Another prohibition imposed by this often irrational bill would prevent a sportsman from buying a handgun while visiting a State of which he is not a resident. Many nonresident hunters who visit Utah each fall to seek the mule deer will buy some guns and much ammunition in our State. This law, if passed, would prevent much of this commerce and would place unreasonable restrictions on the law-abiding citizen.

The same hunter, who carried his own gun into Utah last year, might be prevented from doing so this year under regulations devised by a bureaucrat who takes it upon himself to "stop crime."

This bill will prevent no crime.

But one possible good which S. 1592 could achieve is the restriction placed on importation of surplus military weapons which are obsolete or dangerous. Certainly, enough standard, mass-produced firearms are made in the United States each year to satisfy our needs.

There is legitimate concern, however, that many quality firearms now imported, by manufacturers such as Browning Arms Co., might also be restricted, again by administrative regulatory action.

Browning Arms has its headquarters in Utah, while its fine shotguns are manufactured in Belgium. We in Utah protest any attempt to infringe on the rights of Browning or anyone else dealing in fine sporting pieces who conduct legitimate business with law-abiding citizens. Administrative paperwork and redtape could be harmful and extend the intent of this proposal beyond constitutional limits. Local law enforcement agencies will also be taxed beyond their capabilities under this act, if they attempt diligently to enforce the required procedures. In the West, our lawmen will not look with favor on these new duties pushed on them by the Federal Government. They have enough work now in attempting to control crime with their own best local methods and laws without having to enforce an unreasonable Federal statute.

This brings me to another point. I feel that we should quite properly leave many of the matters regarding sale and possession of firearms and ammunition to the several States. The Federal Government constitutionally, has no real right to regulate the sale or possession of firearms and ammunition other than of the varieties now made illegal by existing Federal statutes. I refer to automatic weapons and those with barrel lengths considered illegal for use by private citizens.

In general, while S. 1592 might control the sale of firearms to certain individuals who buy from mail-order houses or foreign suppliers, this bill will not in any case prevent a would-be assassin from securing a powerful rifle or shotgun. After all, isn't that what we are trying to accomplish, in the wake of the tragedy of Dallas?

The bill will also, through high-priced Federal licenses, make it unprofitable for many small stores, shops, gasoline stations, and other retail outlets to sell ammunition and some firearms for sporting purposes. This is a harsh way to treat the law-abiding citizen.

I will support reasonable legislation properly drawn to regulate the ownership or possession of firearms by individuals who will use them illegally. I urge such action be taken by the several States. Congress can act to stop the flood of cheap, foreign, obsolete firearms, however, which is a matter for proper Federal action. This bill presents no answer and only serves to magnify out of proportion a problem which can best be handled by other legislation.

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN V. LINDSAY, OF NEW YORK

I should like to add my voice to the increasing demand for effective legislation restricting the menacing traffic in mail-order sales of firearms.

I do not believe that we should inflict controls upon the right of responsible individuals to own arms-for hunting, gun collections, the defense of their homes or target shooting. I do believe, however, that we should move against the sale of firearms by mail to unknown purchasers who may be children, narcotic addicts, or criminals.

It would seem that we in Congress would have learned the lesson so tragically brought to the Nation's attention by the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas. But no legislation has been passed. The evidence for action continues to mount, and can be found in any daily newspaper.

A Pittsburgh police inspector told of finding a gunman firing shots on a main thoroughfare in the city. The gunman told the inspector he was only firing at rodents behind a display advertising board. The man had purchased the gun by mail order after he had seen it advertised in a periodical. The inspector said the man, prior to this incident, had been under investigation for armed robbery but was released because of lack of evidence.

There is no dearth, either, of incidents where mail order or illegally purchased guns have been used to rob and murder.

In California, a 33-year-old man was shot to death by his wife. She told police she had bought the murder weapon, a 25-caliber revolver, from a mail-order house.

In Virginia, a 17-year-old boy walked into a gunshop, told a salesman he was 23, gave a fictitious name and address, paid $65 in cash and walked out with the weapon of his choice. Later, police charged, the weapon was used in a murder. In Oregon, a 22-year-old escapee from a mental hospital bought a .38-caliber automatic pistol for $49.50 in a pawnshop. A few days later he used it to shoot and kill a traveling businessman.

Some mail-order houses, in their efforts to bolster their business, have carried amazing magazine advertisements:

"Submachinegun for Father's Day? A limited quantity of brand new, hard-toget U.S.-made machineguns now available complete with magazine.”

"Looks like a ballpoint pen, writes like a ballpoint pen. But cleverly built into the other end is a .22-caliber pistol."

"A 7.92-machine rifle. The Fuehrer himself ordered these machine rifles for Wehrmacht in the last days of World War II. Only because they appeared so late in the war did they not completely annihilate the invading Allied forces." Many weapons advertised in this way are incredibly easy to obtain. The only requirement: be able to sign your name, lick a postage stamp, and pay the cash. James V. Bennett, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, has said: "Anyone can buy a gun in this country, almost anywhere. All that one needs is a price." He cites case after case in which men with prison records, or mental defectives, have had no trouble buying a gun at a "moment's notice."

J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said recently: "Those who claim that the availabilitity of firearms is not a factor in murders in this country are not facing reality."

In 1962, the FBI reported, 54 percent of the victims in 7,261 murders were killed with guns. And, Mr. Hoover said, "A review of the motives for murder suggests that a readily accessible gun enables the perpetrator to kill on impulse." Yet, with this situation facing the Nation, laws concerning firearms are, mildly speaking, less than rigorous:

In 41 States and the District of Columbia, there are no license requirements for the purchase of firearms.

Only 21 States and the District of Columbia require dealers to be licensed before selling handguns at retail.

Only seven States require a permit to purchase a gun.

Only in New York State is a license required to carry a handgun.

Only in Hawaii must guns be registered, and only in South Carolina is it against the law to sell a handgun.

As the New York Times pointed out recently in an editorial: "It is, unfortunately, easy to have a rifle shipped from Chicago to a Dallas box number under an assumed name."

With this situation confronting us, I feel stronger Federal legislation aimed at controlling the sale and reckless use of firearms is necessary. The bill I have introduced is designed to regulate, and regulate with some teeth, the interstate shipment of firearms.

My measure would prohibit mail-order shipments of firearms, sight unseen, to individuals, either through the mails or by Railway Express or other common carrier. My bill, however, would permit such shipments between manufacturers and dealers provided they are properly licensed.

The Lindsay bill would also increase the license fees for manufacturers to $50, for dealers to $10, and for pawnbrokers to $50. Licensed manufacturers and

dealers would be required to keep permanent records of production supply and shipment and other means of disposal for firearms.

As it now stands, pistols and revolvers are exempted from the controls of the National Firearms Act. The Federal law does establish license requirements for firearms dealers. And it does prohibit shipment of guns to known criminals or persons under indictment.

But, as Mr. Bennett has pointed out, the Government has to prove that a dealer knew or had cause to believe that a person was not lawfully eligible to receive a gun in interstate shipment-and this is a very difficult thing to prove. As of last year, no convictions had ever been made under this provision of the Federal statute.

(It is true that, at present, Federal statutes prohibit "mailing" of handgunsrevolvers and pistols. Handguns may be shipped by Railway Express and other common carriers, but not by the Post Office. Rifles and shotguns may, however, be sent through the U.S. mail. The effect of the handgun restriction, though, is to permit shipments on the basis of mail orders.)

State laws, in a few cases, have strict regulations on licensing and purchasing. But where one State may have a strong law, the State next to it probably has a weak one, and it is but a few miles travel across the line for an individual who wants to take advantage of the weaker provision.

As I pointed out, mail-order shipments to individuals other than licensed dealers or manuafacturers would be restricted, but dealers could ship to other dealers. This would eliminate the impulsive purchase by mail of a dangerous weapon by any individual who can write his name and put up the money.

My measure would also prevent an unlicensed individual from receiving imported firearms. This provision, coupled with the interstate commerce regulation, and with stricter licensing procedures, will hit hard at the very thing that led to the assassination of President Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald bought an Italian-made rifle from a Chicago mail-order house. That rifle probably was shipped, disassembled, from overseas originally.

It has been estimated by the chairman of this subcommittee that as many as 7 million cheap, foreign made guns may have come into this country during the past 5 years.

The Lindsay bill also restricts dealer licenses to persons over 21. There is no age limitation under present Federal law.

Opponents of firearms legislation have argued that stricter provisions would violate the second amendment to the Constitution, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I say that our right to "keep and bear arms" does not mean that you or I have a right to walk down the street with a bundle of hand grenades tied to our waist, or to enter a streetcar with a loaded shotgun, or to obtain a highpower rifle with a telescopic sight by mail order.

Certainly, in framing gun-control laws we must think carefully about the constitutional aspects of the question. Surely, there is no reason why we should prevent responsible adults or even minors from possessing licensed firearmsfor self-protection, hunting, target shooting or gun collections. But it should also be apparent that the unrestricted traffic in death weapons must be stopped. In 1787, when the second amendment was written, the rifle was the principal weapon of national defense, and it made good sense for every adult male to be able to use one.

Today, the Nation no longer depends on the citizen's weapon, nor does the citizen himself. And, most significantly, the population is now densely packed into urban areas, and it is diverse and mobile. In our changed and complicated society, guns have become more dangerous, and they demand more careful use. The Constitution must be interpreted in the light of the times; protection today means the reasonable regulation of firearms-not the absence of any regulation. The most ardent gun collector or avid sportsman must admit that there is neither sense nor safety in the present state of this Nation's laws. Sportsmen and gun owners find their sport or hobby degraded by the greedy practices of irresponsible gun sellers and the murderous practices of irresponsible gun buyers. I cannot see how it helps bona fide hunters, gun lovers, and even the dealers and manufacturers to have a national sport become a national scandal.

I believe provisions of my bill represent a workable solution to the problem of freewheeling gun sales. We need to plug the loopholes and bolster our firearms law, and provide uniform regulations for all the States.

49-588-65- -48

The public recognizes this need. In a recent Gallup poll, a clear majority of the voters favored stricter firearms control.

We are not treading on constitutional rights. We are simply attempting to keep guns out of the hands of juvenile delinquents, fanatics, and criminals. We must not sell weapons capable of inflicting death to individuals we know are likely to misuse them. Our citizens deserve this protection.

Members of the subcommittee may recall that I described when the original Dodd bill was before this body how a Carcano rifle, identical to the one that killed President Kennedy, could be purchased in New York City by virtually anyone. My bill does not attempt to make such sales illegal; its scope is limited to firearms shipments that cross State lines. I hope this approach may prove of interest as legislation is drafted in the Senate.

I urge the subcommittee to prepare effective legislation and to report a bill for which the Nation will be grateful.

STATE COMMISSIONS AND DEPARTMENTS

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 27, 1965

Whereas the great outdoor sport of hunting and recreational shooting in Louisiana is being threatened by the introduction of an antifirearms bill in Congress, S. 1592 sponsored by Senator Dodd, of Connecticut; and

Whereas this bill if enacted will increase the cost as well as make it extremely difficult for Louisiana's 300,000 sportsmen to legally acquire, transport, use, and repair shotguns and rifles essential for hunting purposes; and

Whereas this proposed legislation poses a direct threat to the continuation of this traditional form of outdoor recreation and calls for further infringement of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the second amendment of the Constitution; and

Whereas this may lead to total gun registration followed by confiscation and the disarming of the sportsmen of this country at a time when all agencies of the Government should be encouraging its citizens to use and acquire a working knowledge of the use of rifles and shotguns in the interest of national security as well as outdoor recreation; Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission does hereby go on record as being vigorously opposed to S. 1592 and its companion measure H.R. 6228 to be considered soon in Congress, and that each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation be requested and urged to take whatever steps necessary to see that these bills are not enacted; and be it further

Resolved, That representatives of this commission be authorized to attend and testify at any congressional committee hearings on these bills as may be deemed necessary.

PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES OF S. 1592

SECTION 2

Section 2 would ban all mail-order sales of firearms (including handguns, rifles, and shotguns) to consumers in interstate commerce. This would inconvenience thousands of country people who do not live close to sporting goods stores. There are more than 400 old-line, respectable houses that have mailed sporting arms to consumers for years. They include such names as Sears, Montgomery Ward, Speigel, and Abercrombie and Fitch. Hundreds of small houses that make receivers and frames and conversions would be put out of business. The dealer could not dispose of any firearms to any person without following procedures regulated by Secretary of Treasury; the regulations are not spelled out and presumably the Secretary could make any regulations he wanted to.

A consumer could not buy a handgun over the counter if he is under 21; he could not buy a shotgun or rifle if under 18. The dealer, in an over-the-counter sale, would be made responsible that the consumer had not violated any provision of the act or would not be likely to.

Any person mailing or shipping by common carrier any firearm would have to give written notice to the Postmaster General or carrier. It would be unlawful for a common carrier to deliver in interstate commerce any firearm to any person who does not exhibit a license under section 3 or who is not exempted under section 4. This would cause a hardship for many sportsmen.

It would be unlawful for any person to ship or receive any firearms or ammunition which might have been stolen, or which he might have reasonable cause to believe were stolen. There is no definition of "reasonable cause." An innocent transactor could easily be subjected to entrapment depending on a court's decision of "reasonable cause."

SECTION 3

Application for firearms and ammunition dealers' licenses would be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary would prescribe. Another case of unlimited power to the Secretary of the Treasury.

A dealer's license would be increased 100 times the present amount of $1 to $100. This discriminatory license would force more than 8,000 small dealers and stores to quite handling fireams and ammunition. It would work a hardship on hunters; in remote areas they could not go to "crossroad" stores for extra ammunition. The dealer's license might not work a hardship on large city dealers but would force rural stores to quit handling ammunition and firearms. It is another example of urban laws being forced on rural America. This increased costs of licenses would be passed on to the consumer.

Small reloaders would have to pay a license fee of $1,000 a year. Clubs that were reloading for resale to members would have to pay $1,000 a year. Individuals, many of whom sell to a few neighbors, would have to pay $1,000 a year. There is no provision protecting the welfare of more than 2 million individual reloaders in America.

A sportsman bringing a gun back into the United States, after hunting in a foreign country, would have to satisfy autthorities that he was bringing the same gun back. This would harass the thousands of hunters who go to Mexico and Canada each year. Also, a hunter going to another State, and shipping his guns, would be subjected to delay and redtape.

"Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, and sale and other disposition, of firearms and ammunition at such place, for such period and in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. This provision could be tantamount to registration. Under (g), the Secretary could set up a central registration bureau which would harass the more than 20 million lawabiding recreational shooters in America.

Dealers, in addition to being checked by city, county and State officials, would be checked by delegates of the Secretary. The Secretary could make dealers keep records on as small a sale as a box of .410 shotgun shells.

SECTION 4

The Secretary would be given authority to prosecute anyone who intended to violate any provisions of the act or any regulations promulgated by the Secretary.

STATEMENT OF FRANK H. DUNKLE, DIRECTOR OF THE MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT AND SECRETARY OF THE MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION (This action authorized by a motion unanimously passed by the Montana Fish and Game Commission on May 18, 1965)

The Montana Fish and Game Commission and the Montana Fish and Game Department wish to go on record as opposing S. 1592, by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, of Connecticut, as well as any other proposed legislation which would require, or permit by administrative order, the registration of firearms or which would require any kind of Federal license or document in order to buy or possess them. The avowed purpose of this and other such bills is to reduce the crime rate in the United States. It has been shown (as in the case of the Sullivan law in New York) that restrictive legislation will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Statistics further prove that guns are used in only a small percentage of aggravated assaults.

We do not oppose all gun legislation. In fact, we would very heartily favor legislation directed against the criminal who uses firearms. An example of such a bill is the one introduced by Congressman Bob Casey, of Texas (H.R. 5642), which provides a mandatory 25-year prison sentence for anyone who uses or carries any firearm during the commission of "any robbery, assault, murder, rape, burglary, kidnaping, or homicide."