V. CONCLUSION

It is the firm belief of the National Wholesale Hardware Association that the legislation under consideration could be extremely harmful to small retailers, to sportsmen, and to farmers, unless the provisions on which we have commented are considered. We do hope that your committee will act upon these suggestions objectively, and will not report favorably on any legislation that does not take these matters into consideration.

It is our further belief that the commendable objectives of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and gangsters would not be accomplished by Senate bill 1592. As indicated previously, passage of this legislation would be unduly restrictive of the needs of farmers and sportsmen, and that the requirements on retailers would be harmful to them, as well as to the entire sporting goods industry.

Gentlemen, I thank you for having been granted the time to present our feelings in this matter. If you have any questions, Mr. Fernley or I would be most happy to answer them.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. SCHOOLEY

My name is John M. Schooley and I reside in Denver, Colo. I was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Missouri in 1929 and am also a member of the bar in Colorado. Prior to my semiretirement in 1963, I had spent the immediate past 30 years of my life in the law enforcement profession, working at every level from that of the arresting officer to the head of a large police department and as sheriff of the county. The opinions I express are based on this experience.

In my career I have both faced and used firearms. This is not pleasant and I would like to be able to say I thought there was some simple legislative prohibition against the criminal use of all dangerous weapons that would be so persuasive as to enlist criminal cooperation. My 30 years' experience causes me to know such is impossible, and the most we can reasonably expect from any legislative "thou shall not" is that the law abiding will honor the law and criminal use will be reduced to an enforcible minimum through application of the penalty section. The problem is how to accomplish this desired goal without seriously interfering with the activities of the law abiding or without infringing constitutional rights. The solution is anything but simple, for we have many divergent points of views as to what constitutes reasonable regulation.

The existing Federal Firearms Act was passed in 1938 and had as its avowed purpose the elimination of interstate transportation of firearms by persons who had been convicted of certain crimes of violence, fugitives from justice, and certain persons under indictment. The act contained, of course, several other provisions intended to support this basic premise. For some 19 years I investigated or caused to be investigated alleged violations of the act. I can honestly say that I think the act never persuaded any criminal from such interstate transportation and think the most anyone could say for the effectiveness of the act would be that conditions might have been worse had the act not been in effect. This is, in my opinion, poor justification for any legislation, for it at best pure speculation.

I think one of the reasons for lack of effectiveness of the Federal Firearms Act is the very nature of the legislation and the method of enforcement. Let me illustrate: A person is arrested in Denver and at the time of arrest is in possession of a firearm. It is determined that he came to Denver from Cheyenne; and when his criminal record is checked, it is discovered he has been convicted of a crime the punishment for which is imprisonment for more than 1 year. In those cities where there are Treasury Department agents charged with investigation of the Federal Firearms Act violations, the agents are as a rule notified. They then investigate, and if it can be determined the person arrested did in fact transport the firearm in interstate commerce, a report is written; or, in some jurisdictions, the U.S. attorney is consulted to determine if Federal prosecution will be had. In almost all cases, the person arrested is wanted for a State violation and he is tried for this State violation and Federal prosecution is refused. Since this pattern has been so closely followed and the punitive section of the act so rarely applied, it would be exceedingly difficult to say the penalty section has had any deterrent effect. Further, since so many acts of interstate commerce transportation have been investigated, it

is evident the criminals have paid little or no attention to the prohibition against such interstate transportation. I see nothing more persuasive in the proposed amendments to the act but do see considerable possible harassment to the law abiding, even to the point of outright prohibition of heretofore lawful acts by law-abiding citizens.

Section 2(b) (3) prohibits a dealer from selling a handgun to anyone not a resident of the State wherein the dealer is licensed. Although Senator Dodd in his opening remarks on May 19, 1965, to the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency stated: "An important provision in the legislation before us today would prohibit a federally licensed dealer from selling firearms to a person from another State." While this may well be the ultimate goal, the proposed amendments only prohibit such sales to handguns. There are no exceptions (to individuals). Such a provision would prohibit the chief of police of Cheyenne from purchasing a revolver for his own, but official, use in Denver. Since such a prohibition would close the source of official weapons to many peace officers, I think it is highly restrictive. I fail to see why any law-abiding citizen, be he police officer or not, should be so restricted when another section of the proposed amendments provides that the purchaser must establish his identity and place of residence to the satisfaction of the dealer in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Is a dealer in Denver considered less able to comply with such regulations in connection with a nonresident than with a resident, or is the real reason for such a prohibition the imposition of restrictions not contained in the proposed legislation? Regulations which would impose burdens on the law abiding not here being considered? One of the proposed amendments seems to have been copied from the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, which act was the outgrowth of the National Recovery Act declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I refer to that portion which states a license application shall be disapproved and the license denied "if the Secretary finds that the applicant for such a license is, by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connections, not likely to maintain operations in compliace with this act." Does this mean an elaborate license section will be set up as is set up (basic permit section) for wholesale liquor dealers under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act? Will applicants for firearms licenses have to go through the same complicated procedure to obtain a firearms license as is required by a person seeking a basic permit under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act? Will form 1632 be revised to fit the Federal Firearms Act and will hearings be held under the same sort of rules and regulations? If hearings are held in connection with such applications will applicants be required to travel long distances to present their side of a question raised by the Treasury Department? Why such proposals are necessary is hard to understand when a dealer is required under existing law to maintain accurate records of the receipt and disposition of all firearms moving in interstate commerce. I have read the testimony of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue given to the House Ways and Means Committee on this same subject, and it is easily understood why an increase in license fees are requested, for if such requirements are enacted into law the Treasury will require considerable more men, and many man-hours and miles of travel will be required to check each license application. This could well develop into a bureau sustaining activity.

A common method of going hunting in the West is for one person to transport the camping equipment and firearms in one vehicle (a truck) with the other hunters going to the campsite in other vehicles. The proposed amendments would require those persons "causing their firearms to be transported" to secure permission or comply with any regulations the Secretary might prescribe, and what these regulations might be, no one at this time knows. Such a provision, imposed on the law-abiding hunter is, in my opinion, entirely unjustified.

There are other provisions of the bill, S. 1591, which have nothing whatsoever to do with juvenile delinquency nor with the mail-order sale of firearms, and yet this has been the publicized purpose of S. 1592, and it seems to me the general public has been led to believe this is the only purpose of the bill.

You have been asked to approve this legislation because one man with murder in his heart killed our President, when, if complete cooperation had existed between the several departments of government, perhaps this tragedy would not have occurred.

You have been told that if this act is approved, many thousands of lives would be saved, and the figures quoted (taken I presume from the uniform crime 49-588-65--54

reports) includes persons killed by police officers in line of duty, cases of justifiable homicide, and other deaths not surrounded with any criminal intent. Mention has also been made of the number of police officers killed, but nothing said about the number who were on parole at the time or the number (the murders) nor the second offenders who were the murderers. A deliberate attempt has been made to make a firearm objectionable per se and such use of statistics is unethical.

You have been told that any minor inconveniences which might accrue to the gun owners by reason of the enactment of these proposals is a small price to pay for progress in the campaign against crime. The many small businessmen who will be put out of business by these proposals would not consider this a minor inconvenience. Those who state dealerships could be set up to take care of this problem must be completely unfamiliar with this type of business operation, and law-abiding citizens who, from necessity, use the mails to transact most of their business, would not consider this a minor inconvenience. Having spent 30 years of my life enforcing the laws of our country, I am not unmindful of the criminal use of weapons: but I am convinced the criminal has never been, is not now, nor will he ever be denied the tools of his profession by mere legislative prohibitions. It is my firm conviction the only effective method that can be employed to reduce criminal use of firearms (reduced to an enforceable minimum) is to put the cost of such use so high few will be willing to pay the price. I fully realize no penalty, regardless of its severity, will ever eliminate all crime or criminal use of any tool. I also realize such a philosophy is contrary to the expressed beliefs of some innkeepers of convicted criminals, but I submit the softhearted attitude toward lawbreakers has not reduced crime in the United States. I would refer you to the testimony of the Commissioner of Narcotics before a committee of the House of Representatives on the effectiveness of stiff penalties and also to the statement of President Johnson when he signed the so-called pep pill bill. The deterrent vehicle in the pep pill bill is bigger fines and longer sentences for bootleg pill peddlers. If penalities are of no value, why has a committee of this Senate approved the death penalty in connection with the bill covering murder of our President?

The millions of law-abiding citizens who own and use firearms for recreational purposes will give enthusiastic support to any legislation directed toward the criminal misuse of firearms and will oppose with equal vigor any legislation which is directed against the law-abiding or against the article and not the misuser. Such legislation has a history of only harassing the law abiding without contributing materially to the reduction of crime. This is not to say we reject or oppose control measures which have a reasonable chance of denying access to firearms by persons who have already demonstrated their contempt for the rules of society, or by persons not mentally mature enough to appreciate their capabilities, provided such measures do not place harsh and burdensome restrictions on the law abiding and provided such measures do not place in the hands of hired public servants the discretion to deny to the law abiding the exercise of their constitutional rights.

Senator, I was disappointed that I was denied the opportunity of appearing in person and testifying and request this statement be included in the record of these hearings.

STATEMENT OF WOODSON D. SCOTT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Woodson D. Scott. I am a practicing lawyer with the firm of Lord, Day & Lord, New York City. My office address is No. 25 Broadway, New York City, 10004. My home address is No. 1 Stuyvesant Oval, New York City, 10009.

I am a member of the bar of the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal courts in the southern district and eastern district of New York, and the Supreme Court of the United States. I am a member of the American Bar Association, New York State Bar Association, the Kentucky Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York County Lawyers Association, the Federal Bar Association of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and the Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioners.

I am grateful for this opportunity to come here and speak to you for the purpose of furnishing whatever help I can in relation to the proposed legislation before the Senate of the United States, S. 1592, which would unduly restrict and

virtually prohibit the ownership and possession of firearms by the law-abiding citizens of the United States of America. I greatly appreciate the courtesy and understanding of the chairman and of the committee in hearing me at this time. These factors help to present a favorable climate in which public discussion in open hearings can serve its must useful and beneficial purpose.

I may be able to be of some help to you in one particular factor which I deem of major importance at this time. The legislative pressures in the city of Washington in recent years have become so extensive and consume so much of your time that many of you do not have adequate opportunity to go back home as often as you would like and obtain the personal views and opinions of your constituents. This bill is a subject on which the current views and feelings of your constituents are of vital importance for proper consideration of the problems before you. I have and continuously maintain personal contact with a great number of knowledgeable and experienced people throughout the country who are your constituents and who are vitally interested in maintaining the right of citizens of good repute to own and use firearms for lawful purposes without unnecessary restrictions. I have firsthand information concerning what they think and how they feel about the proposed legislation, and am in a position through these contacts to reflect in a substantial measure their views.

I think I may properly say at this time, with all becoming modesty, that I have had extensive training and experience in the handling and use of firearms, including more than 30 years service as a Reserve officer in the infantry, over 6 years active military duty, with service as an instructor at the Infantry School and 8 months in combat in the European theater in World War II as an infantry unit commander in the 102d Infantry Division. I also served in the army of occupation in Germany and later as Assistant Chief of Staff G-3 of the 77th Infantry Division. It was in the latter capacity about 12 years ago that I first had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Franklin L. Orth, now the distinguished executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America. I am a benefactor member and a director of the National Rifle Association and a member of the executive committee and the committee on firearms legislation. My membership and interest in the National Rifle Association and its objectives go back approximately 35 years, with life membership since November 15, 1939.

I am a member of the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs; the Maryland and District of Columbia Rifle and Pistol Association; the Pennsylvania State Rifle and Pistol Association; the Ohio State Rifle and Pistol Association; the Florida State Pistol Association; the Roslyn Rifle and Pistol Club, Long Island, N.Y.; the Teaneck Rifle and Pistol Club, New Jersey; and the Big T Rifle and Pistol Club, New Jersey; and a life member of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and served as chairman of its committee on firearms legislation in 1962-64. My wife and three children, ages 18, 16, and 9, all are life members of the National Rifle Association. I am a certified pistol and rifle instructor and an official referee. I spend approximately 40 days each calendar year on the large target ranges, as a competitor or as official referee, including the national matches at Camp Perry, Ohio; regional matches; and State championships. I have hunted since I was old enough to carry a gun afield. Those activities afford me a splendid opportunity to associate with a large cross section of the finest sportsmen in the Nation and learn directly from them about their interests, views, and problems. From this wideexperience, I believe I know as well as anybody how people feel about guns. and gun laws, what the problems are and how the laws work in practice.

I come here today to speak to you as a member of the sportsmen's organizations: with which I am associated and as an individual citizen and gun owner of the city and State of New York where we constantly are confronted with the unfortunate problems of antigun legislation not dissimilar in principle, purpose, and effect from that which you are considering; i.e., the virtual disarmament of the people of this country.

I do not come here to speak to you in order to advance any commercial interest or as spokesman for any group with a commercial interest. I sincerely believe that the viewpoint I express reflects that of over a million sportsmen in the city and State of New York and over 20 million more elsewhere in the Nation. I do not come here to pressure you with superficial arguments, but to try to persuade you in the degree the views I present may appeal to your commonsense, reason, and good judgment. In this spirit I hope you will do me the favor of hearing what I have to say and then attribute to it the importance to which you feel it is rightly entitled in relation to the important problems with which you are

concerned and in the light of the scope and purpose of these hearings. In that perspective I am confident that what I have to say here will be relevant to your work and of special interest to you.

In this discussion I shall refrain from using the term "weapon," which the antigun people dramatize so much, as I feel that word imports a sinister meaning not properly descriptive of the items under discussion. I regard a fine target or sporting firearm as a thing of beauty and a joy forever when owned and used for proper purposes. It is a weapon only when used as such; the same thing could be said of an ice pick, a bread knife, a monkey wrench, a tire tool, and numerous other items.

I am opposed to the proposed legislation and will state to you for your consideration my reasons, which have been derived from my observation of the needs of the people and the operation of antigun laws and unnecessary restrictions in my home State of New York and throughout the United States.

We are dealing here basically with a matter of civil liberties and traditional personal rights. These civil liberties and personal rights evolved out of more than 500 years of democratic government in England before the United States of America became an independent nation. These civil liberties and personal rights were inherited when our Nation was formed and have been preserved through the changing vicissitudes of the years and two world wars. There is no cause or justification for surrendering them now. The right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes is one of the civil liberties and personal rights which existed at the time this Nation was formed and it should be preserved as a heritage of our people and as a vital necessity in modern as well as in earlier times.

You will recall there has been a great deal of pressure in the last few years for some kind of Federal legislation restricting the interstate shipment of firearms. This pressure has existed in spite of the fact that existing laws appear to be adequate and many of the people who support the new legislation appear to be ignorant of the existing provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

Moreover, if any additional restriction on interstate shipment of dangerous items were the only purpose of the reformers, it could readily have been accomplished long ago without fanfare by a simple amendment of the postal regulations and the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission governing shipments of such items by rail and motor carriers.

The original Dodd bill (S. 1975) introduced August 2, 1963, was limited to concealable firearms. In that form it appeared to be a sensible bill which needed only a few safeguards to make it acceptable. Unfortunately, in the emotional atmosphere of November and December 1963, the original bill was amended to include the long guns, shotguns, and rifles, even though there appeared to be no factual reason or justification for such an amendment. In that form it met with strong objections from a large number of people throughout the country.

Substantially the same bill was presented in January 1965, S. 14, which with certain modifications limiting it to concealable firearms might have been acceptable, with proper safeguards against unreasonable regulations and unnecessary interference by local police departments in the legitimate purchase of firearms by citizens of good repute for lawful purposes.

It consequently was a misfortune when in March 1965, S. 1592, was introduced by Senator Dodd with the announcement that it was a bill having the support of the present administration, presumably meaning the President of the United States. It is difficult for us to understand how the President, with his known respect for civil liberties, could lend his support to S. 1592. Many of us believe or suspect that the President may not be fully conversant with the contents, purpose and practical effect of S. 1592. Letters sent by some of your constituents to the President concerning this bill have received a form acknowledgment saying that they have been referred to the Treasury Department, followed by a form acknowledgment from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Treasury Department saying in polite but unconvincing words that the views of your constituents were appreciated. However, these form acknowledgments do not appear to have the flavor of an adequate or sincere reply.

If S. 1592 were enacted, it would virtually disarm all law-abiding citizens in the country. It would prevent or unduly restrict the purchase, sale, or shipment of firearms by individuals in interstate and foreign commerce, and would impose such burdens and restrictions upon dealers as to drive many out of business, particularly the smaller ones.