3-A. The Senator neglected to mention that the affidavit would have to include the address of the local police, and 3-B, that the seller would have to inform the local police by registered mail with return receipt that John Doe was receiving a brand X firearm before he could ship it. This is not only more expense and redtape, but it gives every local police chief a de facto veto over every firearm a citizen might wish to obtain. Gun owners will really fight that provision.

4. Require that an applicant for a dealer's license be 21. The Senator probably would not get much of a fight on this point but it is unfair. Persons under 21 can drink and vote in many States, marry without parental consent, buy guns, and join the Armed Forces. The age should be 18, the same as the draft.

5. Provide that manufacturers and dealers give common and contract carriers written notice that firearms are being shipped. And, 5-B (which the Senator omitted) prohibit delivery by a carrier of any firearm to a person under 18 years of age. Generally, guns are labeled as such on the package or bill of lading, but the second part would have to be very carefully worked out (if, indeed, it is useful) to not be unfair. It puts the onus of law enforcement on private companies and individuals, which is not their job. Besides, similar provisions are already in the Federal Firearms Act.

1

Senator Dodd would be much wiser to cooperate with gun enthusiasts. They are not only fighting for their right to keep and bear arms, but for Senator Dodd's and yours.

Women are generally concerned with the sweeter and gentler things of life, though their days can become extremely hectic. This article is not the place to list the myriad of things a modern woman is expected to know and do, but her primary thoughts are not about firearms. Generally, she thinks about guns only in distasteful areas: crime, accidents, and the horror of war. But what if her husband wants a gun to protect her and their children? Would she deny her children and grandchildren the protection and recreation offered by firearms? Senator Dodd's bill, which is actually an amendment to the Federal Firearms Act, has a laudable stated objective: reduce crime by making it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons. To some degree, the irreducible minimum, this can be accomplished through sensible legislation, but the only real deterrent is stiffer penalties for their use by criminals. This would require an entire review of our present method of treating criminals, including juvenile delinquents. But harass the criminal, not the honest citizen.

The Senator also pointed out the need for more local legislation. This, too, is incorrect. One of the best things which could happen for the stabilization of the gun trade would be to standardize the multitude of State gun laws. A person traveling from Maine to California with a pistol in his luggage would break numerous State laws, even though the gun were unloaded and never left the suitcase.

A problem with firearms does exist, and. particularly with juveniles, it can be corrected. But it will require the calm understanding of both sides, and, unfortunately, much ill will has already been generated. The attempted bulldozing through of oppressive laws and name calling will not help anyone.

In all fairness to Senator Dodd, there are several bills before Congress which are considerably worse than his. Unfortnately, none would be anymore effective, and most are a rehash of proposals previously defeated.

Frankly, if the gun enthusiasts of America chose not to submit to a law, who has sufficient power, weapons, and men to suppress 20 million individuals armed with 200 million weapons of all types? (This same deterrent confronts would-be dictators.)

But gun enthusiasts are not only willing, they are eager to help with any sort of responsible, fair, and effective laws. The safety of their loved ones is also at stake.

In the spirit of spreading cooperation and understanding, this article is submitted for your consideration.

AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

STATE OF TEXAS,

County of Dallas, ss:

Before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for Dallas County, Tex., on this 1st day of July, 1965, personally appeared before me, Paul H. Raines, personally known to me who deposes and says:

Attempts to control the rights of citizens to bear arms are not new. Shortly after Charles II of England came to the throne the right of Protestants to bear arms was abolished. This discrimination led to the sixth clause in the Bill of Rights of December 16, 1689.

The Bill of Rights of 1689 was the direct ancestor of the Bill of Rights adopted by the States at the time of the American Revolution and of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Many of its provisions directly affected the form and content of specific provisions found in those documents under which the liberties of the citizen of the United States are protected even today.

It should also not be forgotten that the American Revolution was opened by an attempt by the British Redcoats to violate colonists' right to bear arms. The Battle of Lexington, April 19, 1775, occurred while the British were marching to seize the arms and ammunition of the colonists at Concord. The seizure of the colonists' arms by the British was cited as one of the causes of the war in the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775, The right of the people to bear arms was secured by constitutions adopted in Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States was based directly on the earlier State documents.

During World War II, the German armies were able to prevent resistance in the low countries because they first seized all records of firearms registration and then confiscated the weapons, thereby immobilizing the civilian populace. The Swiss feel so strongly about this that they issue arms to male citizens to maintain in their homes.

As a boy, growing up in the southwest, I have owned and handled firearms since I can remember. I was taught that a firearm, regardless of whether or not it be a cap pistol, a BB gun, a rifle, a shotgun, or a pistol, was a weapon capable of inflicting injury, that as such it should be treated with proper caution. When I entered my training as a special agent of the FBI, I observed that familiarity with firearms was a tremendous asset to me; that there was much less expense and effort involved on the part of the Government to instruct me in the use of the weapons utilized by the Bureau. On the other hand, many of the men from Eastern States who had never had an opportunity to use weapons seemed to have difficulty in mastering their use. A young man who is familiar with a rifle certainly makes a better soldier and we are fighting a rifle war in Vietnam partially because weapons were denied the South Vietnamese by the French while the Vietcong have been trained to be expert riflemen. During the 16 years I spent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I observed no instance in which a person purchased firearms for transportation in interstate commerce for the commission of a crime. True, a number of the fugitives apprehended had transported weapons in interstate commerce while fleeing, but they were carrying these weapons in violations of already existing Federal laws. I cannot see that additional legislation would deter the criminal from purchasing a weapon locally and utilizing it for an unlawful purpose. The rationale would hold true for automobiles, which have become the accepted means of getaway from the scene of the crime and even for intrastate or interstate travel to the scene of a crime.

During my years of service as a special agent of the FBI, I can recall four men who have threatened to kill me as the result of my having apprehended them. Of these, I can recall no names. I do maintain a revolver in my home and because of my love of firearms, regularly practice with it and carry it while hunting with other weapons. My daughter, who is 17, hunts with me regularly and has been instructed in the use of the pistol.

It appears to me that the emphasis in S. 1592 is misdirected. No weapon can of itself cause harm to anyone. The human being who pulls the trigger is the instrumentality which causes the harm and I would strongly endorse any legis lation which would provide more severe penalties for those who misuse firearms by utilizing them in the commission of crimes. I strongly urge the Congress not to enact any legislation which would interfere with my right to transport any weapon in interstate commerce, including pistols, for lawful purposes including the protection of myself and my family. Murder is most often a crime of unpremeditation; I have seen murder victims who were stomped to death, strangled, beaten to death with a bicycle chain or a pipe, and stabbed with icepicks or pen knives as well as having been shot.

I strongly feel that any attempt to amend legislation to control firearms in addition to that which is presently enacted, would work harm on the law-abiding citizen, with the exception of Senator Dodd's original bill to require the purchaser of a pistol by mail order to submit an affidavit before a person authorized to take acknowledgment as to his criminal record and age. Should a citizen who is traveling in interstate commerce be at the mercy of an individual who intends to rob or murder him simply because he does not have the right to carry a pistol in his car? A law which would attempt to do this would in my opinion be similar to the 18th amendment, to the extent that it would be flouted and become a laughing stock and many people who would not otherwise carry a pistol would carry one, just as many people who would not have otherwise been drinkers carried a pocket flask.

I again urge the Congress to pass legislation which would provide additional penalties for the persons misusing a firearm by the commission of a crime and not to act without proper consideration simply because a death has occurred. PAUL H. RAINES.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of July 1965. [SEAL]

FRANCIS T. FRUZE,

Notary Public in and for Dallas County, Tex.

My commission expires June 1, 1967.

RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF CRIMINAL LAW

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved, That the American Bar Association support the enactment of S. 1592, 89th Congress, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act, or similar Federal legislation.

Be it further resolved, That the section of criminal law be authorized to present the views of the American Bar Association on such legislation to the appropriate committees of Congress.

REPORT

Federal action directed at the control of firearms originated, for modern purposes of criminal control, in the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, which is now set out in sections 5801-62 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. This act, passed in reaction to the gang wars of the prohibition era and the postprohibition crimewaves, was directed at preventing criminals from obtaining firearms, such as machineguns, cane guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and similar weapons, which were particuarly suitable for criminal use. The act provides for special licensing taxes on importers, manufacturers, dealers, and pawnbrokers dealing in such arms, imposes heavy transfer taxes on the transfer of such arms, requires the registration of such arms upon transfer, and the registration of persons possessing such arms. Although written as a revenue measure, it was clearly intended to control the criminal commerce in firearms of a criminal character and provided penalties of up to 5 years' imprisonment.

The Federal Firearms Act of June 30, 1938, 15 U.S.C. secs. 901-09, was designed to suppress crime by regulating the traffic in firearms and ammunition, and applied to all firearms. Its legislative history shows particular concern with "roaming racketeers and predatory criminals who know no State linesa situation beyond the power of control by local authorities to such an extent as to constitute a national menace." United States v. Platt, 31 F. Supp. 788, 790 (S.D. Tex. 1940); see hearings on H.R. 9066 before House Committee on Ways and Means, 73d Congress, 2d session (1934). The act requires a dealer to obtain a Federal dealer's license by filing an application with the Internal Revenue Service and paying a fee of $1. However, because of the simplicity of this requirement and of the other recordkeeping required by the law, this act has been called a "mail-order operation" in itself. Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Congress, 1st session, part 14, at 3209 (1963).

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, with a rifle reported to have been purchased by the accused assassin through the mails, brought public and congressional scrutiny to bear on the availability of

firearms in the United States through mail orders and other uncontrolled channels of distribution. However, consideration of this problem had preceded that tragic event; concern with juvenile crime in which the use of mail-order weapons was an increasing factor led to hearings by the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary during early 1963, and legislation directed at the types of weapons used by juvenile criminals was introduced in August 1963 by Chairman Dodd and other members of the subcommittee. The assassination brought the introduction of numerous other bills, the expansion of the Dodd bill, and greater concern about this problem.

S. 1975, 88th Congress, 1st session, was introduced on August 2, 1963, by Senator Dodd for himself and other members of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee, but this proposal was not enacted. Other legislation proposing varying techniques for controlling the interstate shipment of firearms was introduced in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. In addition, resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives authorizing an investigation of the sale of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce.

On March 22, 1965, Senator Dodd introduced S. 1592, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act. A copy of this bill is attached. Basically, the proposed legislation is designed to accomplish the following:

First: It would prohibit the shipment of firearms in interstate commerce, except between federally licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. This provision would have the effect of prohibiting the so-called mail-order traffic in firearms to unlicensed persons. It would leave to each State the responsibility and authority for controlling the sale and disposition of firearms within its borders. There are several important exceptions to this general prohibition against interstate shipment. Sportsmen could continue to take their shotguns or rifles across State lines. Pistols could be carried in interstate commerce but only for a lawful purpose and only in conformity with State laws. Further, firearms could be shipped to a licensee for service and return to the sender. However, a nonlicensee could no longer buy weapons from out-of-State mail-order dealers. Sales would be made by retail dealers and would thus be subject to recordkeeping requirements. These records would then have new meaning; they would not be rendered futile by an unrecorded flow of mail-order guns.

Second: Licensed retail dealers would be required to limit sales of handguns to residents of their State who are 21 years of age or older; they would be prohibited from selling any firearm to a person under the age of 18. In accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, licensed dealers would be required to ascertain the identity and place of residence of a purchaser. Further, it would be unlawful for a dealer to sell a firearm to any person when he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such person is under indictment for or has been convicted of a felony, or is a fugitive from justice. These provisions of the proposed legislation do not address themselves to the question of permits to possess or to use firearms, leaving it to the States and local communities to decide what they need and want in that regard. Thus, for example, while the bill limits the sale of shotguns and rifles to persons who are at least 18 years of age, it does not preclude such persons from using guns if such use is permitted by State or local law.

Third The bill would raise the annual license fees for a dealer from the present token of $1 to $100. It would also establish a license fee of $250 for a pawnbroker who deals in firearms. Specific standards are established under which an application for a license shall be disapproved, after notice and opportunity for a hearing. The purpose of this provision of the proposed legislation is to limit the issuance of licenses to bona fide dealers. Under existing law, anyone other than a felon can, upon the mere allegation that he is a dealer and the payment of a fee of $1, demand and obtain a license. According to the Secretary of the Treasury, some 50,000 or 60,000 people have done this, some of them merely to put themselves in a position to obtain personal guns at wholesale. There would be nothing to prevent them from obtaining licenses in order to ship or receive concealable weapons through the mails, or to circumvent State or local requirements.

Fourth: The bill would permit the Secretary of the Treasury to curb the flow into the United States of surplus military weapons and other firearms not suitable for sporting purposes. However, weapons imported for science, research, or military training, or as antiques and curios, could be allowed.

Fifth: The importation and interstate shipment of large caliber weapons, such as bazookas and antitank guns, and other destructive devices would be brought under effective Federal control.

The Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Judieiary Committee has been holding hearings on S. 1592, commencing shortly after the introduction of this legislation. The testimony of witnesses appearing before the subcommittee has generally favored enactment of the legislation, particularly the testimony of witnesses who are concerned with any facet of law enforcement. The principal objections to the legislation seemed to stem from the National Rifle Association and its members. The position of the NRA was commented upon by Attorney General Katzenbach in a statement to the subcommittee on May 19, 1965, excerpts of which appear below:

"This measure is not intended to curtail the ownership of guns among those legally entitled to own them. It is not intended to deprive people of guns used either for sport or for self-protection. It is not intended to force regulation on unwilling States.

"The purpose of this measure is simple: it is, merely, to help the States protect themselves against the unchecked flood of mail-order weapons to residents whose purposes might not be responsible, or even lawful. S. 1592 would provide such assistance to the extent that the States and the people of the States want it.

"There is demonstrable need for regulation of the interstate mail-order sale of guns. This bill is a response to that need. It was carefully drafted; it is receiving detailed attention from this subcommittee.

"But, nevertheless, S. 1592 now has itself become a target-for the verbal fire of the National Rifle Association and others who represent hunters and sporting shooters. These opponents feel their views most deeply, as is evident from the bitterness and volume of their opposition. It is no secret to any Member of Congress that the NRA sent out a mailing of 700,000 letters to its membership urging a barrage of mail to Senators and Congressmen.

"There is no question that the views of the NRA should be heard and given full weight. There is no question that so many people with an interest in gun legislation should have every opportunity to express it. But those views also need to be evaluated and thus I would like now to turn to analysis of the opposition arguments.

"It has been suggested, for example, by Franklin Orth, executive vice president of the NRA, that S. 1592 gives the Secretary of the Treasury 'unlimited power to surround all sales of guns by dealers with arbitrary and burdensome regulations and restrictions.'

"I fear this is an exaggeration flowing from the heat of opposition. The Secretary's regulations must be reasonable. I should think that the reasonableness of the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury under the existing provisions of the Federal Firearms Act would contradict the assumption of 'burdensome regulations.'

: "Further, the Administrative Procedure Act assures all interested parties of an opportunity to be heard before the issuance of substantive rules and regulations. The NRA and other gun interests have, in the past, taken full advantage of this opportunity and clearly could do so in the future. And still further, the regulations are subject to review and reversal by the courts and by Congress should they be felt arbitrary and capricious.

"It has also been suggested that S. 1592 requires anyone engaged in the manufacture of ammunition to pay $1,000 for a manufacturer's license. The bill does not do so. It does not cover shotgun ammunition at all, and the license fee for manufacturers of other types of ammunition is $500.

"It is true that anyone selling rifle ammunition, even .22 caliber, would be compelled to have a $100 dealer license. Why shouldn't he? He is dealing ammunition for a lethal weapon. The many dealers in ammunition who also sell firearms would not, however, be required to pay an additional ammunition fee. Nor is there anything in the legislation that would, as has been stated, require a club engaged in reloading for its members to obtain a manufacturer's license.

A further specific objection raised against this measure is that it would forbid a dealer to sell to a nonresident of his State. The objection is stated in a misleading way. The bill does forbid such sales of handguns, but is specifically excepts weapons like rifles and shotguns most commonly used by sportsmen and least commonly used by criminals.

"A similar objection is made on the grounds that the measure would prohibit all mail-order sales of firearms to individuals. While this is an accurate description of the measure with respect to interstate and foreign commerce, the bill would not