"I have also written numerous articles and a recently published book, "The Right To Bear Arms,' in which I have expressed my deep concern of how firearms, improperly acquired and handled, have been responsible for a veritable and uniquely American plague."

And from that statement, it sounds to me like you are saying that every single firearm that was involved in any of the 800,000 deaths, was improperly acquired or handled.

I wondered, what kind of information do you have to support that contention?

Mr. BAKAL. Well, I cannot imagine a firearms homicide, suicide or accident being the result of the proper acquisition or handling of firearms. Maybe we are differing on semantics, but they are all the result of the improper handling or acquisition.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Well, I disagree very strongly with your logic there. Accidents can be accidents; but let me ask you this:

From what source did you obtain your figures, both the 750,000 figure in the book and the 800,000 figure on the first page of your statement?

Mr. BAKAL. The sources are all in the appendix of the book. If I may get the book, I can read them for you.

Well, the combat fatalities of course, are from the Department of Defense.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Are you including in that figure, combat fatalities? And then you go on to say, and you quote: "535,000 American soldiers killed in all of our wars ***" Are you including that figure?

Mr. BAKAL. No, sir. That is not included, no.

Mr. RAILSBACK. All right. That is aside from combat fatalities. Mr. BAKAL. The 800,000 do not include combat fatalities.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Then the Department of Defense would not be involved?

Mr. BAKAL. No, sir. The other figures, the home front fatalities, are all Government figures primarily from the Division of Vital Statistics of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Are you aware that J. Edgar Hoover in a letter to Gun Week dated November 1, 1966, said that his Bureau does not have any reliable figures or estimates on the total number of Americans killed by firearms since 1900?

Mr. BAKAL. I am not aware of that statement, but his Bureau is just concerned with firearm homicides and so would not have figures on firearms suicides and accidents. I should also say that homicide records were not kept before 1910 and the figures we do have, represent in the early years, only represent-pardon me?

Mr. RAILSBACK. Simply estimates?

Mr. BAKAL. Not estimates. As I point out in my book, they represent certain areas of our population. As the Government facilities increased, they included more and more of the population, but I believe it was not until 1930 or so, that statistics were gathered from the entire population. And so this bears out that these figures are minimal. If more complete figures were available, the figures would be much higher.

Mr. RAILSBACK. But your source then, is HEW, and they have reached statistics that you cite in your book and also in your statement. Mr. BAKAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Now, what gun laws do these foreign countries have that you cited in your statement, as having a lesser per capita death rate?

I think you mentioned Japan.

You mentioned Canada.

What kind of gun laws do they have?

Mr. BAKAL. Well, Japan prohibits entirely the private ownership of handguns. Handguns cannot be bought by a civilian in Japan. If you are over 20, you can buy a shotgun or a rifle for hunting but it must be registered and checked annually by the police.

In Great Britain, you also have to get a police permit to buy a shotgun or rifle. You can get a handgun, too, but that is much more difficult there.

Similar restrictions apply in virtually every civilized country in the world, and so actually, the issue, in my view, is very simple and it is this: Do we feel it should be wrong for a criminal or a mental incompetent or a dope addict or a drunk, do we feel it is wrong for him to be able to walk into a store or buy by mail, a gun with no questions asked?

This is the situation that exists now almost everywhere in the United States. If we feel that this is wrong, what can be done about it? And the answer, I think, is very simple: To have laws similar to those of other foreign countries-every bit as freedom-loving as we are-to have laws similar to those that already exist in some areas of this country.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Let me ask you this question.

What statistics if any do you have on mail-order sales of firearms on an annual basis?

Do you have any statistics?

Mr. BAKAL. I don't recall offhand, but I think the last figure I read was about a million a year. I could be wrong, but that is the figure that sticks in my mind.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Do you know from what source that statistic was developed?

Mr. BAKAL. I believe it was the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee, but I am not sure.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Are you primarily concerned about keeping guns out of the hands of narcotic addicts and the incompetents, and other persons that might be able to use the weapon in a hazardous manner? Isn't that primarily your purpose?

Or would you prefer to see gun sales prohibited altogether?

Mr. BAKAL. Oh, not at all. Not at all. I simply feel, as the President does, as the American Bar Association does, as the chiefs of police do, that guns should be kept out of the hands of people who are most likely to misue them. That is my only interest.

Mr. RAILSBACK. And you could support then, legislation other than the bill-other than the Celler bill-if it was able to accomplish that purpose, to keep guns out of the hands of those people that are most apt to misuse them?

Mr. BAKAL. Oh, by all means! I heartily endorse the Celler bill, as far as it goes, and I concur completely with the views of the 19 experts on the President's Commission on Crime.

My views are no different from those.

Mr. RAILSBACK. That is all.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Mr. Bakal, I must say in all fairness, that the vigor with which you criticize the National Rifle Association is characteristic of the statements made by opponents of this bill before the U.S. Justice Department.

We have two more witnesses. I don't want to cut off counsel but we do have two more witnesses and our time is short.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Mr. BAKAL. Thank you, sir.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Mr. Robert T. Dennis.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. DENNIS, ASSISTANT CONSERVATION DIRECTOR OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. DENNIS. Mr Chairman, I have a prepared statement. I ask that it be included fully in the record.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. I will certainly make it a part of the record at this point.

You may proceed, if you care to summarize it and respond to questions.

(The statement of Mr. Dennis is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman, I am Robert T. Dennis, Assistant Conservation Director of the Izaak Walton League of America. The League is a nationwide organization of citizens dedicated to wise and proper management and use of the nation's natural resources. As is true of other conservation associations, the League's membership base is constituted of sportsmen. We estimate that more than 80% of our members own firearms; they use theirs in accordance with the law. We therefore have considerable interest in firearms legislation, and appreciate the opportunity to discuss the subject with you today.

At the outset, we should like to make a clear record of the fact that we assume no particular competence to forecast the overall beneficial effects of enactment of any firearms bill. League membership is a cross-section of law-abiding citizens, not criminals-we believe we can judge how legislation in this area would affect socially responsible people; we are not able to determine the extent to which it would control irresponsible actions. However, it is certainly true that many of our members hold the opinion that, were private ownership of firearms totally outlawed effective tomorrow, the criminal element of our society would continue to have and misuse guns-and that only responsible citizens would suffer from such legislation.

League members fully support the goal of reducing crime in the United States. We certainly hope that experts on the subject of criminal misuse of firearms are correct in believing that more stringent firearms controls will help alleviate crime, for it seems evident that some further controls will be adopted-and we will be most disappointed if their only result is to inconvenience socially responsible Americans.

Mr. Chairman, we are sure of but one fact in the area of firearms controlthat the public is considering at various levels of government innumerable proposals carrying innumerable variations in language, all of which were presumably drafted as being the ideal approach to recognized problems. It is virtually impossible for the average citizen to fully analyze these proposals. But it is interesting, and perhaps of considerable concern, that most of them are directed entirely at the inanimate firearm rather than at the misuser of that firearm. Rather than attempt specific and deailed comment on the many bills being considered by this Congress, the League believes it would be most constructive to dicuss in general terms firearms control measures which it would support, and those which it would not support. However, we note at this time that the Izaak Walton League opposes enactment of H.R. 5384 as presently written.

Mr. Chairman, Izaak Walton League members support firearms control proposals which would:

(1) Provide and require enforcement of strict penalties for criminal misuse of firearms. Many League members have indicated a conviction that H.R. 6137 and similar bills outline in principle the most rational approach of recent years to the whole firearms problem. The person to punish is the criminal, not the decent citizen.

It seems clear that if any new firearms control law proves ineffective, proposals for even more restrictive legislation can be reliably predicted. We note in this respect that the comments of various proponents of H.R. 5384 seem to indicate their hope that it will be only the beginning. We believe it much more sensible to "throw the book" at the criminal than to inflict unnecessary penalties on the law-abiding gun owner.

(2) Drastically restrict traffic in, and strictly regulate individual ownership of operable machine guns, bazookas, antitank guns, land mines, and similar paraphernalia of war, as well as sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, silencers, and similar paraphenalia of crime. We see no overriding reason for the average citizen to own and operate such devices. We are as concerned as anyone else about the reported proliferation of private armies outfitted with such devices.

We therefore endorse the "destructive devices" controls of H.R. 5384. We ask, however, why legislation concerning such devices cannot be considered as a separate title or separate bill-as has been proposed by several members of the House.

We see no point in mixing handguns, rifles, and shotguns in the same category with war and gangster weapons. We respectfully suggest that the goal of achieving reasonable control of concealable weapons, rifles, and shotguns would be more readily attained if they were not lumped with other categories of weapons in one highly restrictive firearms bill.

(3) End bulk imports of cheap firearms, particularly handguns, which have no value for sporting, target, or home-protection purposes. We support the purpose of the section of H.R. 5384 beginning on line 11, page 25, but not its language. We would want clear assurance that the Secretary of the Treasury could not arbitrarily refuse import of high quality rifles, shotguns, and handguns, or of surplus military weapons suitable for sporting and other legitimate purposes, particularly if modified. Finally, we believe that the bill should be worded so as not to require that American citizens have a permit from the Secretary to bring home any personal rifle, shotgun, or handgun acquired during foreign travel or military service; declaration of such items for customs purposes ought to be adequate.

(4) Prevent gun sales to the recognizably irresponsible and the insane, and to convicted criminals. A resolution on this subject adopted by our 1964 Annual Convention is quoted below. In our view, an affidavit procedure (H.R. 867 and others) would achieve this goal insofar as mail-order sales are concerned.

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Whereas, the citizen's primary right to keep and bear arms is clearly set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America; and,

Whereas, any general requirement for the registration of firearms, for approval prior to purchase of firearms, or for other type of firearms control, by police or other public agency, would constitute infringement of that right and a step towards its eventual dissolution; and,

Whereas, misuse of firearms is the fault of the user and not of the firearms themselves; and,

Whereas, the right to keep and bear arms is occasionally abused, particularly by the insane, by the misguided and the irresponsible, and by the criminal element of our society; and,

Whereas, the right to keep and bear arms is also a privilege: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Izaak Walton League of America in convention assembled this 27th day of June, 1964, at Davenport, Iowa, That it strongly opposes any effort to require the general registration or other control of firearms by the police or other public agency; and, be it further

Resolved, That the League supports efforts to prevent gun sales to the irresponsible and the insane, and to convicted criminals, so long as any control mechanism is subject to appeal to the courts; and, be it further

Resolved, That as the primary and most logical effort to control the misuse of firearms, the States and their political subdivisions should adopt and strictly enforce laws establishing severe penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of any crime, or for flagrant misuse of firearms in any way.

(5) Prevent gun sales to juveniles, unless parental consent is clearly demonstrated.

We point out that firearms responsibility comes at no particular age. Just as there are men of 35 or 50 years who employ firearms improperly, there are boys and girls of 10 or 12 who measure up in every respect to the highest firearms use standards. Many children of this age receive excellent training and are safe shooters. They share pleasures afield with their parents. In short, they are responsible gun owners.

We agree that children under the age of 18 should not be permitted to purchase and possess firearms except with the knowledge and consent of their parents. But we would not prevent gun ownership or use by juvenile citizens.

(6) Reduce traffic in stolen weapons, and in weapons from which serial numbers have been removed.

(7) Require clear notice that firearms are contained in packages being shipped or mailed.

(8) Raise manufacturers', importers' and dealers' license fees to levels which cover the reasonable cost of processing license applications, such processing to include appropriate inquiry into the character of the applicant. We are not qualified to advise this committee as to the optimum levels of such fees.

We do note that H.R. 5384 directs the Secretary of the Treasury not to issue a license if he judges the applicant "is, by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connections, not likely to maintain operations in compliance with this chapter." We feel that overly zealous interpretation of this provision would make it impossible for any newcomer to enter the firearms business. We point out that much of America was built by inexperienced persons starting an industry "on a shoestring." We feel that the only criterion for refusing a license should be clear evidence that the potential licensee would not operate in accordance with the law.

Mr. Chairman, League members would not support legislation which would: (1) Outlaw individual ownership or responsible use of firearms. None of the bills being considered by the Congress fall into this category.

(1) Make it impossible for decent citizens to purchase sporting quality handguns, rifles, and shotguns of their choice. We have heard the argument that H.R. 5384 would not have this effect.

But we wonder if a total ban on interstate mail order sales would not in fact make it extremely difficult or impossible from a financial standpoint for individuals to acquire certain types of firearms. Should a person desire a particular firearm for which there is little demand, it is possible that local outlets would not care to open dealerships in that firearm. Furthermore it is possible that Federal action banning interstate mail order sales might encourage state action to terminate such sales intrastate. And it seems certain that H.R. 5384 would make it difficult for a person to have a sporting firearm custom-built to his personal specifications by a firm located outside his State.

(3) Make it difficult or demeaning for a respectable citizen to purchase ammunition of his choice.

(4) Require registration of firearms. We do not object to present law and regulations requiring dealers to maintain detailed records of firearms transactions-including name, address, firearm description and serial number-but we do object to registration as such.

(5) Require prior approval or licensing by police or other authority of firearms purchase by citizens. There is no reason whatsoever to subject the law-abiding citizen to such provisions.

(6) Make it impractical to obtain necessary or desirable repairs, reworking, and modification of firearms. We feel that H.R. 5384 is not satisfactory in this area, in that it leaves unresolved the questions of service procedures.

(7) Make it unduly burdensome for a person to transport a firearm from one State to another for lawful purposes. H.R. 5384 is, to say the least, confusing in this regard.

There is no question but what the situation affecting personal transport of firearms is already confused. It would seem that no one ought today to attempt an auto trip from Washington to Maine with a gun in his possession without first spending months of research on State and local firearms laws enroute. Other

77-540-67- 48