Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you Mr. Nelsen. Our next witness is the Honorable Arnold Olsen.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ARNOLD OLSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the firearms-control legislation, H.R. 5384, because it is bad legislation. I am sure I am not alone in being reminded of the infamous Volstead Act of the 1920's. There are many similarities between the purposes of the legislation before us today and the Prohibition Act.

Both are designed to protect the large percentage of the population against a small percentage of the population who would misuse the commodity in question. Both would restrict all to achieve a goal of restricting the few who need restrictions. Both would attempt to control commodities which are readily available and which, in fact, can be homemade. Neither commodity-alcoholic beverages or firearmsis looked upon as intrinsically bad by the vast majority of our citizens.

I submit that this legislation would be no more effective than was the Volstead Act in achieving its goal. Would anyone in this room argue that this effort to control firearms would, indeed, be effective in keeping firearms away from an Oswald, a Whitman, or any would-be killer? It is unfortunate, but the old saying, "Where there's a will, there's a way" applies even to those bent on violence-despite such legislative controls as are contained in this legislation. Even President Johnson admits such legislation would be no cureall for the danger of human irrationality and violence in our society.

During the days of prohibition those who chose to violate the law had little difficulty obtaining alcoholic beverages, If they didn't brew it themselves they could turn to one of thousands of bootleggers. And the greatest crime era in our Nation's history followed this ill-conceived legislation which was aimed at making this a better country in which to live.

Not only do I think this legislation would be ineffective, I believe it would lead to stronger legislation on the control of firearms, affecting countless thousands of sportsmen and ranchers throughout the country. It would pave the way for a situation comparable to that which followed the Prohibition Act in which bootlegging of firearms would be rampant throughout our Nation.

I do not think the solution of crime lies in more strict control of firearms or any other potential weapon. Surely knives were used as weapons before the invention of gunpowder. Knives are still used in many crimes of violence, yet it would be absurd to suggest placing restrictions on the availability of knives.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5384 would prohibit any federally licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer from shipping any firearm, including a rifle or shotgun, to a person other than a licensee. Thus, interstate mail-order purchases by unlicensed persons would be forbidden. I would like to comment briefly on this aspect of the bill.

In principle and practice, I strongly object to any law which would prohibit the shipment or delivery of firearms in interstate or

foreign commerce to all persons except holders of a Federal firearms license. The effect of this punitive measure would be to halt the legitimate acquisition of firearms from out-of-State sources in hopes of denying the criminal this avenue of commerce.

We who have spent our lives in the West and have grown up with a gun in the house probably view this legislation differently than citizens raised in the city or in the suburb. We fear such legislation could be easily violated by the criminal and would be a nuisance to the honest citizen.

Proponents of this bill reply to such apprehension by saying that a person wishing to purchase firearms could receive such shipments in intrastate commerce from mail-order firms maintaining retail or catalog order stores in that State, from major firearms manufacturers having branch outlets in that State, or by having firearms delivered from out of State to an authorized outlet in the State. The reasoning is that since interstate mail-order shipments to nonlicensees would be stopped, there would be an incentive for local businessmen to qualify as firearms dealers to supply locally the firearms previously obtained directly from interstate mail-order dealers, importers or manufacturers. Moreover, the supporters of H.R. 5384 are of the opinion the purchaser could select from the catalog the firearm of his choice; the local dealer could procure the firearm for the purchaser from the dealer, importer, or manufacturer.

This rationale, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps sound in theory but woefully lacking in practice. No one commercial outlet handles all of the many models and types of firearms manufactured in this country and abroad. As a matter of fact, I don't know of any dealer in any kind of merchandise who handles every conceivable model, type or style of the merchandise in which he is specialized. The result of this legislation would be to eliminate the small dealer in order to "manage" the smaller number of large dealers for the convenience of enforcement of rules and regulations which the Secretary of the Treasury may deem necessary.

In conclusion, may I state emphatically, the restriction of the shipment and receipt of firearms in commerce to Federal firearms licensees would impose a substantial hardships on many rural or semirural Americans who do not have ready access to licensed dealers. Furthermore, the small dealer frequently found in rural areas carries only a very limited stock which would not meet either the requirements or the desires of a prospective purchaser. Under the terms of this bill, therefore, a farmer or rancher in Montana could not order through the mail even a .22 caliber rifle or a shotgun.

I have always favored strict enforcement of law, and for the most part, I support the President's law enforcement program as announced in his message to the Congress. I heartily endorse the positive recommendations for more manpower, more training and better salaries for our law enforcement personnel. As regards firearms, I think sensible supervision and thorough training are desirable. But I am unalterably opposed to any firearms control legislation which would

impose redtape and restrictions on law-abiding citizens while providing no effective control on the criminal element in our population. Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Olsen. Our next witness is the Honorable Maston O'Neal.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MASTON O'NEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. O'NEIL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present a statement before your subcommittee in opposition to H.R. 5384, the State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967. As a sportsman, antique-gun collector, and defender of my own home, I cannot keep faith with my conscience by supporting any measure which would curtail in any way these rights and privileges.

It is not my purpose to question the motives of the gentleman who authored this bill or my colleagues who have introduced similar legislative proposals. Rather, it is my purpose to question the means being used to accomplish certain goals..

We all agree that deterrents are needed against crimes of violence which are increasing each year in this country at an alarming rate. However, I am of the opinion that the problem lies in the fact that the hands of our public defenders have been tied, and too many criminals are exploiting leniency on the part of our courts to stalk innocent citizens.

This proposed law gives Federal officials the power to impose burdensome restrictions on all law-abiding citizens who sell, possess, or use firearms. The bill, if enacted, would not keep weapons from criminals and maniacs, but it would discourage our law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against marauding savages. Criminal violence will continue in this Nation as long as citizens are discouraged from exercising their rights to defend themselves.

In my humble opinion, the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is an absolute prohibition against H.R. 5384 because such a law would clearly tread upon the specified right of the people to keep and bear arms without any infringement. Congress has no authority to harass the legitimate gun owner. We should, instead, declare war on criminals who illegally use firearms or any other weapon to prey on society.

My service as prosecuting attorney for six counties for nearly a quarter century before election to Congress convinces me that the overshadowing problem in the homicide aspect of law enforcement is the very widespread carrying of handguns concealed on the person in public places. In many areas the saturation point is almost reached. If the police were not so circumscribed by recent interpretations in the fields of search and arrest, untold lives could be spared.

No one can justify a private citizen's use of weapons essentially military in nature.

On the other hand, rifles and shotguns do not make up the problem. The key item is the pistol carried in a concealed manner in a public place.

would not provide protection for the public but would, contrariwise, place the well being of the public in jeopardy. The criminal would be encouraged in his activities, knowing he would be dealing with an unarmed and defenseless citizenry.

Marksmanship training, Mr. Chairman, plays a very important part in the American way of life. Throughout the country myriad gun clubs have as their object the development of skill in target shooting, along with the proper handling and care of firearms. Young boys and men learn how to be straight shooters on target and in life, how to handle firearms in a responsible manner, and how to respect the safety of others. Their elders spend time on skeet ranges or at trap shoots, enjoying these shooting matches at locations safely removed from the cities and their populations.

Men with this background of marksmanship in civilian life have made a great contribution to our Armed Forces, all the way from Colonial America up to the present. All of us are familiar with the fame of Alvin York who-if he had been denied the chance to gain shooting skill by hunting wild turkeys-would not have been able to give such a grand performance against enemy troops in World War I. Individuals with this kind of marksmanship background serve as an "extra reserve," a kind of backup for our National Guard and Reserve forces.

The many hunting clubs throughout America perform in a similar manner, with the interest in hunting coming in company with a keen and constructive interest in the conservation and preservation of our natural resources.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that throughout my life I have been associated with sportsman clubs, and I have never seen a reckless or irresponsible use of firearms by any member of these organizations. More aptly, the membership of these clubs is constantly conscious of the proper handling of firearms, with care and caution being keynotes in gun handling. A true sportsman understands firearms and knows how to handle them, with safe handling of firearms always being a starting point.

The individual States are ideally constituted to carry out an effective gun-control program, for they are close to the root of the problem. For this reason, any Federal legislation that is contemplated should operate to strengthen existing State laws. This could be done by amending the Federal Firearms Act and making it unlawful to sell or ship firearms to any person in violation of any State firearms statute. In conjunction with this, the Federal Government could encourage and persuade the States lacking effective laws to adopt measures that would facilitate uniform enactments at the State level throughout the country. While the lighter firearms could be handled by State statutes, effective controls should be set up for such bulky destructive contrivances as antitank guns, bazookas, silencers, and similar unconventional devices. The National Firearms Act already covers machineguns, and this authority could be amended to cover these other mammoth weapons. Legislation emanating from this committee should meet the requirements of both the public and of the law-abiding private citizen concurrently. The measure should get at the real problem, that of crime, and it must not invade the constitutional right of our citizens, "to keep and bear arms". There are more than 40 million gun owners in the

United States, and the constitutional rights of each one of these must be respected.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate having the opportunity of presenting this statement for the attention of your committee.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Your testimony is greatly appreciated Mr. Goodling. Thank you. We shall now hear from the Honorable Cecil R. King.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CECIL R. KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee and to comment on H.R. 5384. I have a long and intimate familiarity with the history of this gun control legislation. I am deeply interested in it personally, and as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee which, as you know, held exhaustive hearings on somewhat similar legislation in 1965.

As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association of America and a member of its board of directors, I am naturally distressed by the attack on the association made by one witness before this committee which I can describe only as vicious and by the generally widespread inference that the National Rifle Association blindly opposes all efforts to enact reasonable and sensible firearms legislation. Mr. Chairman, I can assure this committee, from my own personal knowledge, that this is not so. Quite the reverse is true. On two occasions, one in 1954 and again in 1960, at the request of the National Rifle Association, I introduced legislation in the Congress to make amendments to and improvements in the National and Federal Firearms Acts. These amendments were arrived at in conference between representatives of the National Rifle Association, other national sportsmen and conservation groups, and officials of the Department of the Treasury, the agency which enforces the Federal firearms laws. In both cases, the amendments were passed by the Congress, resulting in a substantially improved law. In each instance, comments in the press were nonexistent and no one referred to the National Rifle Association as a "powerful gun lobby" for its efforts in improving the Federal law.

Most recently, in 1961, at the request of the administration, the Federal Firearms Act was amended to strengthen several of its provisions. These revisions were found desirable by the Department of Justice and were wholly concurred in and supported by the National Rifle Association.

I would only point out further in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that the parent of the very legislation we are considering today was S. 1975, introduced in the early months of 1963 by Senator Thomas J. Dodd of Connecticut. This bill, Mr. Chairman, was the result of more than 4 years of investigations by the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency. Numerous conferences were held by the subcommittee staff with the staff of NRA and all national sportsmen organizations having an interest in the legislation, and it had their full support. The NRA has never altered its position. The tragic events in Dallas in November of 1963 led to an era of highly emotionalized thinking about guns, and the result has been a succession of introductions, each

77-540-67-51