These firearms have opened up a legitimate new market for a good low-cost sporting and target shooting weapon, frequently a collection item, and generally at prices ranging from $25 to $40 in recent years.

To us the main controversy presented by section 3 (e), and its main impact relates to this fourth category: small arms military surplus imports. They have no more to do with the crime problem than the new and second-hand domestic centerfire rifles, which are very rarely used in crime because they are too big to conceal, too loud and too long range. It has been amply demonstrated by the American consumer that there is a legitimate market composed of about 2 million purchases of imported military rifles over a decade. These law-abiding gun hobbyists and sportsmen, and no one claims they are criminals, have long since resolved the question of whether or not these rifles are "particularly suitable for lawful sporting purposes"-the justification for embargo implied by the proposed bill.

There is no inherent difference between bolt action centerfire rifles, whether made for sporting purposes or for military purposes, whether made in the United States or made abroad, whether new or used. The price ranges overlap to a surprising degree. Any used rifle naturally sells at a discount, but, in the general range of $35 to $150, you will find second-hand military rifles, second-hand U.S. sporting rifles, and lower priced new sporting rifles. To show the similarity, I offer as exhibits before this committee, photographs of a Winchester 70 series new sporting rifle which retails at $139; a deluxe sporter remanufactured from a World War II military Mauser retailing at $79; an imported German Mauser military rifle "as is" which retails at $30; and a U.S. Springfield 1903 surplus rifle which retails commercially at $40, and has been sold in large volume to members through the National Rifle Association at $15 in recent years by the U.S. Government. I will pass these on to you.

(The photographs referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 149, 150, and 151 and are as follows:)

EXHIBIT NO. 149.-Winchester 70 series new sporting rifle retails at $139. Caliber .30-06

MADE WITH ONE IMPORTED MILITARY ACTION AND 16 PARTS MADE IN 7 STATES

EXHIBIT NO. 150.-M98 Mauser Deluxe Sporter, remanufactured from a World War II military Mauser retailing at $79

EXHIBIT NO. 151.-Imported German 98 Mauser military rifle "as is" which retails at $30. Caliber 8 millimeters

U. S. SPRINGFIELD MODEL 1903 A3 CALIBER .30-06

EXHIBIT NO. 152.-U.S. Springfield 1903 surplus rifle retails commercially at $40, and has been sold in large volume to members through the National Rifle Association at $15 in recent years by the U.S. Government. Caliber .30-06

Senator DODD. Very well. Go ahead.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Section 3(e) of this bill would apparently make both these Mausers illegal for distribution in the United States, but not so the Winchester or the Springfield sold through the National Rifle Association by the U.S. Government. It is submitted that there

are no crime statistics and no evidence from this subcommittee's hearings, this year or last, to establish that any of these weapons are a likely choice for a man contemplating a crime. Crime statistics, such as the ones mentioned by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, as published in the Washington Post on January 10, 1965, place centerfire rifles at the bottom of the list of weapon types used in crimes. The very statistics published in the "Uniform Crime Reports for 1963" indicate that only 10 percent of homicides are attributed to rifles of all types. Based on press reports it is obvious that a large part of these 10 percent and nonmilitary .22-caliber rifles of U.S. manufacture. Therefore, section 3 (e) is patently discriminatory insofar as there is no evidence of any significant difference between military and sporting centerfire rifles, domestic and foreign, from a crime standpoint.

There have been charges that imported military rifles are "junk": this charge is pertinent to the pending legislation because, if true, it could be said that they are unsuitable for sporting purposes. The fact is that our company alone has sold over a million of such rifles in the United States over a decade, perhaps half of all sales. Most of these sales in the last 3 years have been at prices ranging from $25 to $40. This many Americans would not be likely to spend this much money on junk. The fact is that men who know guns recognize that these weapons, imported military weapons, have been manufactured to specifications far more stringent than most of the sporting firearms on the market today. Recently, H. P. White, America's leading independent firearms testing laboratory which serves the entire industry, performed an exhaustive series of tests covering a total of 16 different types of military and 6 different types of U.S. commercial rifles of current production. All rifles passed these destructive tests in a satisfactory manner without qualifications. The experience of our insurers against product liability has been excellent, and we enjoy insurance rates on foreign military rifles comparable or lower to the rates for new sporting firearms. The National Rifle Association's authoritative magazine, the American Rifleman, takes advertising only of firearms which meet standards of safety and performance ascertained in their own test programs. Interarmco's foreign military rifles and military handguns are accepted by NRA for such advertising, and the NRA itself sells identical products provided by the U.S. Government. Most of the rejected advertising are the cheap caliber .22 handguns, some made in the United States, which plague the industry as well as law enforcement in the United States. We do not handle them, and we have never handled them.

Less than 20 percent of the surplus military imports are handguns. Most of these are high quality weapons manufactured to military specifications such as the German Luger and bring retail prices of from $35 to $80. We recognize that handguns, being concealable, are inherently susceptible to illegal use. Whatever controls are legislated for domestic handguns should be applied to the imports. No justification appears for discriminating against weapons on the basis of country of origin. If foreign military handguns are a frequent mailorder item, we hope that appropriate mail-order restrictions will reduce their availability to juveniles and criminals.

Imported surplus firearms have been controversial in the domestic gun industry. Despite fears of competition, the large volume of relatively low-cost high quality weapons have had a very favorable market impact. There is a growing recognition that the impact has been useful in bringing new adherents to the sport of hunting and to the hobbyist. Hundreds of small businesses have grown because of these imports and the market they have developed in accessories and ammunition and parts. Many thousands of dealers have on various occasions expressed to the Government and Congress their interest in this source. of a highly marketable quality product. This may seem logically irrelevant to S. 1592 because a crime bill is no place to reconcile the 10-year-old controversy between six-gun manufacturers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York and the smaller manufacturers of parts and accessories and the dealers throughout the Nation. But it is pertinent to the background of S. 1592. We think it likely that section 3(e) has been included in the bill because of the administration's mistaken notion that it might split the opposition to gun control legislation and ease the passage of this bill. In fact it has reopened old sores between the larger manufacturers and the small business element of the gun industry. Our evidence for suggesting that embargoes will not help the bill goes back to the floor vote in the House on the so-called Morano amendment in 1958 which demonstrated overwhelmingly that interest in these imports is widespread and well represented in Congress. So far, those potentially interested in the imports are largely unaware of section 3 (e).

We, ourselves, have not, as yet, brought it to their attention, despite voluminous customer inquiries which we intend to answer once we know what is recommended by the appropriate committees. We are confident that this subcommittee will not be diverted by gun industry politics from its constructive efforts to get at the crime problem in a realistic and effective manner. Mr. E. C. Hadley, the president of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, posed the manufacturers' dilemma when testifying before this committee on June 4, 1965, that

As early as 1958 the sporting arms industry sought to obtain a ban or restriction on trade and national defense grounds.

The temptation to use a crime bill for protection has been too much to be resisted. The Congress and the executive branch have repeatedly rejected the many petitions by the New England manufacturers for an embargo on imports, and this bill is no place to try again.

The language of section 3(e) of the bill seems to require Congress to find that surplus has not been serving the recreation market, a finding which cannot be supported by even the most superficial look at the facts. Section 3(e) provides three separate and alternative grounds for the Secretary of the Treasury to embargo imports: (1) They are not suitable for sport; (2) they are military surplus; or (3) they are contrary to the public interest. It is not clear whether or why the proponents feel that there are firearms imported which are "particularly suitable for lawful sporting purposes" and not "contrary to the public interest," which should nonetheless be embargoed simply because they are surplus military items. Either there are other unstated justifications or Congress is being asked to make a finding of

fact with the force of law that surplus rifles are not suitable for sporting purposes and are contrary to the public interest because they are weapons particularly likely to be used in crime. I believe it would undermine confidence in the legislative process to enact such a finding on the record of the hearings in either House to date.

The problem is not really the source of manufacture. If there is a problem, it is cheapness and availability to anonymous buyers through mail order. It is difficult to legislate against cheapness because of the unhappy precedent it would set. Should we outlaw the sale of used cars under $200 to protect the teenager from this lethal instrument? To legislate against cheapness, which this bill purports to do, would appear to require equal treatment of the vast second-hand market of American-made handguns, .22 caliber rifles, shotguns, and centerfire rifles, including those sold by the U.S. Government itself through the NRA. Should the new single-shot .22 caliber rifle retailing at $15 or $20 be taken off the market? Should an American manufactured .22 caliber handgun selling at $20 and firing a hollow-nosed bullet, outlawed for its brutality by the laws of warfare, be taken off the market or is it enough to apply mail-order restrictions? Why is the answer different if it is made abroad? Cheaper? Lower quality? How does the Secretary of the Treasury decide how cheap is bad and how to measure quality? We don't know the answer to these difficult problems and so far the administration admits by silence that it doesn't either.

We urge that this subcommittee not make the mistake of the administration in assuming that the sacrifice of imported military rifles will help passage of a gun control bill. The owners of the 2 million-odd foreign military rifles would rather be the judge of which rifles are suitable for sport than the Secretary of the Treasury. They have no idea yet of the objectives of section 4(e); as the NRA and other information sheets have evaded any analysis of section 3(e). The tens of thousands of dealers who have found the trade in these weapons stimulating to the growth of their business do not see themselves as exploiting youth and encouraging crime. The hundreds of small manufacturers and gunsmiths which serve the large market in barrels, stocks, sights, ammunition, spare parts, and other accessories do not think of themselves as engaged in a marginal business to be sacrificed. These groups, the grassroots of the gun industry and gun hobby, have, on several occasions, demonstrated, when alerted, that they care enough about the import question to express vigorously their indignation at any proposal that the Federal Government, responding to a few large firearms manufacturers, decide what they can buy and sell. Constructive firearms legislation needs no new opposition; it has enough problems. To cut off surplus imports on the mistaken notion that the representatives of manufacturers and associations who have showed up in Washington to speak on this bill are in fact representing the grassroots of the gun industry and the gun hobbyists, would be to ignore recent history. It is noteworthy that the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the closest to broad representation, testified last week on the House side against the logic of a surplus embargo in the name of crime, a position it had not yet developed when before this sub

committee.