expressed clearly and precisely? Another example is the language used in one of the conditions for the importation of firearms, "generally recognized or particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." Would or would not, let us say, a Mauser military-style rifle be recognized and suitable for such use?

The Secretary of the Treasury may deny an applicant a Federal firearms license if the applicant is "by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connections, not likely to commence business operations during the term of the annual license applied for or to maintain operations in compliance" with the law. Mr. Chairman, this language would leave the door open to denial of a license virtually for any reason that could be even remotely related to an unfavorable applicant. No specific grounds need be given except the broad "criteria" cited above.

The National Rifle Association with good reason is sensitive to matters ill defined or left undefined. In over 30 years of experience in the field of firearms legislation, the association has found that many unfortunate consequences could have been averted had statutory or regulatory terminology been clear and precise.

Another instance of the lack of clarity and precision in this bill is the provision which permits a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer to return "a firearm or replacement firearm of the same kind and type" to a nonlicensee from whom it was received. But, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5384 says nothing about an individual's being allowed to send a firearm to a Federal licensee for repair or replacement.

I wish now to speak of the omission of the exception in existing law applying to shipment of firearms to certain organizations and individuals by the Secretary of the Army in implementation of the civilian marksmanship program of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice. The existing Federal Firearms Act has the following proviso:

Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent shipments of firearms and ammunition to institutions, organizations, or persons to whom such firearms and ammunition may be lawfully delivered by the Secretary of the Army, nor to prevent the transportation of such firearms and ammunition so delivered by their lawful possessors while they are engaged in military training or in competitions.

Mr. Chairman, the effect of this omission of existing law from the terms of H.R. 5384 could spell the end of that extremely valuable contribution to our national defense establishment. Since 1903, the civilian marksmanship program has been the responsibility of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, which is an agency of the Department of the Army.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, since this subcommittee has heard some wholly gratuitous statements questioning the value to the United States of the pittance spent by the Federal Government to preserve rifle marksmanship among civilians who would be called upon to fight in time of war, I should like to quote certain conclusions from a study made by Arthur D. Little, Inc., a private industrial and management research firm engaged by the Department of the Army in May

1965.

This firm was requested to make recommendations as to the necessity for the civilian marksmanship program and its possible implemen

tation. On the question of the basic value of the program, the study stated:

The results of our study indicate that the Civilian Marksmanship program sponsored and supported by the Army, directed by the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and administered by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship contributes significantly to the development of rifle marksmanship proficiency and competence in the ability to use a rifle effectively in combat on the part of those who participate in the program or benefit indirectly from it.

Also, certain law-enforcement agencies and the press have made much, now and again, of the civilian marksmanship program being used by extremists groups to obtain arms and ammunition. In this connection, the Little report had this to say:

Our impression of the club officers we interviewed is that they are typically enthusiastic devotees of the sport of shooting. We found no instances of direct orientation toward any political programs or extremist activities and, in almost all instances, club officers readily responded that it was club policy to reject applicants known to have extremist views.

These general impressions were reinforced in our series of systematic interviews with police and other civic officials. We found no instances where the civic officials linked clubs or club members to criminal or politically extreme elements.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address myself very briefly to the broad discretionary and regulatory authority which would be vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by the terms of H.R. 5384. In several provisions of this bill, the Secretary is vested with discretionary powers in the way of granting permission to import, refusing an application for a firearms license, determination of likeliness of use as a weapon and making certain determinations. While I fully realize that statutes are frequently cast in broad language with the details to be spelled out in rules and regulations, I am fearful that the nature of the language giving the Secretary powers to permit, refuse, or determine is all-inclusive and could result in administrative action or inaction violative of personal rights.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I come to the last major objection of H.R. 5384. There is a direct conflict between the authority for arms import controls under section 414, Mutual Security Act of 1954, and section 5 of the bill stating that nothing in the bill "shall be construed as modifying or affecting any provision of" section 414, Mutual Security Act. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Treasury must give his permission for firearms importation. At present, the Secretary of State, through the Office of Munitions Control, licenses firearms imports and exports. Would this mean that a person would be required to obtain permission from both the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State in order to import a firearm? How will the apparent conflict be resolved between the firearms allowed to be imported under section 414, Mutual Security Act, and the restricted kinds of firearms which may be imported under H.R. 5384?

Mr. Chairman, a segment of the publicity media has been wont to cast the aims and purposes of the National Rifle Association in a highly unfavorable and negative light. This has been particularly true in the field of firearms legislation. Our critics and adversaries often proclaim by word of mouth and on the printed page that the NRA is for minimum firearms controls or no gun regulation at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the deliberations by the Con

gress on the National Firearms Act, the so-called machinegun law, in 1934, and the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, the association has taken a leading role in counseling a positive, reasonable, and balanced approach to firearms regulation. For years, the NRA has come to be respected among national and State lawmakers for its fairness, logic, and knowledge concerning firearms legislation. History speaks for itself, and we make no apology to any person or any group for past or present positions on firearms controls.

The patent unilateral presentation by the press of the NRA approach to gun regulation can be simply demonstrated by the first Dodd bill, introduced as S. 1975 in the U.S. Senate in August 1963. How well was it known then, and how well is it known now, that since the launching of the full inquiry in March 1961 by the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency into the matter of firearms and crime that the NRA for many months had worked closely with the staff of the subcommittee to formulate legislation that would both ineet the requirements of the problem and not unduly impinge upon the legitimate interests of firearms owners? S. 1975 in its original form in the 88th Congress was a workable measure to which all legitimate interests, public and private, could be drawn without undue infringement of any area of legitimate concern.

The truth of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the NRA does have a positive, overall program for additional Federal firearms controls if the Congress deems such legislation necessary or desirable. This program was publicized and offered in January 1966 and consists of three approaches:

1. A bill to provide a mandatory penalty for the possession or use in the commission of certain crimes of firearms transported in interstate

commerce.

2. A bill to provide that no licensed manufacturer or dealer may ship any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that State.

3. A bill to place "destructive devices" (bombs, grenades, mines, crew-served military ordnance and similar items) under the tax and registration provisions of the National Firearms Act.

The NRA three-part program is now reflected in bills introduced in this House by Congressmen Casey of Texas, H.R. 360; Sikes of Florida, H.R. 2839; Horton of New York, H.R. 7174; King of California, H.R. 7457; and Dingell of Michigan, H.R. 7467. Other members of this body who submitted bills similar to the Casey approach are Representatives Edmondson of Oklahoma, Murphy of New York, Zwach of Minnesota, and Wyatt of Oregon.

In addition to the foregoing three-part program, Mr. Chairman, the board of directors of the National Rifle Association at its recently concluded 96th annual meetings, ever-mindful of its responsibilities to its members and to the public, approved and added a fourth control proposal to its legislative program. Under study for several months, the fourth element is based on S. 3767, introduced in the 89th Congress in August 1966, with certain amendments adopted by the NRA after lengthy and careful consideration.

The central feature of this proposed measure would provide that a person who orders a handgun by mail or over-the-counter in a State other than his own must submit to the seller a sworn statement that

(1) he is over 21 years of age; (2) he is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a handgun shipped in interstate commerce; and (3) his receipt of the firearm is not in violation of any State statute. Further, the statement must contain the name and address of the principal local low enforcement officer of the locality to which the handgun will be shipped.

Before delivery of the handgun can be made by the seller, he must fulfill two conditions: (1) he must forward the sworn statement by registered or certified mail to the local law enforcement officer and receive from this officer a receipt evidencing delivery of the statement or refusal of receipt in accordance with the postal regulations; (2) he must wait at least 7 days following receipt of notification by the local law enforcement officer or that officer's acceptance or refusal of the statement.

This bill, together with the other proposals in our suggested program would, in our opinion, accomplish the aim of reasonable and effective control of firearms in commerce. I commend them to your earnest consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say in conclusion that the NRA does not advocate an "ostrich" attitude toward firearms legislation. We recognize that the dynamism and complexities of modern society create new problems which demand new solutions. Accordingly, the National Rifle Association has come forth with a positive, specific and practicable program for reasonable and proper firearms controls. In this spirit, we offer them to the Congress and to the people of the United States.

(Subsequently, the following letter was received from the Department of the Army :)

Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., April 18, 1967.

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 5, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In testifying before your Subcommittee on April 10th on the State Firearms Control Assistance Act (H.R. 5384), Mr. Franklin L. Orth, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association indicated that the proposed legislation threatened the existence of the Army's Civilian Marksmanship Program. Specifically, on p. 739 of the transcript, he said that failure to include in the legislation an exemption for firearms and ammunition lawfully provided by the Secretary of the Army to organizations and individuals "could spell the end of that extremely valuable contributions to our national establishment”.

We have examined H.R. 5384, and have concluded that, contrary to the above statement, the Civilian Marksmanship Program would not be adversely affected by the enactment of the Bill in its present form. The Secretary of the Army stated on May 19, 1965, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, that we strongly favor the enactment of firearms control legislation. We continue to do so and specifically, we support H.R. 5384.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the record of the hearings.
Sincerely,

DAVID E. MCGIFFERT, Under Secretary of the Army.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Is my memory correct in the belief that the NRA national rifle and pistol matches are at Camp Perry, Ohio?

Mr. ОRTH. That is correct.

Mr. McCULLOCH. And shotgun at Vandalia, Ohio?

Mr. ORTH. Actually, we have 7,000 competitors there each year-at Camp Perry and we teach many thousands of young people how to shoot through the small arms firing school.

Mr. McCULLOCH. There has been a great interest shown in the competition by the Ohio National Guard?

Mr. ORTH. That is true.

Mr. RAILSBACK. I wonder if you would comment on your statement on page 14, on the fourth proposal that you are now making, in respect to controlling, to a certain extent, the mail-order sale of firearms. As I read your new proposal, in respect to the affidavit and the 7-day waiting period, this relates the way I read it-to simply a notification procedure.

I am wondering if you conceive of some safeguards, say in the instance where the local law-enforcement official is notified or happens to know from checking his record that the purchaser of the gun is a convicted criminal or felon; what is going to happen under your proposal in that event, or in the event that he may be too young to purchase a gun?

Mr. ŎRTH. The prospective purchaser, if he is a criminal and has signed the sworn statement under the Federal Firearms Act, is punishable for making a false statement and would be subject to the penalties of the act.

So, that, having made such a false statement he could be arrested and prosecuted.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Your are suggesting that the present law-that persons formerly convicted of a crime are prevented from obtaining or acquiring a gun.

Mr. ORTH. The present Federal Firearms Act, as amended on September 15, 1965, title 15-901 through 910 United States Code, sections 902 (d), (e) and (f), reads:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to ship, transport, or cause to be shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is under indictment or has been convicted in any court of the United States, the several States, Territories, possessions, or the District of Columbia of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or is a fugitive from justice.

(e) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment or who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or who is a fugitive from justice to ship, transport, or cause to be shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition.

(f) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or is a fugitive from justice to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this chapter.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Would you be willing to include another category of prohibition in your proposal that would cover persons who have at one time been mentally incompetent or deficient?

Mr. ORTH. Mr. Congressman, we have consistently been in favor of legislation which would reach the person who is mentally incompetent. Our problem has been in dealing with the States where laws are being enacted all the time, that most States either do not have adequate