that some people think that this is a very good way to gain themselves some publicity and notoriety and attempt to control and interfere with the rights of that large segment of American citizenry who use guns. The use of guns has been historically associated with the American people. I happen to be one of those who is fortunate in some respects to belong to a family that has been in this country for several hundred years. At the time of the Revolution they were not the one-third of the people that were Tories and sided with the British. They were not one-third of the people who lived in this country and who felt that we should do nothing to disturb the status quo as English citizens, but they happened to be, as near as we can determine-we had no defectors on our side of the family-they happened to be those who believed that what was occurring in this country was contrary to the rights of men and so they participated in what has become known as the Revolution. Fourteen of my ancestors were in Washington's army. Some of them lost their lives, but they did it because they believed that one of the things you should have a right to do is bear arms and our family has believed in it ever since. As near as I have been able to determine no member of our family has ever been accused by anyone of having used firearms for the commission of crime throughout their entire lives or history in this country. Our family has participated in every war in which this country has been engaged. Because of my interest in this I wrote to the U.S. Ármy and asked whether or not they had made any studies to determine whether or not there was any association between the young men who are being taken into the service, who have come from families and backgrounds who handled guns, as to whether or not they made better soldiers. Lo and behold, I find out that the Personnel Research and Procedures Division of the Adjutant General, Department of the Army, have conducted two very, very interesting surveys. The first is entitled "A Research Report," identifying fighters for combat. The Army has determined that the young men of this country who have come from families who have taught their children to use firearms make better soldiers and are more easily identified as fighters for combat than the boys who come from families who have not had that experience. I suggest that the members of this committee secure for themselves copies of this and read it. Then they went further and they made another study to determine whether or not it was possible to distinguish between young men who had had this kind of training at home in preparation to going into the military and those who had not after they have had military training; and in the second report of the development and combat attitudes areas, lo and behold, the Army-I realize there, Mr. Corman, they should learn something from the Marine Corps, too, but in this instance since the Marine Corps didn't make a survey we will depend on the Army-even with the best training we can give young men in the Army, the young men who have learned early to use a gun make the best soldiers and develop the best combat attitude. Now, sometimes, you know we get down here in Washington and keep reading the Washington Post, Daily News, and Evening Star and think maybe they should determine what we should enact as far as legislation is concerned. I am one of those who believe that if you are going to be a Representative you should go back home. I am very fortunate in having a number of outstanding judges in the State of Pennsylvania in my congressional district, Judge Frank Graff, who is, by the way, the oldest judge in point of service in the State of Pennsylvania, and I wrote to Judge Graff and asked him whether or not, in view of the legislation which was pending, whether or not he felt that legislation such as this would be beneficial. I am happy to have, and would like to submit for the record, a letter from the Honorable J. Frank Graff in which he not only says that he feels that this legislation would not be beneficial but would probably be detrimental. He has some other unkind things to say about the Supreme Court of the United States which you can delete, but I think, as a matter of record and history, might be valuable to put in the record. I have a letter from John W. Griffith and Judge Griffith is also very well known. He, too, feels that this legislation would not be in the best interest of the American public. Acting Chairman CORMAN. Without objection, they will be made part of the record. (The letters referred to follow :) HON. JOHN P. SAYLOR, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. JUDGE'S CHAMBERS, THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Kittanning, Pa., March 21, 1967. Dear John: Thanks very much for the copy of the Report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement. I have looked it over hurriedly and, frankly, can see nothing much new which they have to suggest. I am in agreement with your feeling upon the Firearms legislation. I have been following the hearings being held in the Senate upon the matter of the effect of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. I firmly believe that nothing has happened in one hundred years that has done more to interfere with proper enforcement of the law than these recent decisions which have curbed the power of the police in making investigations. As you well know, I have had vast experience with the criminal element and still continue to have it. Their attitude is filled with defiance, insolence and contempt for not only the police but the trial judges. The Supreme Court has written into the Constitution words that are clearly not there and were never intended to be there by the writers of this document. If decent citizens are to have adequate protection from the criminal element we must stand back of our law enforcement officers. In short, what the Supreme Court of the United States has created is a segment of our society which to all practical effect of Constitutional rights to violate the law. As you observe, my feelings are very strong upon this matter. With personal regards, I am, Very sincerely yours, J. FRANK GRAFF. JUDGES' CHAMBERS, HON. JOHN P. SAYLOR, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CAMBRIA COUNTY, DEAR JOHN: I have your letter of March 15th and thank you for the copy of the report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement. You particularly mention firearm legislature. I have no reason to object to the recommendation that military-type firearms such as bazookas and machine guns should not be privately possessed nor to prohibiting possession of firearms by such persons as drug addicts, mental incompetents or persons convicted of crimes of violence. Our Uniform Firearms Act, 18 P. S. 4628, contains similar provisions. I do not like the proposed restriction on the possession of rifles and shotguns. Probably such a provision would be held to violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in spite of the suggestion to the contrary in the report. Perhaps some restriction should be placed on the sale of firearms through mail orders. I don't think mail orders should be prohibited but the purchaser should be required to register his purchase within a rather short period after the purchase and the seller required to notify the local police of the sale. The Uniform Firearms Act, which has been adopted by many states, covers most situations and usually gives law enforcement officers adequate means of controlling firearms. I read with much interest and approval the additional views of Messrs. Jaworski, Malone, Powell and Storey beginning on page 303 of the report. It is difficult to understand why their recommendation was not incorporated in the report of the Commission as a whole. This is especially difficult to understand because the report on page 125 recognizes that the criminal courts are "expected to find which of two conflicting versions of events is the truth". And further, "It is expected to articulate the community's most deeply held, most cherished views about the relationship of the individual and society". Nearly everyone will agree that neither Mapp in 1961 nor Miranda in 1966 articulated the community's views. As a result, neither the state nor the federal trial courts are permitted to articulate the community's views in the areas of search and seizure or the admissibility into evidence of voluntary confessions. If evidence is obtained without a proper search warrant and the evidence is revelant in the trial of a case I believe it should be admitted. It seems illogical to exclude revelant evidence because it was obtained improperly. If the officer who improperly obtained the evidence violated the law he can be prosecuted or sued in the civil courts or under proper legislation he could be deprived of his office but the criminal should not go free because of the officer's mistake. This, by the way, was Wigmore's view. Nor can I see any good reason why confessions, which are otherwise voluntary, should be excluded from evidence because the accused was not told that he could have a lawyer and if he had no funds to employ a lawyer that one would be provided for him free. Of course, if a confession was obtained by force or threats or trickery it was involuntary and should be excluded. In the case of confessions, it is interesting to note that the rule in England is that, after an arrest or after a police officer has made up his mind to charge a person with the commission of a crime, no further questions can be put without first cautioning him that he is not obligated to answer and that anything he says may be used in evidence against him. No caution is required as to his right to counsel at this stage. In the area of search and seizure, the English Courts do not follow the American exclusionary rule, so evidence secured unlawfully is fully admissible. In the case of Kuruma, son of Kaniu, vs. Reginam (1955) A. C. 197 (P.C.) the Lord Chief Justice said, "The test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is revelant to the matters at issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained." The Defendant's Rights Under English Law (1966 edition), page 58. The English Courts do not condone the illegality of an improper search but they hold that that is a matter for a later and separate action against the officer who made the improper search. We are certainly concerned with the rights of accused persons and the development in the last few years has been salutary in many respects but we certainly have to be equally concerned with the rights of law-abiding citizens to be free from the criminal activities of those who are so inclined. Sincerely, GEORGE W. GRIFFITH. Mr. SAYLOR. I believe that this committee should take another look at this legislation. Some years ago, the gentlemen who sit on the other side of the Capitol held a hearing on this same legislation; or similar legislation. The chairman of their committee when he introduced the legislation, introduced it on the floor of the Senate, March 1965. I quote him because I think this points up a difference between those of us who oppose this legislation, and those who support it. Quoting the Senator from Connecticut: The blind and almost mindless efforts of the segment of the gun enthusiasts and their shabby, time worn slogans have to date been successful in defeating our efforts. Federal control over the interstate control of weapons is robbed of half its effectiveness if there is no control over those who obtain weapons at the local gun shop. This would be obvious to all but the simple minded, the incorrigibly wrong-headed members of the committee. I must appear in opposing the Senator, as one who is simple minded and incorrigibly wrong-headed, but it is my firm belief that I represent approximately one-half million American citizens in the greatest district-with due deference to the members of this committee-of the United States; and I want to say that I have yet to receive one letter from my district, in support of this legislation although I have received thousands in opposition. I sincerely hope that this committee, in its wisdom, will do what other committees that have considered this legislation have done-the Senate Committee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, and the powerful Ways and Means Committee of the House-bury it so effectively that it never again can rear its ugly head! Thank you for your indulgence. Mr. MCCLORY. Is there any part of the bill that you would support? For instance, would you support the part which refers to the prohibition against the sale of bazookas and machineguns? Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. McClory, in the manner in which this bill has been drafted and with the high-sounding preamble, I think the best thing you can do is write a new bill. If you want to have it apply to machineguns and bazookas, I would take another look at it. Mr. McCLORY. Have you any feeling about the mail-order business of pistols and smallarms? Mr. SAYLOR. I am opposed to that kind of legislation. I am even opposed to this. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you. Mr. SAYLOR. I see no useful purpose for bazookas, in target shooting. I derived a great deal of benefit watching the way a machinegun is handled but I don't personally want one. In the collection of guns which I have, I have one that I brought back from the Pacific which had been used by the Japanese. I had it disarmed so that it is inoperative. I did that because I do not believe that guns of this type should be in any home in such condition that they might be fired. I had this gun completely deactivated; the barrel is filled. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HORACE R. KORNEGAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Acting Chairman CORMAN. We have with us the Honorable Horace R. Kornegay from Carolina. Have you a prepared statement? Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes, I do. Acting Chairman CORMAN. We will make your complete statement a matter of the record at this point. (The statement of Mr. Kornegay is as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HORACE R. KORNEGAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Chairman and Members of Committee, my name is Horace R. Kornegay, I am a Member of Congress and I have the privilege of representing the Sixth District of North Carolina. I wish to thank the Chair and the Committee for the opportunity to appear in opposition to H.R. 5384, the proposed State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967. Since the bill, in its present form, follows the invocation of a recommendation of the President's Commission on Crime and since the bill finds and declares that the "ease" of acquisition of firearms is a "significant factor" in the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States. I feel constrained to speak. For I feel that I do have some familiarity with the subject of crime and lawlessness. For some nine years before I had the honor to take my seat in the Congress along with the disinguished Members of this Committee, it was my function to prosecute many thousands who had been accused of crimes ranging from overparking to premeditated murder. I served for six years as Solicitor of a Superior Court District in North Carolina and for three years prior to that, I served as Assistant Solicitor. In our court system in North Carolina, I served as the public prosecutor. Before serving as a prosecutor, I was a practicing attorney in North Carolina and had occasion to practice often in the criminal courts there, as a defense attorney. With this background, I have personal knowledge of many aspects of crime and criminals, including causal factors of crime and the motivations of differing classes of criminals. Through my own personal observations and through studies of crime and the criminal over the years, I have become even more convinced that it is difficult, if not impossible, to equate guns with crime-despite the statistical evidence to the contrary that may have been offered to this Committee. And, if we allow ourselves the luxury involved in the daydream that more guns, more firearms mean more crime or if we subscribe to the converse assumption that less guns mean less crime, we are chasing a cold trail toward any improvement in our national crime problem. As has been stated, the illogical conclusion that because we own more guns today we have more crime is like saying that, because one bald-headed man has blue eyes, all bald-headed men are blue-eyed and that all blue-eyed men are bald. I respectfully submit to the learned Members of this Committee that our crime problem is just not that simple; I only wish it were. Restrictions-even oppressive ones as contained in H.R. 5384-placed on the purchase and the sale of firearms will, in my opinion, have precious little, if at all any, impact in reducing the rate or the severity of crime in our country. I have doubt that even a total prohibition on firearms would produce any great reduction in the amount of serious crime. |