Finally, I would like to submit that claims made in favor of S. 1592 by advocates thereof are, from a statistical standpoint, wholly without foundation, and that those in favor of the bill have unfairly used the tragic assassination of President Kennedy and other spectacular, but rare, events to create an emotional atmosphere in which to further their aims. When S. 1592 is evaluated logically and systematically, one finds that it has very little to offer. Therefore, I urge that S. 1592 be abandoned, and that further consideration be given to the type of firearms legislation embodied in the King-Hickenlooper bill. Hon. THOMAS DODD, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, LIBERTY LOBBY, DEAR SENATOR DODD: Liberty Lobby represents over 150,000 families, all of whom share a common concern about the proliferation of crime and the sharp increase in firearms among the lawless. On behalf of our members, we have prepared this analysis of the firearms control measures proposed by the administration. LAWS AND SOCIETY As this committee knows so well, any law passed to control or eliminate an undesirable problem within a society, must be carefully considered and capable of answering these prerequisites for success: 1. Does the law recognize the cause of the problem and take steps to correct it at that level; or does it show a preoccupation with the effects of the problem, treating them instead, and forcing the causes to grow even more inflamed? 2. Does the law impose an unreasonable or unconstitutional burden upon the law-abiding segment of the society? 3. Can the law be enforced through the willing support of society or, like the prohibition of alcohol, will its circumvention create another source of illegal revenue for the underworld? 4. Is there a better way to curb or control the problem? PROHIBITION, A DISASTER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT If a proposed law cannot favorably pass the questions above, then it cannot be enforced. Prohibition of alcohol was such a law and it should serve us well as a lesson. Prohibition did not recognize the cause of the riding disrespect for law and order in that day; it treated one of the effects. It imposed an unreasonable burden upon the law-abiding segment of society. It did not have the willing support of society and thus, could not be enforced. We can thank its circumvention for the spawning of organized crime in America. Grim proof of its failure may be seen in the mortality rate from alcoholism which leaped from 0.7 per 100,000 the year prohibition was started, to 4.9 per 100,000 after 6 futile years of attempted Federal compulsion.1 Good law must be applicable and enforcible. ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS, OMNIBUS MEASURES ONLY PARTLY RELATED TO CRIME Liberty Lobby has given the administration proposals, and their amendments to those proposals, extensive study. We studied their proposals not in the light of how they could be arbitrarily refuted, but in the light of how well they answered the four prerequisite questions we ask of any proposed law. 1 See Statistical Bulletin, vol. 33, No. 3, March 1953, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 2 In speaking of administration proposals and amendments to those proposals, it is appropriate to comment on the validity of the research accomplished in specifle support of those administration proposals. The Special Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency researched and developed extensive information in support of measures which came, in the Senate, to be known as the Dodd bill. These measures were introduced in this session as S. 14 on Jan. 6. Shortly thereafter, Senator Dodd introduced the administration measures as S. 1591 and S. 1592 and employed the same supporting evidence used for his own measures. This despite the fact that there were radical differences in the scope of the two programs. Following this, the same Government agencies which had argued so positively for adoption of the radical measures in full before the Senate, later admitted to the inherent defects in part of their program by introducing amendments to those measures in their testimony to the House. To the interested observer, it would seem that although the Special Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency conducted commendable research that research should not be said to support the program which is exploiting it. We find the administration bills to be omnibus bills, attempting to legislate on three separate issues under the guise of anticrime legislation. We feel that two of the provisions of these bills are worthwhile proposals which really have little to do with crime. We refer to the proposed ban on imports of foreign surplus military weapons. These weapons were originally produced under subsidies and therefore constitute unfair competition with American industry and labor. We are opposed to such "dumping" which can only harm us by damaging a vital defense industry. Also, we do not see what connection there might be between our rising crime rate and the trade in crew-served weapons and explosives produced for war. Nevertheless, we are in favor of legislation that would control such weapons to prevent their use by subversive, insurgent bands. We feel, however, that if the Government is concerned with subversive insurgency, it should honestly say so, and explain to the public the reasons why, rather than legislate on the subject under disguise. Both of these measures can stand on their own, as separate legislation. Because they can, and because they do not deal with the causes of our crime rate, they should be separated from the crime control bills. RECOGNITION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT The remaining portions of these bills do represent an attempt to deal with crime. Unfortunately, these proposals are based on the assumption that increased fireams sales are a basic cause of crime, when it would be easier to conclude that the sale of firearms is but an effect of the rising crime problem. Liberty Lobby maintains that two conditions underlie the abnormal increase in gun sales. The first condition is the cause of our crime problem and the second condition is an effect of that problem. These two conditions are: First: Contempt for law and order; a feeling that the police are unable, and the courts no longer desirous of, enforcing meaningful punishment for lawlessness; a feeling that, if a large enough crowd does not agree with or like a law, it is "morally" permissible to break that law-a sentiment being exploited openly by subversive elements committed to violence and assassination. Second: A growing unrest among concerned citizens caused by the aimlessness of our Federal protective policies. An aimlessness extending from the overruling of State efforts to enforce its criminal laws, to our on-again-off-again posture in dealing with external Communist encroachment. FAILURE TO PROTECT, A BASIC GOVERNMENT FAILURE It should be apparent to any committee seeking to fight crime that we are dealing with a failure by the Government in its basic function, the protection of the people from the violence of their enemies. Protection is the only justification for governments to exist. The payment of taxes and the giving of allegiance to government is justified only so long as the government gives protection to the people. This protective function of government is primarily to peaceably adjust disputes between the people. It is to prevent anarchy and feuding by enforcing justice with reason when possible, with force when necessary. This function extends, too, to keeping the nation secure from external aggression. In return, the people have a duty to respect and support the government. We feel that the cause behind the increase in firearms sales stems from the contempt of our laws and our courts by lawless people which in turn contributes to the determination of the householders to restore to themselves the traditional ability to do that which they fear their government will no longer do; protect the lives and property of their loved ones. The rate of annual increase in legal sale of firearms has increased by 500 percent during recent years over what its rate of increase was during the first 15 years following World War II. For a thorough examination of the impact of firearms on the economy, see "U.S. Consumers' Annual Purchases of Firearms and Ammunition-Richard E. Snyder's Estimates," as published in Annual Reports, sponsored by the National Sporting Goods Association. The failure of the British Government to provide such protection for the citizenry was never more graphically demonstrated than when, shortly after the fall of the Chamberlain government, American sportsmen were asked by England to "Send a gun to defend a British home." This because the collectivist British Government had imposed such rigid firearms controls that only a pitiful handful owned private firearms when faced with external aggression. For a firsthand account of the seriousness of this government failure, see "Their Finest Hour," ch. 2, by Sir Winston Churchill. Houghton, Mifflin, Boston, Mass. GOVERNMENT PROTECTIVE FAILURE, A JUDICIAL FAILURE The Federal judiciary is primarily responsible for this protective failure. Thanks to the Federal judiciary, the courts of this land have surrendered to a false philosophy of "rehabilitation" of the criminal-at the expense of his next victim. Thanks to the Federal judiciary, the courts have handcuffed not the criminal but the police." Thanks to the Federal judiciary, those who would use violence against us in our homes and on the streets and in our places of business are encouraged to believe that the law—that is, the government—is on their side, not ours. 6 Is it then any wonder that they invest heavily in the most efficient tools of their violent trade the trade they pursue with apparent immunity, immunity extended them by our judiciary? Is it any wonder that persons with criminal records of 10, 21, even 70 convictions go out and buy guns? The real wonder is that such persons are free to walk on the streets. If they were where they should be, they could not buy a gun, or even a razor blade. Is it any wonder that gun sales increase at an abnormal rate, when the decent, law-abiding citizen can see the evidence all around him that his government is failing to offer him protection against violence? And is, in fact, considering measures which more than ever would cause the law abiding to go unarmed on the streets, completely at the mercy of the criminal, whether he is armed with a revolver, a zip gun, knife, or lead pipe. The important question about the proposed laws before this committee is: What do the laws do to prevent such crime? Will they prevent the criminal from operating with a knife or an icepick? Will they prevent the common combination of forcible entry followed by rape? Will they keep criminals behind bars, thus reducing crime by 50 percent automatically? If they do not-and we all know that these laws do not do these things-then they don't treat the cause of crime at all. REVERSAL OF THIS TREND WITHIN CONGRESSIONAL SCOPE If the Congress were helpless to deal with the cause of crime, these measures before us, designed to treat the effects, might be excusable; but Congress has it within its power to control the Federal judiciary. Why doesn't it do so? Thanks to the Federal judiciary, other public enemies, too, are free to operate. Known subversives who advocate the violent overthrow of our Government are sheltered and protected against retribution. Is it any wonder that a President of the United States can be assassinated, when a known Communist is permitted to enter this country from the Soviet Union, take part in Communist propaganda exercises on the streets of New Orleans, and openly practice marksmanship on public rifle ranges? No, the real wonder is that the Congress of the United States can sit in committee hearings and listen attentively to witnesses who testify that the terrible thing could never have happened if only Americans were not permitted to buy guns through the mail. Liberty lobby wishes to remind the committee that a gun never assassinated anyone, anywhere. Assassination is the act of an assassin. President Kennedy was not killed by a rifle; he was killed by a Communist. The Congress has taken a step in the right direction by making it a Federal crime to assassinate a President. That one act will do little to prevent such crimes, however. What is really needed is a bill to establish the necessary control over known and admitted enemies of the United States; to establish a system of surveillance and restriction over the activities of those who advocate violence as a legitimate technique; to register Communist-not firearms. The Congress can do this, if it wishes, but the legislation you are considering does not do it. To appreciate the extent of this trend see the very full coverage in U.S. News & World Report. Mar. 22, 1965, p. 38. In the testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee Sheldon S. Cohen, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, cited an example of a criminal in Washington, D.C., with 71 misdemeanor arrests who was turned loose on society still another time so that he subsequently committed crime No. 72. Commissioner Cohen did not hazard an opinion as to the quality of a judicial system which, after 71 attempts, could not seem to impress upon the criminal the wisdom of being law-abiding but which would nevertheless turn him loose. Commissioner Cohen instead felt that the case indicated a need to more closely regulate and restrict the law abiding in their purchase of firearms. 7 See U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8 (9). Again we ask: In seeking legislation to restrict the availability of firearms to the law abiding, is a solution of the causes of the growing crime rate being sought? Or are the visible (and heretofore legal) effects of that crime rate being legislated into the realm of the underworld? We feel that the latter is the case. IMPOSE AN UNREASONABLE OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE LAW ABIDING? The stated purpose of this legislation could not be considered unreasonable. Surely a move to properly reenforce the States in their individual efforts to halt crime is reasonable. But the program recommended to implement those purposes departs, in many cases, from both reason and the spirit of the Constitution. The portions which require shippers to keep records of shipments into another State are reasonable and appropriate. And those portions which work to restrict shipment of weapons from one State into another whose citizens have voted to control and restrict the use and ownership of guns, have much merit and are appropriate to the intent of all who seek to curb criminal misuse of firearms. However, those portions which work to impose blanket Federal regulations on the use and ownership of weapons are unnecessary and set a dangerously autocratic precedent. Those portions of the law that employ taxation not to raise revenues, but to dispossess and stifle, go against a system of Western law established by the Magna Carta. Those sections which allow the Secretary of the Treasury (in truth the Director of Internal Revenue) to make whatever regulations—which will have the power of laws he deems necessary, are clearly outside the intent of the Constitution which outlines the powers of the executive branch and the duties of the legislative. To impose the complexities of highly urbanized States-and the rigid laws they require on all the States, is clearly a violation of those States rights. To excuse these unreasonable and unconstitutional measures on the grounds that they only add "teeth" to laws already in existence is to give credence to the concept that two wrong, or unconstitutional, laws make a right one. Subsequent amendments to both the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act have extended their jurisdiction further than was originally intended. It should be of scant comfort to pardon the objectionable features of this present program on the basis of what is already law according to those acts. CAN PROPOSED LAWS BE ENFORCED THROUGH WILLING SUPPORT? If the measure reported out by this committee were to concern itself solely with protection of existing State laws, and not set about establishing a Federal law as to who may purchase a firearm from whom, then it will receive support and be enforcible. If those portions which dictate who may and may not purchase, directly, firearms from whomever they wish are left in as a part of the law, then it is predictable that the citizenry will not willingly obey such a law or cooperate in its enforcement. Those who have a hand in the passage of such a bill must be willing to share in the infliction of still harsher laws to enforce these. IS THERE A BETTER WAY? It is not our intent to criticize without offering constructive alternatives. We are not against something in this case; rather we are for an effective anticrime measure. Thus we recommend the following: That questions of importation of foreignmade surplus weapons be removed from this bill and reintroduced on their own merit that no taxes be imposed except those needed to raise revenue; that the counterinsurgency provisions seeking restraint on crew-served military weapons be promptly introduced as a separate measure and not be deceptively tied to an anticrime bill; that the citizen of no State be inflicted with a Federal law infringing upon his right to purchase and own a firearm; but that his State have recourse to a Federal law forbidding any gun shipments into the State in contra 8 Despite the vicious smear efforts of antigun cartoonists and editorial writers, it should be perfectly clear to the public that while they who indulge in such immaterial distortions have done nothing as a class or as individuals to promote constructive programs to end criminal misuse of firearms and to develop programs of firearms safety, both the gun industry and the sportsmen using guns have been unexcelled in developing self-regulatory practices to accomplish both ends. vention of that State's laws; that the States judicial systems be protected in their efforts to impose meaningful punishments for criminal misuse of firearmsprotected from Federal courts which have in the past so consistently overruled them in favor of the criminal. Such a Federal measure would be both constitutional, and within the traditional framework of individual and State responsibility. Liberty Lobby would support such a law for it would be seeking to cure the cause of the problem at its root. Sincerely, K. J. CULLINANE, Research Director. STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. RORSCHACH My name is Harold E. Rorschach. I have resided in Tulsa, Okla. for the past 45 years. I have lived in Oklahoma 65 years and have enjoyed the use of various types of firearms in training, instructing, and target shooting. I have been a member of the National Rifle Association for more than 25 years, and am at the present time an endowment member of that association. I have served as an instructor in many junior rifle clubs, giving instructions in the handling of firearms, safety measures, and sportsmanship to more than a thousand juniors and many adults. Several of my trainees have qualified as expert marksman upon entering the U.S. armed services. My grandfather came from Switzerland to the United States in 1858 and served during the War Between the States, from Ohio; two uncles served through the Spanish-American War; I served in World War I; my two sons in World War II; and another son in the Korean conflict. All of our family were taught to use and respect firearms for defense, as well as sportsmanship. The Swiss are a liberty loving people whose government does not prohibit firearms, but on the contrary, requires all adult male Swiss citizens to possess a military rifle and at least 100 rounds of ammunition in his home, and be expertly trained in their use and safety. Homicide by firearms is practically unknown in Switzerland, and its crime rate is the lowest in the world. England, by law, prohibits the possession of practically all firearms by its citizens, including most law enforcement officers. Possession of firearms and their use by criminals and criminal homicide by firearms are not uncommon. The crime rate in England ranks with the highest in any country. Note the recent major English train robbery by firearms and the loot of more than a million pounds. If a gun prohibition law is the solution to crime, then New York State under the provisions of its Sullivan law, should be crime free; instead, we find a 15percent increase in New York armed robberies and assaults in 1964. The U.S. News & World Report, May 24, 1965, issue, reports armed robbery has reached an alltime peak in Washington, D.C. Has more laws regulating the possession of firearms been of any benefit here? Texas has a law prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, but crimes by the use of such firearms continue. See attached from the Houston Post issue of May 26, 1965. Senators, the answer to the criminal use of firearms by juveniles and adults is not to prohibit their possession and use by the law-abiding citizen, but rather to bring about the strict enforcement of laws already on the statute books. Softhearted judges who seem to look for ways and means of letting the accused go free, or escape with light penalties, are a major factor in this situation. It will be a step in the right direction when Congress, and the judiciary, which has concerned itself so much of late with the rights of the accused, start showing more interest and sympathy for the civil rights of the victims and public safety of law-abiding citizens. I consider S. 1592, as drafted, quite objectionable for the reasons which I shall enumerate: (1) It seeks to control the possession, use, or acquisition of firearms and ammunition by all law-abiding citizens, but skips over the control and exportation of firearms to revolutionaries which are proper sources of inquiry by the United States. (2) It delegates unwarranted authority to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, to make regulations have the force of civil and criminal law. (3) It increases the license fees, registration fees, and occupational fees to such an extent as to actually place a prohibition on the sale, possession, and use of firearms by all law-abiding citizens. |