which state that the ease with which any person can acquire firearms is a significant factor in the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States and that there is a causal relationship between easy availability of firearms and criminal behavior. Testimony has been given before the Senate Judiciary Committee in previous years openly stating that the crime problem in the United States is directly related to the easy accessibility of firearms. There is in the previous testimony in the Senate and in the declaration and findings of H.R. 5384 more than an implication that the only solution to increasing crime in America is to make firearms completely inaccessible and unavailable to the public, rather than to prohibit the criminal from obtaining and possessing firearms or to impose such severe penalties for the mis-use of these weapons in the commission of crime that their use would be unattractive.

We believe that a clear distinction should be made between the types of firearms that are most commonly used in criminal acts. Specifically, we believe the record made in previous hearings conducted by the Senate and by State legislatures does show that concealable weapons, namely pistols and revolvers, are the tools most often used in the criminal trade. We are, however, opposed to the arbitrary prohibition of mail-order sales of rifles and shotguns.

Conversely, however, we believe that the record does not show that sporting arms, namely shoulder-fired rifles and shotguns, are widely used in criminal acts of violence. We do not deny that these types of firearms, the so-called long guns, have been mis-used and have been the instruments of death in assassinations, murders and other homicides. But no one could predict how many of these lives would have been saved or some other instrument used to perpetrate the deed if firearms had not been available, or even restricted under the terms of H.R. 5384, if such legislation had been enacted and were in force at the time. We suggest that firearms control, as proposed under the bill being considered, will have little, if any, effect upon the homicidal tendencies of the maniac, the demented or the persons involved in crimes of passion. If the intent of the law enforcement agencies eventually is to eliminate completely the availability of firearms to the general public, we contend this would be not in the national interest, neither would it resolve many of the social, economic problems which breed an increasing crime rate.

It would seem that the objective of legislation of the type being considered by this Committee is to prohibit the criminal, the juvenile, the demented person from obtaining firearms. Regulations which would require the filing of a sworn statement have not been tried as a means of prohibiting mis-use of firearms without unduly restricting the purchase and possession of weapons by the lawabiding citizen. I am here to suggest that this method be tried before such a drastic measure as eliminating the mail order sales of all firearms becomes a reality.

We believe that in any further enactment of legal controls over the sale, shipment, or ownership of firearms in the United States, you will consider the rights of the law-abiding citizens. In addition to the right to participate in a variety of shooting sports, we strongly contend that there is a right of selfprotection-a right of defending one's life, family and property when all other forms of protection have failed.

I do not propose a return to frontier law and order, nor do I propose any type of anarchy. We do suggest, however, that there are, and always will be, situations and conditions beyond the control of the legally constituted forces charged with maintenance of law and order. Our constitution guarantees every citizen the right of freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These are inalienable rights, won with great bloodshed, sacrifice, and toil by the founding fathers of this great nation. America's true greatness can only be maintained by preserving and protecting these rights. And when duly constituted authorities, for any reason whatsoever, are unable or incapable of defending life and liberty, we believe every American should have the right of his own self-defense. We trust that, in your consideration of this legislation, you can protect that right. It would be tragic indeed if Federal legislation succeeded only in disarming the law-abiding citizens and left them defenseless before brazen criminals or riotous mobs who have already aptly demonstrated no concern, respect, or compliance with law and order.

Crime in America is just as grave a concern to us as it is to you. We pledge our full support to any measure necessary to control and eliminate criminal acts among our citizens. We can and will support any legislation, coupled with efficient and effective enforcement, that will reduce crime. But we suggest that crime is not a firearms problem—it is a social problem. The era of Prohibition 77-540-67-49

should have convinced all of us that the answer to drunkenness is not the banning of the sale or manufacture of intoxicating beverages. We feel, likewise, that the answer to solving the problem of armed crime in the United States will never be found in banning the ownership or sale of firearms.

In my opinion, the American public is just plain sick and tired of mollycoddling the criminal. Court decisions of late seem to abrogate the rights of society in their efforts to protect the rights of the individual. Many of our most heinous crimes are committed by repeated criminal offenders who are out on bail awaiting trial and who should be classed as habitual criminals and eliminated from our society until such time as they have been rehabilitated.

The greatest deterrent to crime is the knowledge that criminal acts will be punished quickly, surely and severely. Couple this knowledge with an increased effort to give all citizens regardless of income and opportunity to obtain an education or otherwise train for a moderately-paying position sufficient to meet the needs of his family and maintain a reasonable standard of living and the crime problem in America would be much closer to solution than if the complete elimination of all firearms became an accomplished fact.

In summary, total control over the accessibility and use of firearms in this nation is impossible. The best possible control any of us can ever hope for is seeing to it that the punishment for criminal mis-use of firearms will be sure, swift and so severe that no reasonable or sane person would ever take that risk. To penalize the great majority of law-abiding citizens in an attempt to control a small minority which is foolish enough to mis-use firearms would be, in our opinion, a grave miscarriage of justice and most certainly not in the American tradition. Acting Chairman CORMAN. We will now hear from the Honorable Glenn Cunningham.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GLENN CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to express my opinion on H.R. 5384, to provide for the control of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce.

The basic purpose of this bill is to control crime, but I think that rather than curbing or significantly reaching crime, the measure will act as a great imposition upon law-abiding citizens.

The uniform crime reports issued by the FBI in 1965 cited the following as most affecting the amount and type of crime that occurs from place to place:

Density and size of the community population and the metropolitan area of which it is a part.

Composition of the population with reference particularly to age, sex, and race.

Economic status and mores of the population.

Relative stability of population, including commuters, seasonal, and other transient types.

Climate including seasonal weather conditions.

Educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.

Effective strength of the police force.

Standards governing appointments to the police force.

Policies of the prosecuting officials and the courts.

Attitude of the public toward law enforcement problems.

The administrative and investigative efficiency of the local law enforcement agency.

Nowhere is the ownership and use of firearms acknowledged as a cause of crime, but this is exactly what H.R. 5384 seeks to establish.

I recognize that there is a crime problem and that we must take immediate steps to eradicate this national disgrace. In accomplishing this, however, care must be taken not to infringe upon constitutional rights, nor should we consider for one mniute a measure which could act to disarm law-abiding citizens and sportsmen.

Gentlemen, American boys are, at this very instant, fighting to stymie aggression in a distant land. Daily we are reminded of the role and importance to the Nation's defense of a citizenry skilled in the use of firearms. Yet, H.R. 5384 omits the exception regarding the 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. This omission could well serve to bring to an end this valuable contribution to our national defense.

If we really want to combat crime effectively, I suggest that we examine some alternate proposals to H.R. 5384.

H.R. 360, introduced by Congressman Casey of Texas, provides a mandatory penalty for the use of a firearm in certain crimes. The knowledge that a stiff sentence definitely awaits anyone found guilty of one of these crimes will cause an immediate curtailment of criminal activities in these areas. All too many crimes are committed by repeat offenders given another chance to terrorize and pillage virtually at will. We have a choice of separating the parasites of society from their prey, or of paying virtually the same monetary price, with the added penalty of suffering the loss of law and order.

H.R. 7174, 7457, and 7467 introduced respectively by Congressmen Morton of New York, King of California, and Dingell of Michigan, seek to place "destructive devices" (bombs, grenades, crew-served military ordnance and similar items) under the tax and registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. There is no use for such items in any sport or hunting activities and their availability can be effectively controlled by placing them under the same provisions as apply to machineguns, sawed-off rifles and shotguns.

A great deal of the present controversy now surrounding firearms and their use centers on the interstate shipment of firearms from a State of few restrictions to a State with many restrictions. This traffic would be effectively controlled under the provisions of H.R. 2839, introduced by Congressman Sikes of Florida. Without banning entirely the interstate shipment of arms, which, for all practical purposes H.R. 5384 does, H.R. 2839 provides that no licensed manufacturer or dealer may ship any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of the State. This would effectively regulate the movement of firearms, while still insuring the small dealer a market and affording persons in the rural inaccessible areas a chance to purchase directly without having to bear the cost of going through an intermediary. H.R. 8645 introduced by Congressman King of California, eliminates the possibility of deceit and chicanery that might be used in obtaining a mail order firearm by requiring that there be a sworn statement furnishing necessary age and character information sent to the seller, who must in turn send the statement to the purchaser's local police.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that this program, as outlined above, would effectively accomplish the desired results without imposing the onerous burdens of H.R. 5384.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham.

Our next witness is the gentleman from Louisiana, the Honorable Speedy O. Long.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SPEEDY O. LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I rise today to speak in opposition to the proposed legislation being considered by your committee to control interstate traffic in firearms under what would be known as the State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967, as set forth in H.R. 5384.

I have serious questions about the legality of this proposed legislation. There is a great deal more involved than the right of this Congress to enact legislation to control and regulate interstate commerce. Rather, there is a much more basic and fundamental right involved here the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms under amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

In one of the few cases in the jurisprudence in which the constitutionality of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 was passed upon by the courts, which was decided by a circuit court of appeals of the United States, on which certiorari and a rehearing were denied and refused by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case entitled Cases v. United States, C.C.A. Puerto Rico 1942, 131 F2d 916, the following statement was made in regard to the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right. (Emphasis added.)

While the court, in the cited case, upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Firearms Act as a reasonable regulation upon the right to keep and bear arms, the significant part of the decision was that the court recognized the right to keep and bear arms, not as a right conferred upon the people by the Constitution, but as a basic right. inherent in the people and dependent upon local control. The object and purpose of the second amendment, the court noted, was not to confer a right upon the people, but rather it was and is a mandate upon the Federal Government not to take away or infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. The court noted and recognized that the Federal Firearms Act definitely and directly infringed upon the right of people to keep and bear arms, although as previously noted, this infringement was not of sufficient gravity to warrant its being declared unconstitutional.

The bill being considered by your committee, H.R. 5384, unquestionably and without doubt, places additional and much more stringent controls and regulations on the right to keep and bear arms by the Federal Government. I am of the opinion that this bill violates the clear mandate of the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution which implores the Federal Government not to take away or infringe upon the basic, inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In addition to the above, there are other and far more compelling reasons why this committee should not report this bill favorably to the House of Representatives.

All of us in the United States are quite concerned about crime, the fact that it is increasing and all of us recognize the immediate and pressing need to do something about it. I am concerned about this to. One of the purported reasons for the enactment of the subject bill is that it would deter crime. I submit that this reasoning is fallacious. The increase in crime which this Nation is experiencing has not come about simply because of a need for additional firearms control laws. The two statutes which regulate firearms in the United States today have been on the books for years-however it has only been in the relatively few years past that crime has become the national and local problem that it is today.

I ask that this committee, in passing upon the merits of the proposed legislation before it today, consider seriously the trend which has developed of late in the field of constitutional law. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in passing upon constitutional rights of individuals under amendments 4, 5 and 6 of the United States Constitution, concerning the rights of persons against unlawful searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, and the right of assistance to counsel, et cetera, all stress and emphasize the liberal interpretation of these rights in favor of the person accused of crime. I refer specifically to the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, 1942, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 367 U.S. 644; Gideon v. Wainright, 1963, 83 S.Ct. 792, 372 U.S. 339; Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 378 U.S. 478; Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, and many others.

These decisions, all dealing with the rights of accused persons and some previously convicted of crime, stress the liberalization of the constitutional rights of such persons under amendments 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution.

But here, in the bill being considered by this committee, the reverse attitude is taken. Instead of stressing and emphasizing the rights of persons to keep and bear arms, persons I might suggest who in large measure may never be accused of crime and who should be entitled to every fair and reasonable consideration in the exercise of their right to keep and bear arms, this bill restricts the free exercise of this constitutional right.

On the one hand, therefore, we have the Supreme Court of the United States releasing convicted criminals and other persons accused of crime simply because of technical constitutional interpretations rendered in their favor, while on the other hand, Congress, by this bill, is attempting to limit and restrict the constitutional right of free and honest, law-abiding citizens in their right to keep and bear arms. The situation, I submit, is incongruous and inequitable. I submit that criminals are walking the streets of America today, not because of their right to bear arms, but because of the handcuffs and limitations which have been imposed on America's law enforcement officers and agencies in the apprehension of criminals and in gathering the evidence to convict the guilty before the bars of American justice.

I am all for preserving and safeguarding the rights and privileges of persons accused of crime as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, however, I am equally in favor of protecting, preserving, and safeguarding the right of all persons, whether or not accused of crime, in their other constitutional guarantees, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms as set out in the second amendment of the Constitution. It would be tragic to sacrifice the rights of one group for those of the other.