tion offering to sell or dispose of the same, which said license or permit shall be in the following form, to wit: North Carolina, I, County, Street, in sheriff of said county, do hereby certify that whose place of residence is (or) in Township, County, North Carolina, having this day satisfied me as to his, her (or) their good moral character, and that the possession of one of the weapons described is necessary for self-defense or the protection of the home, a license or permit is therefore hereby given said to purchase one pistol, (or if any other weapon is named strike out from any person, firm or corporation authorized the word pistol) day of 19. Sheriff. G.S. 14-404. Applicant must be of good moral character; weapon for defense of home; sheriff's fee.-Before the sheriff shall issue any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm or corporation requires the possession of the weapon mentioned for protection of the home. If said sheriff shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue said license or permit: Provided, that nothing in this article shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms. The sheriff shall charge for his services upon issuing such license or permit a fee of fifty cents. G.S. 14-404. Record of permits kept by sheriff.―The sheriff shall keep a book, to be provided by the board of commissions of each county, in which he shall keep a record of all licenses or permits issued under this article, including the name, date, place of residence, age, former place of residence, etc., of each such person, firm, or corporation to whom or which a license or permit is issued. Acting Chairman CORMAN. We are pleased to receive the statement of our colleague, the Honorable William H. Harsha. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. HARSHA, A REPRE SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee regarding H.R. 5384, to amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for the control of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce. Mr. Chairman, there is a crime problem in the United States. All responsible citizens realize that something must be done to curb this widespread spirit of lawlessness which now pervades the land. The bill now under consideration, H.R. 5384, is intended to be a major step in this direction; but gentlemen, this bill will accomplish little, if any, of what it purports to do. In fact, instead of serving as a deterrent this bill, if passed, would be a substantial step in the direction of making firearms acquisition and ownership by lawabiding citizens onerous, thereby discouraging their use for training or sport by such persons. It is absurd to think that criminals, bent on robbery or murder, will pay even the slightest heed to any of the provisions contained in this bill. The criminal will always find a way to acquire a gun if he intends to commit a crime involving the necessity of a firearm; it will be no deterrent to him to have to break some law in order to obtain a weapon. The causes of crime go far deeper than the availability of firearms. We must strike at the roots of the problem and not be sidetracked into enacting measures that will serve only as unjustified restrictions upon the reputable citizen. Consider, if you will, a statement on page 32 of the report by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. I quote: Organized crime takes about twice as much income from gambling and other illegal goods and services as criminals derive from all other kinds of criminal activity combined. Gentlemen this is the problem. This is where we must strike and wage unrelenting war until the disgrace is erased. This is the category, Mr. Chairman, dubbed, "white collar" crimes. Firarms play an extremely small role here, but yet look at the results. These crimes are accomplished through an organization, be it 10 or 1,000, who are so sophisticated in their tactics that there is no way of measuring accurately the tremendous depredation by them to our economy. I recognize that this is only part of the crime picture, but should it not be the focal point for our consideration? H.R. 5384, while attempting to contribute to the fight against crime, will in truth act as an unreasonable restriction upon the law-abiding citizen. The central feature of this bill is the provision that a federally licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer may not ship any firearm to any person not a Federal licensee. This prohibition would be unconscionable in that it would force a very large number of small businessmen to discontinue entirely the sale of firearms while at the same time acting to the advantage of a few large manufacturers and over-the-counter dealers. Further and highly important, there are a vast number of rural and semirural Americans who do not have ready access to licensed outlets. Furthermore, the small dealer found in these areas generally carries a very small stock which would be insufficient to satisfy the needs of a prospective purchaser. In these instances, under H.R. 5384, the prospective customer would then be forced to prevail upon the small dealer to either obtain samples of the desired type of firearm for his consideration, or else to have the dealer act as an intermediary and order the particular firearm from another federally licensed dealer. This entire process would obviously be quite burdensome, and add a great amount to the price of the extra handling. I have read or heard all the odd arguments pro and con, and one of these comes to mind. Some legislators feel that licensing and a fee will keep the weapons from the hands of the criminal element. I keep remembering that automobiles are licensed, fees are paid, and drivers are licensed and pay a fee. The interstate traffic in automobiles is controlled in several ways, and there are laws about the use of automobiles in interstate and intrastate use, including use in connection with a crime. Have all these laws lessened the use of the automobile by criminals either in the perpetration or escape from a crime? I keep remembering the Volstead Act, which was supposed to limit or abolish the consumption of alcohol, and spawned one of the greatest disobedience efforts and crime waves the world has ever chronicled. Proof that you, with all your wisdom, cannot legislate the morals of the people but can, in fact, force them into avoidance and violation of a law that is either foolishly or hastily conceived. I feel that the present laws, with stiffer mandatory penalties for second and third offenses, would be adequate for what you have in mind. The judiciary might feel this an infringement on its prerogative of setting the sentence in such cases, but the records show that in many cases it has been far too lenient in convictions of gun-involved criminals, and has released them in too short a time to return to the same type of action, with only the prospect of a similar sentence for second or third offenses. For the foregoing reasons, and others not expressed, I oppose this bill and hope the committee, in its good judgment, will not act favorably on it. Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Harsha. We will now hear from the Honorable Johathan B. Bingham. Please proceed with your testimony. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to register my vigorous support for the President's proposal with regard to the regulation of the sale and possession of firearms. I am one of the sponsors of the bill proposed by the administration. While I am not wedded to all the details of this proposal, I feel strongly that more stringent regulation in this field is absolutely necessary if we are to engage in a comprehensive, all-out attack on the national crime. problem. My constituents obviously think so too. They are greatly concerned about the increase in the crimes of violence, many of them involving the use of firearms. Even in areas which up until recently have been considered safe, people are afraid to go out at night. I think the problem of achieving better control of crime and criminals is considered the No. 1 problem by many, if not most, of my constituents. In answering one of the questions in my 1965 questionnaire, sent to every household in my district, the following results were obtained: 90 percent favored stricter regulation of sales of firearms; 8 percent were opposed; and 2 percent were undecided. Again this year, I included a question on this subject in my questionnaire. I asked my constituents whether they believed that mail order sales of firearms should be prohibited, strictly regulated, or allowed to continue as is. While the many thousands of replies have not yet been fully tabulated, the indications are that almost 60 percent favor prohibition, an additional 35 percent favor strict regulation, and only 5 percent are content with the status quo. Various arguments are raised against proposals for more vigorous Federal regulation of the sale and possession of firearms. I do not find any of them convincing. It is argued that they are in violation of the Constitution. The courts have uniformly decided the contrary in upholding the constitutionality of the Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1938. Others argue that the regulation of the sale and possession of firearms will not stop crime. Of course it will not, but it will help. This argument makes as much sense as to say that regulations with regard to registration of automobiles and licensing of drivers do not prevent automobile accidents. Another of the arguments offered is that the proposed controls will 1 prevent sportsmen from obtaining sporting rifles and shotguns. This is simply not true. All that is being proposed is that regulations similar to those which apply to the purchase of motor vehicles will also apply to the purchase of firearms. Surely it is not too much to ask of sportsmen that they accept with good grace such minor inconvenience as these laws may impose in order to contribute to the greater safety and peace of mind of the millions of our citizens who feel threatened and are threatened, by the fact that criminals, drug addicts and the like can today obtain deadly weapons with virtually no interference. Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bingham. We are pleased to have with us the Honorable Ray Roberts from Texas. We will make your prepared statement a part of the record at this point. (Mr. Roberts' prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAY ROBERTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the record, my name is Ray Roberts, and I am a Member of Congress from the Fourth District of Texas. I wish to thank the Chairman and this Committee for the distinguished privilege of appearing before you. I do not pretend to speak for every gun owner in America-which I understand now number approximately 40 million-but I think I understand generally the feeling of these Americans. I enjoy and take great pride in owning and using guns. I hunt deer, birds, other game, and I can think of nothing I would rather do in my leisure time than engage in the various types of target shooting. There is a genuinely good feeling in heading into the woods and fields-the open spaces where the air is just a little fresher-with your shotgun or rifle at your side. I know none of you gentlemen wish to penalize these law abiding Americans, who, as I, enjoy these pursuits, but under this bill that is exactly what you are doing. You are taking away their guns-and mine. This bill is the first step in disarming America, and the sad part of it is, it does not accomplish its stated purpose. I know this legislation was introduced with the firmest conviction that it was a means of helping to curb crime. I do not mean, in any way, to cast a reflection on the aims or ideals of the distinguished sponsors of this legislation. I merely ask that you take a second look-perhaps first a look backward, and then a longer look forward. A few years ago Congress attempted to regulate crime by abolishing what was shown to be its chief cause-alcohol. It was an accepted fact that 90% of crime was related to alcohol. So then, by abolishing alcohol, we would be abolishing 90% of the crime. Prohibition was clearly the answer. Only it didn't work. As we know, the years of prohibition were some of the most lawless ever known to mankind, and gave birth to organized crime that plagues America even today. No, Gentlemen, I submit that the entire approach of this bill is wrong, and ineffective. This committee has had statistics after statistics thrown at them to prove one point or another. We all know that statistics can be twisted around to prove anything the statistician wishes. I will not be presumptuous enough to quote crime statistics in New York, where the Sullivan Act has been law for decades. I will merely pose one question regarding the use of any statistics from any jurisdiction in America where a restrictive firearms registration act is law: HAS SUCH A LAW EVER CLEARLY DECREASED THE NUMBER OR THE SEVERITY OF CRIMES INVOLVING FIREARMS? I challenge you to point to clear and convincing proof that the approach taken by this bill works. I further challenge you to DEMAND such clear and convincing proof-unimpeachable proof, if you please before taking away from America its right to own and possess firearms. There simply are too many innocent people who will have 77-540-67- 47 their constitutionally guaranteed rights taken away from them to set forth any less a criteria for your action on this matter. It is obvious even to the most casual observer that the criminal mind is very resourceful. The perpetrator of such crimes as robbery, rape or murder will find the means by which to commit his felonies. No laws restricting the sale of gunsno amount of licensing of firearms-will stop him. I favor the approach taken by my colleague from Houston, Texas, the Honorable Robert Casey, who has introduced H.R. 360. I urge this Committee to take a closer look at Congressman Casey's bill, which makes the commission of certain felonies a Federal offense when firearms are involved. The Casey bill regulates CRIME-not just the weaponry of crime. Unfortunately, it is true that guns have been misused. . . but do not forget also that at the same time guns are used to protect the law abiding citizen from those who would prey upon them, robbing, mugging and even killing them. In closing, I ask you gentlemen to again closely examine the existing Federal Firearms Act. During the almost 30 years it has been law, has it worked? I would suggest that we encourage the enforcement of existing law, to strip it of its unenforceable provisions, streamline it, limit it to those parts which clearly are workable. But certainly, do not approve this bill. It will only add to the worries of the law abiding segment of our society. It will not accomplish its desired, and I add, desirable objective-alleviation of crime. Thank you. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAY ROBERTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record my name is Ray Roberts, and I am a Member of Congress from the Fourth District of Texas. I wish to thank the chairman and this committee for the distinguished privilege of appearing before you. I do not pretend to speak for every gun owner in America-which I understand now number approximately 40 million--but I think I understand generally the feeling of these Americans. I enjoy and take great pride in owning and using guns. I hunt deer, birds, other game, and I can think of nothing I would rather do in my leisure time than engage in the various types of target shooting. There is a genuinely good feeling in heading into the woods and fields the open spaces where the air is just a little fresher-with your shotgun or rifle at your side. I know none of you gentlemen wish to penalize these law-abiding Americans, who, as I, enjoy these pursuits, but under this bill that is exactly what you are doing. You are taking away their guns and mine. What is a gun, gentlemen? A 12-year-old boy can make a weapon during the course of one afternoon which would qualify as a "gun," by definition used in this bill, or under any other definition. He simply needs to break off a radio antenna from a car, get an apple crate, nail, rubber band and some tape, and soon he will have a firearm capable of killing a human being at 25 feet. My point is, if someone is bent on crime, he will find the means by which to perpetrate the crime. This bill is the first step in disarming America, and the sad part of it is, it does not accomplish its stated purpose. I know this legislation was introduced with the firmest conviction that it was a means of helping to curb crime. I do not mean, in any way, to cast a reflection on the aims or ideals of the distinguished sponsors of this legislation. I merely ask, take a second look-perhaps first a look backward, and then a longer look forward. |