, I am tired of getting the runaround and do not see why Dodd cannot run an organized committee like the rest of the Senate. I find prolific evidence that the Senator from Connecticut is not interested in listening to criticism of his bill, constructive or otherwise. He is interested only in "sandbagging" the hearing records with pro-S. 1592 testimony in an attempt to keep statements of the opponents smothered. Never have I witnessed such an obvious attempt by an organ of the U.S. Government to ride roughshod over honest citizens genuine concern for legislation. Dodd's treatment of those opposing the bill is unparalleled since the famed McCarthy "trials." His unbridled attacks on the old and honorable NRA and the civilian marksmanship program not to mention well-known figures such as Judge Hilliard Comstock and Senator Allott are unprecedented. I think that the very fact Senator Dodd is chairing the committee holding hearings on his own bill is in itself undemocratic in nature. Committee hearings should be clearly unbiased with equal representation both pro and con. Dodd has shown himself to be decidedly biased and to have little, if any, patience with opposition. If this is an example of gov ernment for the people, by the people, then my concept of democracy must need adjusting. Although his concern is allegedly juvenile delinquency and mail-order weapons his sweeping legislation knows no boundary and certainly has deviated considerably from its original aims. Senator, I believe it is time for more direct action from the Washington congressional delegation. The people through the legislature passed a memorial, House Joint Memorial 30, cautioning against such legislation. I believe there are 10 States that have passed similar legislation and 4 more are pending. With such support it is time the opponents of this bill exercised some action. Your office did not acknowledge my earlier letter and maybe I am only assuming your opposition to S. 1592. I did so on your past record opposing firearms legislation on the Federal level. I would appreciate your comments on my opinions. At this point in time I am at a complete loss as to what to do. I have not mailed in a statement to Dodd in fear that he may enter it for the record and cancel my personal appearance. On the other hand if I don't mail it in I may lose out altogether. I will be out of State from July 3 through July 9. I would appreciate some advice from your office so that on my return I might take some definite action. Your personal consideration of our dilemma would be appreciated. Sincerely, SAMUEL L. MAXWELL, Chairman, Firearms Legislation Committee. (Whereupon, at 5 p.m., a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 27, 1965.) FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1965 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee (composed of Senators Dodd, Tydings, Burdick, Bayh, Hart, Hruska, Javits, and Fong) met, pursuant to recess, at 10:20 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Dodd. Also present: Carl L. Perian, staff director; William C. Mooney, chief investigator; and R. W. Velde, minority counsel. Senator DODD (presiding). The subcommittee will come to order. Our witness this morning is Mr. Samuel Cummings, president of International Armament Corp. He is the founder and sole owner of International Armament Corp. Where is your principal place of business? Mr. CUMMINGS. Here in the United States. Senator DODD. Do you do business in other parts of the world? Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, we do. We have offices in England, Finland, Switzerland, Monte Carlo, and various parts of the Western World. Senator DODD. And your residence is what? Mr. CUMMINGS. I beg your pardon? Senator DODD. What is your home address? Mr. CUMMINGS. I am a resident of Monte Carlo. Senator DODD. Monte Carlo? Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. Senator DODD. But you are an American citizen? Senator DODD. You have a prepared statement, I understand-you may present it. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL CUMMINGS, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ARMAMENT CORP. Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Samuel Cummings. I am the president of International Armament Corp. I am here in response to your kind invitation, Mr. Chairman, to comment on S. 1592. I want to come right to the point because I know your time is limited. But, first, let us say, as a firm that makes its living buying and selling guns throughout the world, we are grateful for the intensive effort that you and the staff are giving to the serious problem of the relation between crime and the accessibility of firearms. The evidence produced by your several years of hard work points clearly to the need for improving gun control laws, and we want to help if we can. We also feel strongly that there has been a lot of confusion on the subject of imports which we would like to point out, both in our own self-interest and the interest of the integrity of a serious and constructive crime control bill. The embargoes on imports proposed in section 3 (e) of the bill would be bad law for three reasons: first, they are unnecessary and ineffective to the purposes of this bill; second, they are discriminatory in violation of American traditions of minimal and fair Federal regulation of commerce and the consumer's right to decide how he spends his own money; and third, the section, deliberately or otherwise, exploits gun industry politics in a way which is likely to impair passage of an otherwise constructive bill, which is apparently being hammered out of S. 1592. The testimony we have seen before this committee, and above all, before the House Ways and Means Committee, has left complete confusion as to the composition of the allegedly objectional imports. Both the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue presented the committee with a now-you-see-it, now-you-don't presentation of the object of the proposed embargo, both of them carefully avoiding disclosure of any breakdown between the categories of weapons to which section 3 (e) apply and those to which it would not. They imply that the target is a million firearms imported annually, a figure which, incidentally, I seem to see reflected on this map of the world to the right of me here. (The map referred to, entitled "Countries of Origin of Imported Firearms," was marked "Exhibit No. 148," and follows on p. 691.) Mr. CUMMINGS. Let's look a little closer. There are 4 distinct categories of imports which make the 573, 474 firearms of all types, calibers, and price ranges which were imported in 1964, according to the Bureau of the Census statistics. This is about half of the "1 million” figure annually so frequently mentioned by proponents of this bill. The breakdown of these imports is really as follows: First, there is a growing trade in high-cost foreign shotguns, rifles, and handguns which are manufactured abroad with an eye on the large U.S. market for sporting firearms. Illustrative is the recent competition from Japan in expensive over-and-under shotguns which are made to the order of Winchester, the Olin Mathieson firearms subsidiary. The proponents of the present bill repeatedly proclaim that they do not intend to interfere in the source of supply of such "quality" items, but never exactly define where they would draw the line. Second, there are the low-cost, newly made .22-caliber foreign nonmilitary firearms, heavily sold through the mails. Handguns of this type are cited by some law-enforcement officers as a major aggravation of their local crime problem. But caliber .22 handguns and rifles are made in this country at a very low cost. We accept the evidence that mail-order sales of foreign newly made .22-caliber handguns which are not mitilary surplus, have featured prominently in firearm crimes in certain of the large cities. In fact, I would again point to your own displays here to the rear of me where you have a board listing confiscated sample mail-order type guns and by far the great majority of them are exactly these type of imported .22-caliber revolvers. The National Rifle Association condemns the quality of these imports by implication in refusing to advertise them in their magazine, the American Rifleman. We join with many others in wishing that there were a legitimate method of keeping these $10 items out of the hands of juveniles and criminals. It would appear that the proposed mailorder restrictions go a long way to meeting the problem. May I note, also, that if the United States had a standard national proof act for firearms, such as any other Western country in the world possesses, these type of weapons could not be sold, because they very simply would not pass the normal proof requirements for their calibers. Third, there is a very small trade in imported high-caliber military surplus, such as bazookas, antitank guns, and mortars, without live ammunition. The market is largely the suburban residence which occasionally sports a cannon on the lawn for conversation and decoration. The amount of this trade is negligible, but several isolated episodes with these destructive devices has provided proponents of this legislation with a shocker. Our company and others would be most grateful to Congress, or the State Department which presently regulates surplus imports, for preventing the importation of these crew-served weapons which have no commercial significance and present a public relations problem. Fourth, and the final category, there are the military surplus small arms, about 80- to 85-percent centerfire rifles, which have been opposed for 10 years by the domestic manufacturers, as foreign competition. 49-588-65- -45 |