STATEMENT OF DAVID J. STEINBERG

I respectfully present this testimony in support of S. 1591 and S. 1592. I do so as a member of the general public with no personal interest in the sale, purchase, or ownership of firearms or in any organization active in this field. My interest is rather a longtime concern with the need to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible people and of otherwise responsible people who lack the technical competence which those who buy and possess firearms should be expected to have. The fact that no airtight way to achieve this objective is possible can hardly be regarded as a convincing argument against the need and practicality of some measure of effective control. I have studied all sides of this highly controversial issue with great care-its constitutional aspects, the imperatives of public welfare and safety, and the rights and privileges of those who use guns and those who do not.

My interest in this issue does not stop with study and reflection. I have debated this question over radio, and before the criminal law section of the American Bar Association. I testified twice before the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Va., which last year, awakened by a succession of local tragedies, enacted minimal controls over the sale of handguns in the county. I urged the adoption of S. 1975 early last year in hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee a bill which clearly did not go far enough but which, with all its shortcomings, would at least have gone a little way toward slowing down the dangerous proliferation of guns into the hands of those who should not have them. (My credentials also include college service in an ROTC infantry unit, wartime military service, and military certification as a sharpshooter with the .45.)

THE NEED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROLS

As a supporter of the administration bills to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act and the National Firearms Act, I have no illusions about the extent to which they can help solve the Nation's increasingly serious crime problem. Much more is necessary, including measures to solve the economic and social problems that beset our society. Nor is there any way absolutely to prevent crimes in which guns are used. But these bills are essential to equipping a responsible, civilized society to bring under reasonable control the criminal potential of its most destructive weapons, thereby lessening the potential of criminal violence and increasing society's respect for legally constituted authority.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of respect for legally constituted authority and for Government's ability to enforce the law and protect the public welfare. The failure of Congress and most State, county, and city governments to adequately protect the public interest with respect to firearms proliferation invites increased danger to public safety. It has allowed irresponsible elements of our society to bypass existing laws by capitalizing on loopholes in our Federal system of government. These irresponsible elements are protected against effective law enforcement by legislative negligence at all levels of government, reflecting lack of interest on the part of some legislators and the vulnerability of others to the strong pressures of highly organized groups focusing their sights on narrow self-interest rather than on the broad dimensions of the public interest.

The public interest includes the right of responsible users of firearms to purchase, possess, and transport their guns for lawful purposes. The bills before your Committee would not deny that right; they would only place it in the framework of a policy of firearms control that protects the interests of society as a whole. The person buying a gun will be slightly inconvenienced. But there is no justification, in constitutional or other terms, for placing his convenience above the "convenience and necessity" of the general public.

Just as the failure of government to provide adequate control over firearms proliferation invites disrespect on government's ability to enforce the law, so the continuing, all-out opposition of large numbers of gun organizations and gun-owning individuals to such proposals tends to generate hostility toward these interests, and in a sense toward the gun itself. Relatively uncontrolled firearms proliferation, and its unfortunate consequences, tend to reduce whatever distinction attaches to gun ownership. Thus the opponents of these bills appear shortsighted about their own special interests as well as the public interest.

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS OF SOUND LEGISLATION

I would have preferred a stronger bill than the proposed amendment to the Federal Firearms Act now before you. In view of the need for tighter State and local government controls, consideration should be given to requiring the federally licensed dealer to report to his local police department certain details of over-the-counter sales or intrastate mail order (name and address of purchaser, and type and specifications of purchase) if State and local laws do not already require such information. What these authorities would do with such information would depend on State and local laws. The bill might also provide that no gun shipped in interstate or foreign commerce may be resold (or otherwise disposed of) by the over-the-counter consumer in intrastate or interstate commerce except in accordance with the laws of the States in which he and the new owner reside. Although I understand the reasons the bill treats the movement of rifles and shotguns across State lines differently than handguns, I believe no such distinction should be made. Special arrangements might be provided authorizing the regular transportation of hunting firearms across State lines without redtape.

I shall not go into the other elements I regard as necessary components of sound firearms legislation, except to mention that guns should not be sold to anyone who cannot show prima facie proof of technical ability to use them and properly secure their safety. To the extent that the ability and freedom to use firearms are important to the national interest, it is proficient and responsible gun ownership, not the largest possible number of owners, that would best serve the Nation's needs. The National Rifle Association and other organizations have programs in developing firearms skills; these programs would not be weakened by either the bills now before this committee or by the additional measures I would advocate.

In supporting the bills now before you, I believe it would be useful, without in any way adding to the extent of these controls, to give the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to provide equitably for special local situations in which the bill may cause serious and unanticipated hardship. The bill might also require the Secretary to send Congress an annual report on the effect of this legislation and on his stewardship in its administration,

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY

In the interest of national understanding of the purpose of such legislation, Congress should make very clear, perhaps in a special statement, its purpose in approving such amendments. It should also ask the President to give full effect to his declared intention to urge States and localities to reassess their firearms laws to insure that they meet the needs of the Nation's drive against crime.

The Federal Government and the State and local governments have a joint responsibility to put the Federal system to work in establishing a sound and reasonable policy advancing the Nation's stake in responsible gun ownership. One level of Government cannot succeed in this without the other, and each State and local government is heavily dependent on the degree of responsibility exercised by other State and local governments. Because this is a national problem the Federal Government has to take the lead. It has to define the need and set the example. The administration has presented its legislative proposals. The bills now before you will test the readiness of Congress to do its part.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. SARGENT, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I am Raymond L. Sargent, chairman of the legislative committee of the Texas State Rifle Association. I reside at Sugar Land, Tex. I appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement to this committee, in opposition to the proposed firearms control legislation under consideration.

The Texas State Rifle Association is a statewide organization of patriotic, portsman-citizens, organized in 1919 for the promotion of the education and raining, of law-abiding citizens, in the safe and efficient use of small arms, notably rifles and pistols, with a view of training in peacetime those who might

be called upon to serve in the Armed Forces in the event of war, and to instill in these citizens a spirit of patriotism, self-reliance, and competition, and a respect for law and order and love of country.

The worthy objectives of the Texas State Rifle Association have earned for it much widespread respect, which I think is both wholesome and justified. The association is mindful of its obligations to all citizens, especially when firearms legislation under consideration is not, in its opinon, in the best public interest. The enactment into law of the bills, as presently written, and under consideration by this committee, will not in my opinion, be in the best public interest.

It is to be expected that, when problems arise involving the criminal use of firearms, legislation, which hopefully will cure the ill, will be introduced. To expect, in view of the failure of legislation attempting to limit the ownership of firearms in the past, that such legislation as is now under consideration will be successful, is not being realistic.

The infamous Sullivan law of New York State has not prevented the acquisition, by criminals, of firearms-as evidenced by the fact, as recorded in the New York State Police report to the Governor, that the New York State Police confiscate many thousand "illegally" owned guns per year. I doubt that they find all illegally owned guns in the State. The Sullivan law, or that part of the criminal code of New York State pertaining to firearms has, in one form or another, been "on the books" for over 50 years. Half a century should, I think, be long enough to establish the futility of passing still more laws, with which the criminal will not comply and which has the net effect of making the criminal's actions safer and easier for him.

In my opinion, the legislation now under consideration by this committee will not deter the criminal in his unlawful use of firearms, and that is the announced purpose of the proposed legislation. Are any so naive as to believe the criminal will comply with the provisions of the proposed legislation? If the proposed legislation does not deter the criminal use of firearms-and there is abundant evidence that it will not-then what will this proposed legislation do?

It will do several things. It will, by requiring all firearms purchases to be made within the State of the purchaser's residence, create local lists of lawabiding, patriotic citizens-but not criminals.

It will, because of excessive fees required for dealers in firearms, discourage many merchants who might otherwise find it profitable to sell firearms.

It is an attempt, as stated by one of its supporters, to "discourage the traffic" in firearms. And, while not so stated, it certainly follows that decreased "traffic" in firearms may ultimately result in a decreased number of people owning and being familiar with firearms-and this, gentlemen, I am not convinced is in the best national interest. Recall, if you will, that not a single piece of "international real estate" has changed hands since 1945 as the result of the employment of nuclear, or other highly sophisticated, weapons; instead, small arms are the weapons that have been employed. To suggest, in view of the kind of war our troops are presently engaged in, both in Vietnam and Santo Domingo, that the private citizen owning and being familiar with his personal small arms does not contribute to an overall improved defense posture, is to suggest that which is not realistic and is not true.

I am sure that this committee, as well as I, believes that only the illogical can deny the need for reasonable, enforcible, and effective legislation to deal with our ever-mounting crime problem. But granting to the "Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate" such broad rulemaking authority as prescribed in the proposed legislation before this committee, is to invite another fiasco such as occurred in 1957 when the "Secretary's delegate," when proposing new regulations for the administration of the Federal Firearms Act, went far beyond the intent of Congress when it created the act. This is evidenced by the recorded testimony of many Members of Congress and others who opposed the "new" regulations. Many of the attitudes and actions of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Treasury Department, employed in the administration of the Federal Firearms Act, have resulted in what can only be described as harassment, so far as many sportsmen and gun collectors are concerned. To permit the "Secretary's delegate" to prescribe the rules under which the proposed legislation will be administered would, in my opinion, be a wholly unjustified expression of confidence in this Government agency. It would appear prudent to write, into any firearms legislation passed into law in the future, sufficient detail and evidence of intent so as to make unnecessary the nearly unlimited

rulemaking authority sought in the present proposed amendments of existing law.

Inasmuch as the present national firearms laws, to which amendments are being sought, have fallen somewhat short of being reasonable, enforcible, or effective, insofar as reducing armed crime is concerned (crime is increasing six times faster than the population and much of it, unfortunately, is armed crime), is it not time to consider a different approach other than approaches which have proven ineffective in the past? I would like to suggest that this committee inquire as to the number of convictions which have been obtained under the national and Federal firearms acts in the nearly 30 years they have been on the statute books. A measure of the usefulness of these acts may be thus obtained.

The approach I have reference to is that incorporated in the proposed legislation introduced by Hon. Bob Casey (H.R. 5642), which I recognize is not a proposal being examined by this committee. I am sorry that there has been no indication of consideration for the imposing of additional, preferably mandatory, penalties on those who employ a firearm, that has moved in interstate commerce, in the commission of a crime of violence. It appears that no one likes this approach to the gun law problem-except the people.

I suggest that no other proposed gun law submitted to the Congress has had the support that H.R. 5642 now enjoys and which evidences a desire on the part of many citizens to do something to curb the criminal use of firearms and, further, that no other proposed amendments to existing Federal firearms law have evoked as much opposition, by those most affected, as those now under consideration by this committee.

It is the hope of the Texas State Rifle Association that, in the wisdom of this committee, there will be indicated a recognition of the desires of your constituents and of the fact that further amendments to a law already proven ineffective are not as desirable as a new law, which puts the penalty on those who misuse a firearm, which does not discourage law-abiding citizens from owning, using, and trafficking in firearms, and which helps maintain our superior defense posture.

Gentlemen, this concludes my statement. I again thank you for the opportunity of submitting it.

STATEMENT OF H. L. THOMPSON, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WHOLESALE HARDWARE ASSOCIATION

I. INTRODUCTION

My name is Henry L. Thompson, Jr. I reside in Perrysburg, Ohio, but conduct my business in Toledo, Ohio, where I am president of the Bostwick-Braun Co., a wholesale hardware firm with sales of over $20 million. I am representing the National Wholesale Hardware Association as president of this association. Either Thomas A. Fernley, Jr., who is managing director of the National Wholesale Hardware Association, 1900 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pa., 19103, or I shall be very happy to answer any questions that you may bring up. Within the wholesale hardware industry, there are more than 600 hardware wholesalers, and it is estimated that the combined sales volume of this group amounts to over $2 billion. The business of our members is conducted in every State of the Union. These wholesalers sell not only hardware, but sporting goods of all types to retailers of hardware and sporting goods in communities of all sizes from rural crossroad towns to large metropolitan areas. It is estimated that there are approximately 50,000 hardware and sporting goods retailers that are serviced by these wholesalers.

II. THE SALE OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION

These small retailers sell guns and ammunition as just one part of their overall sales. The volume of any one dealer is generally not very great, but by having the merchandise available in so many retail stores, it makes it readily available for the sporting hunter. Anything that would restrict the broad distribution at retail of sporting guns and ammunition would be most harmful, in my opinion, to the sportsman who takes a day or an afternoon off to go hunting.

Furthermore, such legislation would handicap farmers who require arms and ammunition for rodent and pest control. Lack of available dealers would be a

real inconvenience to them, and a detriment to our agriculture and farm products of all types.

To impose an annual licensing fee of $100, we feel, would be most harmful in that a great many of these small retailers would feel that they could not afford an annual charge such as this to enable them to handle and sell arms and ammunition. I might add at this point that the type of dealer I am referring to is generally a mainstay in his community, and knows practically all of the customers that come into his store. It is not the type of store where you would find some gangsters sneaking in to buy either firearms or ammunition. In other words, we would be hurting probably the most stable individual in the whole sale of guns and ammunition.

At the present time there is a dealer's license fee of $1. To us this seems to be entirely adequate, taking into consideration that the very large majority of retailers of firearms and ammunition are small businesses.

III. DELIVERY OF FIREARMS

Members of the National Wholesale Hardware Association use both common carriers and U.S. mail for the purpose of shipping firearms from distribution houses to the thousands of dealers who sell these products. We are specifically concerned with that provision of S. 1592 (section 2(f)) which purports to make it unlawful for any person knowingly to deposit, or cause to be deposited for mailing or delivery by mail, or knowingly to deliver, or cause to be delivered, to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, any package or other container in which there is any firearm, without written notice to the Postmaster General or his delegate or to the carrier (as the case may be) that a firearm is being transported or shipped.

There is, of course, no such provision in the existing Federal Firearms Act, and we are without reason at this moment for the inclusion of this prohibition in the proposed legislation. It also concerns us because it is not clear whether the Secretary of the Treasury will promulgate regulations regarding the form and method of giving such written notice. Or is it possible that the Postmaster General might prescribe regulations in the case of the use of U.S. mail? As a matter of fact, if the other provisions of the proposed legislation regulating the sale and distribution of firearms are enforced, we can see no specific reason for the inclusion of either this specific section or section 2(g), which makes it unlawful for any common or contract carrier to deliver, or cause to be delivered, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm to any person who does not exhibit or produce evidence of a license obtained under section 3 of this act or who is not exempted by section 4 from the provisions of this act (except a firearm transported under regulations prescribed under section 2(a) (1), (2), or (3) of this act).

We are also concerned with the broad regulatory responsibilities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in various sections of the proposed legislation. We are, of course, aware of the fact that such executive authority is governed by the procedures embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act. We are concerned with the fact that most of the small dealers would find it not only most inconvenient, but costly, if required to follow the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. We would prefer to have certain safeguards, specific criteria, appeal procedures, and time limits written into the proposed legislation wherever the Secretary of the Treasury has been delegated responsibility for regulations that will take into consideration not only the interest of the dealers and our members, but the legitimate interests of the millions of American citizens who enjoy the hunting and shooting sports.

IV. OTHER POSSIBLE LEGISLATION

It seems to me that, as the legislative body of our country, you are really interested in controlling the misuse of firearms rather than restricting the rightful use of the firearms by sportsmen. If this is true, why not legislate in a manner that would prohibit the misuse of any firearm rather than proposed legislation that would restrict rightful use, but probably would be ineffective in preventing gangsters from obtaining firearms, either by stealing or otherwise? If penalties were made sufficiently severe for any misuse of a gun in homicide, burglary, or others, wouldn't this have a much stronger deterrent effect than by just attempting to make it a little more difficult for a gangster to obtain a gun?