Mr. Chairman, in addition to the surplus military weapons, we are also seriously concerned with the influx of relatively inexpensive pistols and revolvers which have plagued the law enforcement officers of our metropolitan areas. You spoke of these in your speech to the Senate on February 18 and pointed out that many of these imports are of poor quality and are dangerous to the user as they may be to the person who is often threatened or assaulted with them.

You also quoted from the statement of Mr. Franklin Orth, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, which he made before your subcommittee on May 2, 1963. Since the quotation from Mr. Orth's statement so well illustrates the problem with regard to these inexpensive imported pistols and revolvers, I think it is important it should appear in this hearing record. It is very short, and with your permission I would like to read it into the record at this point. Mr. Orth stated, and I quote:

For the most part, this traffic in firearms involves the relatively inexpensive imported pistols and revolvers that are advertised in many cheap pulp magazines throughout the country. As a matter of information for the commitee, the National Rifle Association has conducted product-evaluation studies of many of these handguns and has found them to be largely worthless for sporting purposes. As a matter of policy, we do not accept their advertising in the American Rifleman, the official journal of the association.

I would like to make it clear that the provisions of this bill relating to the importation of firearms is intended to exclude surplus military firearms, and firearms which are not suitable for lawful sporting purposes. The bill would not, and I emphasize would not, preclude the importation of good quality sporting-type firearms.

The amendments to the Federal Firearms Act contained in S. 1592, relating to the importation of firearms, are urgently needed, and I strongly support the President's recommendations that they be adopted.

The fifth major problem area with which the bill deals concerns the interstate shipment and disposition of large-caliber weapons, such as bazookas and antitank guns, and destructive devices such as grenades, bombs, missiles, and rockets.

The lack of controls over the traffic in these highly destructive weapons is a matter of greatest concern to me, and should be of concern to every responsible citizen of the United States. It may be of interest that the Secretary of the Army, speaking for the Department of Defense, expressed the view to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that "because of the potential dangerous threat these weapons pose, effective controls are needed."

I would also like to note that the National Rifle Association has recognized the need for action in this area and that in their April 3, 1965, statement at the annual meeting, the National Rifle Association declared:

That it would support properly drawn legislation to outlaw dangerous devices such as bazookas, bombs, antitank guns, and other military-type weapons that have found their way into trade channels across America.

I have here the Herblock cartoon which appeared in the Washington Post on December 29, 1964, entitled "You Don't Even Need to Limit Yourself to a Few People," which so aptly illustrates the subject which

I am discussing, and I would like the members of the subcommittee to see it, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have it inserted in the hearing record.

(The cartoon referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 11" and will be found in the subcommittee files.)

Mr. COHEN. S. 1592 would place strict controls over the importation, interstate shipment, and disposition by federally licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers of these highly destructive weapons.

In addition, as you are of course aware, Mr. Chairman, S. 1591, the bill to amend the National Firearms Act, which you introduced on March 22 and which was referred to the Committee on Finance, proposes additional controls on these highly destructive weapons under the exercise of the Federal taxing power. The additional controls under the taxing power are particularly necessary in order to reach the weapons of this character already in the possession of private individuals and to control the transfer of ownership or possession of these weapons between such individuals. The same type of Federal controls would be exercised, under the National Firearms Act, over transfer and possession of these highly destructive weapons as is exercised under existing law with respect to gangster-type weapons, such as submachineguns.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to the sixth major area of amendments to the Federal Firearms Act contained in S. 1592. A major fault in the existing Federal Firearms Act which S. 1592 proposes to correct is that relating to small annual fees charged for licenses. Under the bill the license fees would be increased to a figure which would make it very unlikely that any person not actually engaged in business as an importer, manufacturer, or dealer would attempt to obtain a Federal Firearms Act license. The increased license fees would be such as to not only cover the cost of processing an application and issuing the license, but would defray the cost of conducting an appropriate check of the qualifications of the applicant to determine whether or not he would be likely to conduct his operations in compliance with the act.

An example of the problem with which we are confronted is illustrated by an advertisement which appeared in the March 1, 1965, issue of the Shotgun News, Columbus, Nebr. This advertisement stated under the heading "Public Service Information" as follows:

For just $1 you can obtain a Federal dealers license, then you can ship or receive handguns by mail instead of the high-price express. If you buy one handgun every 3 years it will pay you to have a license. You do not have to have local license. Write to the same office that you send your income tax payment to ask for application for Federal firearms license. Remember just $1 per year. We asked the dealer who placed this advertisement to discontinue its publication, and he has voluntarily complied, but I cite this case as an example to illustrate our problem.

Our problem is compounded by the fact that existing law provides that upon payment of the prescribed fee the Secretary shall issue a license to the applicant which shall entitle the licensee to transport, ship, or receive firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. There are no stated conditions to the issuing of the license except the provisions for the payment of the prescribed fee, and no discretion is granted under the present language of the law.

I might say that this is at least an anomalous situation. Certainly. the customary practice is to provide standards for the issuance of, licenses or permits, and a proper and reasonable standard is the standard as to whether the applicant would be likely to conduct his operations in compliance with law.

This standard not only has been recognized by the courts as reasonable but in effect it is a standard suggested by the Supreme Court many years ago in a leading case on this subject (Ma-King Co. v. Blair, 271 U.S. 479 (1926)). We have, under existing law, refused to issue licenses to felons, persons under indictment for a felony, and fugitives from justice. We have done this on the ground that the issuance of a license to such persons would serve no lawful purpose, since by reason of section 2 of the act it would be unlawful for them to ship and receive in interstate commerce.

Now, as your committee pointed out in its interim report, some of these licensees operate out of "answering services" and "mail drops," some conduct the most questionable type of operations, often in disregard of the public interest. Yet these people hold licenses issued by the Federal Government.

I do not feel that the Internal Revenue Service should be placed in the position of being forced to issue licenses to such persons. I therefore strongly recommend that you impose some meaningful conditions which applicants must comply with so that this Federal licensing system will afford some realistic controls.

I feel that honest and responsible firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers should support these provisions since the amendments contained in this bill will assure that the firearms traffic will be in the hands of responsible business people and that they will not be confronted with the unfair competition of those who cannot or will not comply with reasonable standards.

Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed six major areas with which this bill deals. As I previously stated, S. 1592 is a general revision of the 27-year-old Federal Firearms Act designed to bring the act up to date and to make it an effective instrument in the war against crime and lawlessness. Time will not permit me to discuss each and every detailed provision of the bill. However, when Secretary Dillon transmitted the bill to the Congress he also submitted a section-by-section analysis of the bill which, if it has not already been inserted in the hearing record, I would like to have inserted in the record as an appendix to my statement.

Senator DODD. It has not been, and will be inserted at the conclusion of your remarks.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" and is to be found at the conclusion of Mr. Cohen's remarks, p. 75.)

Mr. COHEN. We feel that there are problems relating to the interstate and foreign traffic in firearms which must be dealt with at the Federal level, and I am sure that you share this view. However, there are, as you know, some who would not even agree that there are any serious problems in the firearms control area, there are others who have a financial interest in the firearms traffic, and, further, there are wellmeaning sportsmen and law-abiding gun owners who have a fear of

personal inconvenience-in most cases greatly exaggerated-all who oppose any bill designed to realistically and effectively deal with the firearms problem. I think you will agree that the sportsmen and law-abiding gun owners need not fear the passage of this bill.

The inadequate firearms controls which we have today demonstrate the power of their opposition to effective controls. They are organized. They make their own views known to elected public officials. They write letters to the editors. Their influence has far exceeded their proportionate number in the population.

However, I am confident that the great majority of Americans favor the enactment of more effective firearms control legislation.

One of the difficulties which has tended to hinder enactment of proposed firearms legislation is the vast amount of misinformation which the public receives concerning the nature and effect of S. 1592. For example, in a recent article which appeared on the front page of one of the country's leading newspapers it was stated, and I quote:

The gun bill that is the subject of so much concern is legislation proposed by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat, of Connecticut, to require the registration of firearms.

As the chairman and the members of this subcommittee know, S. 1592 would not require the "registration" of firearms.

Widespread confusion as to the purpose and effect of the bill has also arisen from statements contained in a letter sent by a national organization to its membership urging them to write to their Congressmen and Senators and to the President of the United States concerning S. 1592, and giving specific instructions on how to write the letters. This letter did not furnish the membership of the association with an objective appraisal of the provisions of the bill, nor did it point out that the bill is an integral part of the President's program to combat the increasing incidence of crime in America. The general impression conveyed was that S. 1592, if enacted would be the death knell of private gun ownership in America as well as of all sporting activities involving firearms.

I certainly would not wish your committee, or the Congress, to premise its action on this bill on any misconception that it provides for the Federal registration of firearms throughout the United States or that it would lead to the elimination of the private ownership of all guns. The bill was not intended to, and does not, impose any substantial additional burdens on the possession and use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Clearly the bill would not "destroy our skeet and target clubs, hunting activities, target ranges, Olympic shooting team, the national rifle matches, et cetera" as has been asserted in correspondence received as a result of the letter to which I referred.

Some of the bill's opponents would attack it on unfounded constitutional grounds alleging either that its provisions are beyond the congressional power to regulate interstate or foreign commerce or that they violate rights expressed in the Constitution's amendments. There is currently a widespread misconception as to the meaning of the second amendment and its significance in relation to Federal firearm controls.

This is certainly due in part to the fact that during the past decade certain gun publications and gun organizations have widely dis

seminated information concerning the second amendment which contains, as you pointed out in your speech in Boston before the Ford Hall Forum on March 28 of this year, only the "last half" of the amendment which, in its entirety reads, and I quote:

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.

Not only do those who assert that the second amendment confers the right on the individual to keep and bear arms quote the language of the Constitution out of context, but they also ignore the judicial decisions which have construed the second amendment. The courts have held that in applying Federal Firearms legislation that the second amendment was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but rather as a prohibition upon Federal action which would interfere with the organization by the States of their militia.

I understand that a memorandum opinion which deals with the subject of Federal firearms control and the second amendment is being offered by the Attorney General for inclusion in the record of these hearings. This opinion was prepared with the provisions of the bill in mind, and it reaches the unequivocable conclusion that there is nothing in the meaning, scope, or application of the second amendment to impede the passage of S. 1592.

I will discuss now the authority of the Congress to enact this legisla

tion.

The amendments to the Federal Firearms Act proposed in S. 1592 would be premised on the same constitutional authority under which the Federal Firearms Act was originally enacted. That, of course, is the power of the Congress under the Constitution to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, which is expressed in clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.

Actually the opponents of firearms legislation at the Federal level ordinarily argue the second amendment, and have not been inclined to question the scope of the power of Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.

I do not think that there is any substantial question but that all of the proposed amendments are within the scope of the authority of the Congress under the Commerce power. I also understand that the Attorney General is submitting for the record a memorandum opinion supporting this view.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we believe that S. 1592 contains measures suited to the attainment of the President's expressed objectives in the field of firearms controls. It is recognized, however, that one of the purposes of these hearings is to determine what clarification of language or simplification or improvement of procedures, if any, can be effected. I assure you that members of my staff and I will be glad to assist your committee to this end, in perfecting language or in effecting procedural simplifications or improvements which do not detract from the bill's major objectives.

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, for this good statement. We will undoubtedly be calling on you in regard to perfecting the language of this bill. I am sure it can be improved. I have never seen one that was not subject to improvement and we are very open to suggestions which will make it a better bill and less burdensome and more reasonable if that can be done.