countries, I am glad that these weapons were imported into the United States and sold to American citizens rather than end up in unfriendly hands, as they well could have. Arms are like oil. They flow where the gold is. I'm glad that they flowed to America.

Regarding license fees, we should recognize that our small firearms dealers in the rural areas and small town of America who sell three or four or perhaps a dozen guns a year as a convenience to their customers, have performed a definite economic function. Mark up in firearms is low. As a practical business matter. these small dealers cannot afford, in most instances a $25 initial license fee. Regarding destructive devices we would submit that control of these should be in the National Firearms Act. Actually the use of such devices as tools in crime is not significant. However, it seems that an emotional problem has arisen concerning such weapons and there is desire for legislation thereon. I suggest that it is unwise, and personally I resent the lumping of these destructive devices in the same act with sporting firearms. If control of destructive devices is desired. that control can be accomplished in the National Firearms Act, but even here I would suggest that there is a legitimate harmless and proper place for possession of such artifacts. Examples would be veterans clubs, museums that show the evolution of military weapons, and the serious legitimate experimenter.

The approach of the Nebraska Game Commission to firearms legislative matters is positive not negative. There are a number of positive not negative. There are a number of positive measures that we endorse which would be of assistance in this matter. We recognize that conditions of modern American urban life may require certain firearms controls not now on the law books. We think that the provisions of legislation similar to that introduced in the last session of Congress on the Senate side (the so-called Hruska Bill) seems reasonable and proper. This involves notification of local law enforcement authorities prior to shipment of mail-order pistols. We find this a reasonable approach. We also concur in the findings of the Arthur Little report on civilian firearms training, which recommends a continued and expanded program of firearms training as being important to this nation in the perilous times in which we live. We commend the firearms training programs which are being accomplished by private and public groups such as the many states and the National Rifle Association. We recommend a program of grants in aid for the construction of firearms ranges to be financed from a tax on reloading components, reloading tools, etc. This measure has been introduced to the Congress in prior years. We also commend the efforts at the state and national levels made by judicial as well as legislative authorities to enforce and enact stricter penalties against those committing armed crimes. We believe this provision is paramount in any effective crime control program. Finally, we would request the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to use the laws that they have today in a more intensified effort to control the criminal misuse and possession of firearms as they may occur.

I would be happy to answer any questions that the Subcommittee might wish to ask.

Mr. CORMAN. If you care to summarize it, that will be fine.

Mr. FOOTE. Thank you, sir. The statement is brief. I will attempt to shorten it as much as possible.

I am Frank Foote. I am employed by the Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission. My Nebraska Game Commission is similar to most conservation agencies. It is a group of seven men, appointed from districts in Nebraska. They have authority in many things: hunting, conservation, fishing, State parks and related

matters.

We represent over 160,000 licensed hunters in Nebraska.

The commission has passed a resolution regarding federal firearms legislation, which I would like to present for your consideration, and have made a part of the record, with your consent. It is brief. I would like to read it.

Motion made and carried that the Commission go on record in complete opposition to S. 1, the Restrictive Firearms Bill now before Congress, and similar legislation.

The Commission regards these measures as unneeded and unworkable.

The Commission voices its support of reasonable legislation in this field, which is designed to provide a workable control on the sale of firearms to criminals, minors, and incompetents by mail, and which protects the rights of the law abiding sportsman to acquire them over the counter or by mail order; to transport his own, and enjoy firearms of his choice.

The Commission opposes legislation to unduly restrictive importation of surplus firearms, which provide much recreational opportunity for American sportsmen. The Commission cannot support the view that somehow, a rifle, such as a fine surplus Mauser, is bad, while American Springfield is all right. Both are essentially equal.

Following that is a certification.

Our Nebraska State Unicameral Legislature has also gone on record in the field of firearms legislation by resolution opposing unnecessarily restrictive firearm laws and supporting the right of law-abiding American citizens to own and enjoy sporting firearms.

In representing the Nebraska Game Commission regarding H.R. 5384, I would like first to comment on the philosophy behind this bill. The philosophy and thinking contained therein is of grave concern to us. Since early 1964, I have had the privilege, on three occasions, to testify before various House and Senate committees on general firearms legislation. During this period I have also watched and studied the philosophy and rationale, as it developed and unfolded, of those who propose restrictive firearms controls. As a result, before the Senate Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee I branded a parent bill to the one under consideration as a precursor or antecedent to general firearms registration, but recognized that such a bill was not a firearms registration bill per se. Today, on the basis of the information contained in the Administration's Crime Commission report, I would make the same statement regarding this measure.

H.R. 5384 is a foundation for firearms registration. Because this measure is oriented in the direction of registration, we must, respectfully, oppose this bill.

There are three questions, I think, in order, in this matter.

First, is reasonable availability of firearms a definite factor in high crime rates? If such easy availability of firearms was a definite factor in such crime rates, then such cities as Philadelphia or New York should have low crime rates and areas such as Milwaukee, Wis., or Lincoln, Nebr., should have high crime rates. This, obviously, is not the situation. Many surveys have shown that firearms ownership is highest in rural areas. I am a country resident myself. I don't know of a single farm in the State of Nebraska where at least one weapon is not kept, including farms owned and operated by widows! Crimes of violence are extremely low in such an environment. Thus, I think it is incorrect to say that there is always a direct relationship between firearms ownership and crimes of violence. As a matter of fact there are those who believe that crimes of violence are inhibited by widespread private firearms ownership.

Second, would tighter firearms controls keep arms from criminal hands? The best estimates I have heard indicate that there are between 100 and 200 million firearms in private ownership in the United States today. Such weapons have a long life. Ammunition has a shelf life of up to 50 or more years. Inevitably, in any tight firearms control situation, a blackmarket would arise. Criminal ingenuity and inventiveness, as experience has shown, provides a means of actually manufacturing, from harmless raw materials, reasonably effective

substitutes for commercially manufactured firearms. Conversely, there is a tolerance point in the ownership of firearms beyond which the ordinary law-abiding citizen will not go. He will only abide and put up with so much redtape. When he reaches his saturation point, his reaction will be to wash his hands of the whole matter and simply forget about trying to own a gun.

To the criminal or psychotic, firearms restrictions are at the most a very temporary deterrent from crime or violence. Such individuals will, on occasion, go to almost any length to arm themselves. Furthermore, long-term experience in other countries indicates that strict regulation of firearms gradually reduces ownership in the hands of law-abiding citizens. We could therefore gradually find ourselves in a situation where criminals would have weapons, and the citizenry would not. Would this be a deterrence against crime?

Third, I would ask if the tight restriction of firearms and highly restrictive controls on their legitimate use is a desirable social objective? Those countries which have imposed upon themselves tight firearms controls and restrictions have inevitably reduced civilian ownership and constructive civilian usage of such weapons. Such positive and constructive firearms use is widespread in this country today. In Nebraska we have approximately 200,000 citizens who hunt yearly. In the United States the number of hunters has been reasonably estimated at approximately 20 million. Most hunters are lawabiding careful citizens, whose activities form a wholesome and socially acceptable form of outdoor recreation which is a definite asset to our society. I wonder how many citizens have been able to withstand the pressures and conflicts of modern urbanized society because they have a wholesome interest and opportunity to participate in hunting? Last year, I asked a New York cab driver what his hobby was. His answer was: "I live 2 weeks a year while deer hunting, and I exist 50 weeks a year pushing this hack."

Also, I wonder how many father-son relations have been cemented and communication established in the hunting field? I wonder how many men are better soldiers for their country because of prior hunting experience and firearms training? We do know the number is considerable and from the authoritative Arthur Little report that there is a definite relationship between prior firearms experience and effectiveness as a battlefield soldier. We do know that many activities of many branches of the Federal Government encourage hunting. As an example, the Pittman Robinson Act; the activities of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife of Interior, and the O.R.R.R.C. report, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission placed a high priority on future public hunting. These positive programs of the Federal Government could well be undone by discouragement of the legal ownership and proper use of privately owned firearms. And again, we know that tight controls and restrictions and registration provisions will discourage, on the basis of other countries, civilian ownership of firearms; prohibition of the purchase of a pistol anywhere but in the home State of the purchaser; the delegation in this act, to the Secretary of the Treasury of the power to withhold permission for the importation of firearms; the 2,500-percent increase followed by a 1,000-percent increase in the license fees for firearms dealers; and the inclusion of the so-called destructive devices in a measure designed to control small arms.

The mail-order business in the United States is a longstanding and honorable occupation in the main, which serves a very necessary time-place, economic function for our consuming public. As a business fact of life we cannot expect, in any single State that a dealer or a series of dealers can stock the wide variety and kind of firearms in demand by the shooting public. This makes "mail-order" a practical necessity.

Pistols have a definite sporting usage in target practice and competition, and in the taking of wildlife. Many States today allow use of the larger caliber pistols in deer hunting. Is it logical to prohibit the law-abiding citizen from the purchase of a pistol simply because he desires to purchase it in a State other than that of his residence, if the purchase and possession of such a pistol is legal in both States?

On the control of importation of surplus military rifles, I would submit that the American citizens have actually benefited from the importation and sales programs that have gone on in recent years in this field. I know of no standard military rifle that is not adapted to sporting use. The ability of the American deer hunter, or would-be deer hunter, of modest means to acquire a rifle for from $30 to $40 to find out if he is going to enjoy this sport without large investment, has been a factor in the increase of deer hunters in this country. And finally, as one who has very close friends now fighting in several farflung areas of the world in the so-called underdeveloped countries, I am glad that these weapons were imported into the United States and sold to American citizens rather than end up in unfriendly hands, as they well could have in the course of international trade. Arms are like oil. They flow where the gold is. I am glad that they flowed to America.

Regarding license fees, we should recognize that our small firearms dealers in the rural areas and small towns of America who sell three or four or perhaps a dozen guns a year as a convenience to their customers have performed a definite economic function. Markup in firearms is low. As a practical business matter, these small dealers cannot afford, in most instances, a $25 initial license fee.

Regarding destructive devices we would submit that the control of these should be in the National Firearms Act. Actually, the use of such devices as tools in crime is not significant. It seems that an emotional problem has arisen concerning such weapons and that there is a desire for legislation thereon. I respectfully suggest that it is unwise and personally I resent the lumping of these destructive devices in the same act with sporting firearms. If control of destructive devices is desired, that control can be accomplished in the National Firearms Act, but even here, I would suggest that there is a legitimate, harmless, constructive, and proper place for possession of such artifacts. Examples would be veterans clubs, museums that show the evolution of military weapons, and the serious legitimate experimenter. The approach of the Nebraska Game Commission to firearms legislative matters is positive not negative. There are a number of positive measures that we endorse which would be of assistance in this matter. We recognize the conditions of modern American urban life may require certain firearms controls not now on the law books. We think that the provisions of legislation similar to that introduced in the last session of Congress on the Senate side-the so-called Hruska bill-seems reasonable and proper. This involves notification of local law

enforcement authorities prior to shipment of mail-order pistols. We find this a reasonable approach. We also concur in the findings of the Arthur Little report on civilian firearms training, which recommends a continued and expanded program of civilian firearms training as being important to this Nation in the perilous times in which we live. We commend the firearms training programs which are being accomplished by private and public groups such as the many States and the National Rifle Association.

Here, from personal experience, may I say that from many viewpoints, particular in cost effectiveness, the course of training given inductees of the service prior to induction by these civilian clubs is an outstanding example in the cost analysis prevalent in the Defense Department. I happen to be associated with a club that is personally training 10 or 15 young men now in the military service. This Arthur Little report that I refer to does indicate their much increased effectiveness as soldiers.

Any time you get Americans to volunteer their time in such training without cost to the taxpayer, then I think it is a service.

Other things that we recommend include a program of grants in aid for the construction of firearms ranges to be financed from a tax on reloading components, reloading tools, and so on. This measure has been introduced to the Congress in prior years. We also commend the efforts at the State and National levels made by judicial as well as legislative authorities to enforce and enact stricter penalties against those committing armed crimes. We believe this provision is paramount in any effective crime control program.

Finally, we would request the executive branch of the Federal Government to use the laws that they have today in a more intensified effort to control the criminal misuse and possession of firearms as they may occur.

I would be happy to answer any questions that the subcommittee might wish to ask.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Mr. Biester?

Mr. BIESTER. With respect to hunting in Nebraska, are there any weapons that one might use in hunting in Nebraska which one could buy from the average mail-order catalog which would be dangerous to other sportsmen in that they would have a range so long as to be dangerous to other sportsmen?

Mr. FOOTE. To answer your question directly, sir, any weapon used in hunting could be dangerous to other sportsmen, other hunters, including a bow and arrow.

Mr. BIESTER. A bow and arrow would not be as dangerous as a rifle with a range.

Mr. FOOTE. No, sir. However, we debated this subject many times in Nebraska on the relative danger of weapons. As we in the last 10 years, opened our entire State to deer hunting when it used to be confined to a small, lightly populated area, our experience is that the so-called high-powered rifle is in effect, the safest weapon for deer hunting as compared to shotguns which are used and required in some heavily populated States for deer hunting. The reason for this is that the tendency of a high-powered rifle bullet to break up or to so deform that it does not travel as far as in many situations the rifle slug found