more restrictive and each, in my opinion, more unwarranted than the last. It is time we got back to a reasoned approach to this problem, and it is my hope that this committee will do just that.

On Monday, April 17, Mr. Chairman, I introduced in the Congress H.R. 8645. This is substantially the original bill which started this long succession of hearings. It has been tempered somewhat by evidence submitted at these and previous hearings. It is directed at concealable firearms which, from a preponderance of the testimony, appear to be the weapon in need of additional controls. It is the product of the combined reasoning of many competent and dedicated organizations for a period extending over the last 5 years. In my opinion, H.R. 8645 will do what the administration has asked for; and it will not interfere in any way with the purchase and ownership of firearms by honest citizens for legitimate purposes. This bill, combined with H.R. 7457, introduced earlier to control "destructive devices," should correct the problems before you for consideration.

I commend this proposal to the committee's attention. I believe you will find in it the solution to many of your problems.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. King. We will now hear from the Honorable Ancher Nelsen.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANCHER NELSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, today we are considering an act to regulate firearms. This becomes a controversial and perplexing problem chiefly because it is a subject which immediately brings to mind crime and the use of firearms for crime; only secondly does it elicit the idea that there are purposeful and constructive uses for firearms. Besides the subject of crime, there is perhaps no domestic question which brings forth more concern, more emotions, more wrath, and more speeches. The only constructive actions that will be taken on the crime problem are the ones that receive rational and studied thought, and not the ones that attempt to placate the emotions of the moment.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the Nation's attentions became focused on firearms legislation after the assassination of President Kennedy. It was a traumatic, tension filled day for the Nation; and a few men can call it to mind without also bringing up emotion laden experiences of the hour. We look back to the object that was the focal point of the hour, and we see the photo of the murder weapon. We react and say, "If only he didn't have the rifle."

Emotions lead one to grasping at the first solution to a problem that comes to mind. The immediate answer, though, is seldom the best answer or the most effective.

The proposal before us today would among other things, ban the sale of mail-order firearms, but unfortunately there has nowhere been shown that this impediment to commerce in firearms would have any real effect on the individual's intent on using them as criminal weapons. The common thug can inevitably obtain a stolen, pawned, or secondhand gun, if he desires one.

We talked here about firearms and crime but I would like to change the course of discussion from the instrument used in a crime to the criminal.

What are the prime considerations of a criminal when he decides he is going to act illegally? He asks himself what will be his rewards, what are his chances of getting caught; and if he gets caught, what will be his penalty. When he thinks of this last variable, "What will be the penalty?", the criminal considers whether he will be penalized more for one crime than another with the same or similar rewards, and, gentlemen, it has been shown that he will usually choose the combination with the least penalty and the greatest rewards.

As my friend, Congressman Bob Casey of Texas pointed out, "Armed robbery of post offices, which hold large sums of money are generally unguarded, carries a mandatory 25 year Federal sentence. There were but 66 such robberies last year. Armed robbery of a bank carries a lighter sentence-from suspension to a maximum of 25 years, depending upon the leniency of the judge. There were 1,070 bank robberies last year. But the severeness of the penalties is reversed on burglaries. Burglarizing a post office carries a light penalty of up to 5 years, plus a fine of up to $1,000. Burglarizing a bank carries a stiffer penalty of up to 20 years and a fine of up to $5,000. It is obvious the criminals know-and avoid-crimes with stiff penalties. Last year, they burglarized 1,763 post offices and only 467 banks.

These statistics reveal that there is a definite correlation between the penalty and the crime committed. Some proponents of H.R. 5384 scoff at this fact, but of their theory, I have seen little cogent or convincing proof. So then, when we find that the perpetration of a crime is an anathema, it should be punished accordingly.

Congressman Casey has introduced a bill that would be aimed at the criminal and not at the weapon he may use. The bill is geared to greatly discourage the use of firearms in not only robbery, but assault, murder, rape, burglary, kidnaping, and homicide, other than involuntary manslaughter. He would require sentences in such crimes in the first offense for not less than 10 years, and not less than 25 years for the second offense.

The problems that focus on the armed criminal involve primarily the repeat offender. Page 28 of the 1965 Uniform Crime Report compiled by the FBI from the case histories of nearly 135,000 criminal repeat offenders, states:

This entire sample had an average criminal career of more than 10 years (span of years from first to last arrest) during which they averaged five arrests, 2.4 convictions and 1.5 imprisonments.

In its "Profile of Known Repeaters by Type of Crime" the report

states:

Repeating the same crime was highest for the narcotic offender, 53 percent, the burglar 48 percent, the gambler 47 percent *** 33 percent of the robbers repeated in robbery. For the crimes against the person-murder, rape, and felonious assault-the rate of repeating in the same crime is considerably lower than for the property offenses.

The report goes on to note the high degree of leniency that is granted even in light of the high level of repeat offenses. "The frequency of leniency action in the form of probation, suspended sentence or parole ranged from 38 percent for the murderers to 55 percent for the burglars."

After these statistics drew the surprised reaction of many it seems that the FBI then did a followup study over a 2-year period on 6,907

offenders who were released between January and June of 1963. They found that "Fifty-nine percent of the burglars, 70 percent of the auto thieves and 64 percent of the robbers repeated, as did 65 percent of the narcotic offenders and 49 percent of the forgers."

The responsibility of the Government in crime prevention is not being fulfilled when we are experiencing this astounding rate of repeat crimes. Until it is shown that our prisons are actually effecting a constructive change in their inmates, those inmates must stay in the prisons. The Casey bill will help put offenders in prisons and away from society, for an extended period of time. It is unfortunate in this age of scientific and technological achievement that we must resort to the ancient means of prisons to keep our society safe from criminals, but when progressive sociological leniency results in such an overwhelming percentage of repeat offenses, we must reexamine our penal system.

H.R. 5384 is a well written bill but unfortunately, it is one that will not only be largely ineffective, but one that will cause innumerable problems.

Let us look to history for an example. The reign of terror that followed the French Revolution was brutal and criminal, but it would hardly have been stopped by restricting commerce in guillotines. So, Mr. Chairman, a crimewave cannot be stopped by restricting commerce in firearms. Unlike the guillotine, however, the vast bulk of firearms are owned by citizens whose only offense perhaps will be that they go out to the countryside to hunt on a brisk fall day instead of staying home to put up the stormwindows.

Gentlemen, I do not mean to make light of the seriousness of the problem, or of the proposal before us. There is another and more sombre reason we should not inhibit the free commerce of firearms and that is personal protection. While we must leave the vast bulk of protection to the police, commonsense tells us that the extra margin of protection in the possession of a firearm should be made easily available. As we all know, there are high crime areas where it could happen that the police may be busy or several minutes away, and particularly in these areas, the "deterrent force" in a small firearm can be the difference between economic security or disaster, worse, life and death.

There are, however, legitimate areas where the sale of firearms could be regulated. I would hope your committee would study the possibility of recommending prudent measures to prohibit mail-order sales of firearms to minors, felons, and narcotic addicts.

I would like to affirm four points relative to this morning's topic, they are:

(1) That H.R. 5384 and similar proposals will cause undue hardships and undue restrictions of freedom;

(2) That H.R. 5384 is by and large a measure that does not provide a real solution to the problem;

(3) That the present firearm statutes need reform in the area of mail-order sale to minors, felons, and narcotic addicts; and

(4) That the approach of the Casey bill, to provide greater penalties to crimes were firearms are used is the preferred approach to the problem and one for which I urge your support.

Thank you.

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