that Act and any such license shall be deemed valid until it shall expire according to its terms unless it be sooner revoked or terminated pursuant to applicable provisions of law.

[H.R. 7466, 90th Cong., first sess.]

A BILL To amend title 18 of the United States Code to make it a Federal crime to transport or receive, with intent of committing a felony, a firearm or other lethal weapon in interstate or foreign commerce

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

" 1955. Interstate transportation of firearms

"Whoever, with intent of committing a felony, transports or receives a firearm or other lethal weapon in interstate or foreign commerce shall be fined not more than $10,000 or im,risoned not more than twenty years, or both. If any person commits a felony while in possession of a firearm or other lethal weapon within ninety days of which such firearm or other lethal weapon was shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, it shall create a rebuttable assumption that such person received or transported such firearm or other lethal weapon in interstate or foreign commerce, as the case may be, with the intent of committing a felony." SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"1955. Interstate transportation of firearms."

Chairman CELLER. Our first witness today is the distinguished Member from Michigan, the Honorable John Ď. Dingell. Mr. Dingell, we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the privilege of being here this morning.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record, my name is John D. Dingell and I am a Member of Congress from the 16th District of Michigan. I wish to thank the chairman and the committee for the privilege of being here in opposition to an outrageously bad piece of legislation H.R. 5384.

By way of background, before entering Congress, I was a practicing attorney, and served as an assistant Wayne County prosecuting attorney. While on the staff of the prosecutor I handled a larger number of trials involving all types of offenses from homicides to minor traffic offenses. Other matters within my purview included the issuance of warrants, arraignments, pretrial examinations, counseling law enforcement officers on substantive and procedural matters, relations with the public and press, as well as all other phases of criminal law enforcement.

Before I moved to that "side of the table" I had maintained an active practice of law leaning heavily to courtwork, serving as defense counsel to many persons charged with crimes of all sorts. Thus, I am well aware of the impact of the problem of crime and its adverse impact on all of our society.

I urge this committee to be most diligent in its considerations of H.R. 5384 and feel confident that with careful scrutiny into this matter, it will reject such legislation as have other committees over a period of years.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the committee this legislation is not new. We have seen this same legislation before the Congress over a number of years and in each instance the Congress has, and I think very wisely, rejected the legislation as not in the public interest, as not necessary, as not desirable, and as legislation which would hamstring the hunter, the sportsman, the law-abiding citizen. The Congress has recognized this, over the years, as legislation which would have no impact upon the criminal who would be free under that legislation to go his way without fear of the citizen, armed, to defend himself and his home from the unwarranted and unwanted attack of criminals.

I feel compelled to point out that there is much talk about and around the Capitol that this bill is to be rushed out of committee. Knowing this Judiciary Committee as I do, and having such high regard for its distinguished chairman and his concern for the public interest, I am sure this will not be the case.

This is not new legislation. The Senate has repeatedly, most recently in the 88th and 89th Congresses, rejected legislation substantially similar to H.R. 5384. The Ways and Means Committee in the last Congress rejected almost identical legislation after long and detailed consideration. The Ways and Means Committee went, with great vigor and detail, not only in the situation attendant upon firearms, but also the handling of the Federal firearms statute by the agencies empowered and authorized to administer those statutes.

Mr. ROGERS. May I inquire, was there a report from the Ways and Means Committee?

Mr. DINGELL. No. The Ways and Means Committee did not take any action upon it, but the hearings are printed and available.

Mr. ROGERS. I just want it clear. They did not make a report? Mr. DINGELL. No. The Ways and Means Committee took no action, and I think as the gentleman knows, that is one of the very able committees of this Congress and I would point out to him that that is the committee which over the years has had primary, principal jurisdiction over firearms laws and the origination of firearms laws. It had original jurisdiction over both the National and the Federal Firearms Act.

Chairman CELLER. We have jurisdiction now.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I think that jurisdiction is rather strained. It is based, I think, upon some drafting errors that were compounded in the Department of Justice in the putting together of this piece of legislation.

Chairman CELLER. May I say this to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan that there is an old adage-if you keep rubbing a bar of steel long enough you can rub it into a needle.

I remember, for example, on the subject of immigration that, for almost 30 years, we tried to get out of the statute books the national origins theory of immigration. We finally succeeded.

Mr. DINGELL. And the gentleman recalls I was on his side in that fight.

Chairman CELLER. You were on my side. Just because bills have been offered repeatedly in various Congresses does not mean that we shall not strive for the truth. The truth eventually will rise to the surface as always. We feel that this firearms bill is something that should

be duly considered and I am personally convinced the time has come when we must take action on a matter of this sort.

I did not intend to interrupt you, but, for example, and I am reading from a statement made by the distinguished former Superintendent of Prisons, Mr. Bennett, and he says in part, in an article published in the New York Times magazine, Sunday, September 25, 1966, as follows:

Take Watts, for instance. There, in the most elemental sort of guerrilla warfare, policemen, firemen and innocent bystanders were rifled down from rooftops, moving cars, the ruins of gutted buildings. Fear of snipers' bullets halted efforts to rescue the wounded, stop the looting or douse the fires. Gov. Edmund Brown's tour of the area and his plans to confer with the leaders of the community came to naught because of widespread rifle fire.

During the rioting more than 2,000 guns were seized; one-third were later submitted as evidence of criminal activity. Of those snipers who could be found and arrested, 76 had pistols in their possession and 39 others had shotguns or rifles. Fifty of the 76 persons arrested for having handguns had either a misdemeanor or felony record. Of the 39 arrested with long guns, 28 had previous criminal records. Investigations of the Senate Juvenile Delinquency Committee revealed that all but a few of those guns were acquired prior to the riot and could not, of course, have been legally purchased-had the proposed bill been law. But whatever the figures, it is abundantly clear that there were too many violent hands in Watts.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I think the views of Mr. Bennett on this matter are well known. He has long been an advocate of this kind. of legislation. I would point out for one thing that he does not say that almost every one of the firearms that were seized in and after and during the Watts proceeding to which you referred were purchased legally under the laws of the State of California and were purchased at retail in the State of California. Very, very few of them were mail-order fire arms and very, very few indeed were subject to the strictures of the statute, the proposed statute before us.

Mr. Chairman, to further correct your misapprehension on what this statute would do, I would point out that under existing law, that it is presently illegal to ship a firearm into a State in violation of the State law. It is also presently illegal, Mr. Chairman, to ship a firearm under Federal statutes into a State without receiving evidence of a license where a license is required. So I think Mr. Bennett's statistics, while they might be valid, do not have any relevancy to the problem that we have before us. I do not applaud Watts and I do not applaud the criminal use of firearms. I oppose them. But, in the same manner, I believe as a responsible civil libertarian, Mr. Chairman, you should seek to preserve the liberties of honest and lawful firearms owners and also the legitimate sportsmen and should not seek under the guise, under the very erroneous guise, of controlling what happened in Watts when, in fact, H.R. 5384 would not do so, but would rather take away the right of the law-abiding citizen to purchase firearms.

Let me continue, Mr. Chairman. The wily bureaucrats in the Departments of Justice and Treasury are attempting to merchandise this legislative abomination as a cure-all and panacea for criminal acts. However, I am satisfied that careful scrutiny of this legislation will lead to similar rejection of it in this Congress by the House Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 5384 will not prevent crime or criminal misuse of firearms. The President, in his message to the Congress on crime, conceded that this bill will not stop crime. One of its principal sponsors in the other

body, in my hearing on Sunday last, before the National Rifle Association, stated that H.R. 5384 and its counterpart legislation in the Senate will not stop crime.

In the 1930's Attorney General Cummings, in pushing a nationwide firearms registration act, agreed that restrictive firearms legislation would not stop crime and criminal misuse of firearms. So you can see how long this effort, a highly misguided effort by the Department of Justice and Department of Treasury goes back, in terms of seeking to strip law-abiding citizens, sportsmen, and hunters of the right to bear and use firearms legitimately for lawful purposes.

Statistically, it is provable that restrictive firearms legislation has not prevented crime and criminal firearms misuse.

Some 20,000 firearms laws now on the books do not prevent the criminal from attacking, with firearms or without, the law-abiding citizen. The same rising national crime rate, which overzealous bureaucrats cite as the reason for pushing H.R. 5384, shows that crime flourishes in the shadow of the most restrictive firearms laws. In such areas, the burglar, rapist, thug, and the strong-arm man can go about, unconcerned about the possibility of armed citizens protecting their homes, families, and persons.

In one State where manufacture and sale of firearms is absolutely outlawed-South Carolina-the rate of homicides and assaults by firearms is among the highest in the country.

New York City, with the most repressive and punitive law dealing with pistols and revolvers, which limits possession of these devices to only 17,000 of that city's 8 million citizens, has a crime rate which makes not only the streets but the homes of its people unsafe from criminal attack. There the hoodlum may undertake his nefarious work, happy in the knowledge that zealous enforcement of an unwise law have made the criminal's intended victim a ready and a helpless prey. Chairman CELLER. On that point, I think you might have your facts a bit wrong. For example, in the seven States which have made an effort to control gun sales, gun murder rates are considerably lower than States with lower or no regulatory protection.

You mentioned only New York City, but in New York State, despite all its problems of social, racial, and economic stress, the gun murder rate is less than half the rate in Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, or Texas. The principal opposition to Federal firearms legislation originates in those States.

Mr. DINGELL. I would like to answer that by continuing with my prepared statement, but I am going to point out to you, as I go along, that the simple fact of the matter is that this statistical game in which the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury have engaged is simply an attempt to hoodwink the committee. They will pull certain figures and statistics out of thin air and say this proves the need for rigorous firearms control. Yet, I can pull equally valid statistics out of the same set of figures to show that in areas where there is no firearms legislation at all, for example in Milwaukee, that the criminal rate and the death rate from firearms is vastly lower than it is in New York City which has the most repressive and outrageous firearms control legislation in the whole country.

Interestingly, California, with no such legislation has less criminal misuse of firearms and a lower crime rate than does New York City.

The same holds true for Milwaukee, which has no restrictive firearms legislation.

Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt? That statement is a per capita rate which gets to the real combination of these statistics. Mr. DINGELL. In some instances, it would be per capita. In the case of Milwaukee and California, it would be per capita, but in some instances, it would also be valid as a total rate in terms of absolute numbers.

Mr. DEAN. Unless it takes on the relationship to numbers, per capita, these statistics are not reliable.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is largely correct.

Mr. DEAN. Regardless of who uses it; isn't that so?

Mr. DINGELL. These are per capita rates I will say to my friend, but in many instances, they are absolute number figures which as you point out may, in many instances, not be valid.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I do not like to get statistics on the basis of one horse equals one rabbit.

Mr. DINGELL. These are per capita figures I have been giving so far. Chairman CELLER. May I interrupt you? You say the New York law is repressive?

Mr. DINGELL. Repressive and outrageous.

Chairman CELLER. It is interesting to note that we who live in New York under the so-called Sullivan Gun Control Act find no effort has been made to change that act over the many years it has been on the statute books.

Mr. DINGELL. I believe, Mr. Chairman, if you would take the trouble to scrutinize you would find that sportsmen, firearms collectors, hunters, and many groups of law-abiding citizens have sought over the years to repeal and to change and there is a continuing ferment of protest going on in New York. Now, it may not have risen to the heights of the governing bodies, but I am aware of the great unhappiness that exists on the part of many law-abiding citizens who would like to have it changed.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that under this legislation, in theory, a citizen may go in and may purchase a firearm, a pistol, or revolver in New York. In practice he may not do so because when he presents himself to the police officers, the police officers arrive at the conclusion that he does not need a firearm to protect his home or to protect his person because New York has a large well paid, and efficient, and honest, and fine police force. To the citizen, they just say, "you do not need a firearm" so he is not permitted to buy one. The simple fact there are only 17,000 persons with licenses to have firearms in the city of New York is pretty good indication of the fact that law-abiding citizens are denied the privilege of purchasing and acquiring and owning handguns.

I would point out to you that as a law-abiding citizen of another State I cannot go through New York State with a handgun in my baggage, I would point out to you that if I am a, oh, a competitive pistol shooter, and this is something our Government over the years has encouraged, I am not permitted to go through the State of New York with a firearm in my baggage without having gone through the licensing procedure.