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.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Neal. We will now hear from the Honorable Robert D. Price.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. PRICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, and fellow Members of the 90th Congress, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in regard to H.R. 5384. I am concerned about this bill, and I assure you that my constituents in the 18th District are gravely concerned. By way of explanation, I might point out that my district composes the northern portion of the Texas panhandle, made up by and large of farmers and ranchers. Of course, there are metropolitan areas in my district as well. The mail that I have received concerning this bill is completely against its theory and its passage in the House of Representatives. This I can easily understand, and I am here to explain why I feel so and why I believe the heavy mailing that I have received in opposition to this bill is completely justified.

We have had laws which deal with this subject on our statute books since the thirties. I am repeatedly informed by the members of the bench and the bar that these laws are not being enforced. This leads me to the inescapable conclusion-and I pass this on to you for thoughtthat we do not have a gun problem in this country, but, on the contrary, we have a crime problem. More importantly, we have a problem with strict enforcement of the laws that we have always had, both nationally and locally.

If we do not enforce what we have had since the 1930's by way of the Federal and State acts as they are presently constituted, how can we expect enforcement of H.R. 5384? For that matter, and what I believe is of extreme importance to this Congress, why in the world would anyone bent on criminal behavior pay one moment's heed to a single provision that is contained in this or any other bill or law that we have had? It is for this reason that I say to you in all sincerity that we have a crime problem and not a gun problem. It is a well known and established fact that a firearm never committed any sort of a crime.

A great many of my constituents purchase their firearms by mail. They have predators which kill their stock in the form of prairie wolves and coyotes. A great majority of them are also sporting hunters, helping to harvest a portion of our game animals before Mother Nature takes her annual toll, which incidentally is far in excess of those harrested by hunters. A great number of them order their firearms by mail from distant places. Many of them are extremely talented amateur gunsmiths, and I might add that there are a number of gentlemen from my district who have been noted marksmen in the history of this country, several of them having been former national and world record holders. Section 922 of this bill will positively prohibit their acquisition of firearms by this mail, parcel post, or express company method. I have been advised that the definition of "firearm" would even prohibit any of them from ordering very fine, high-grade actions from which

they build fine accurate rifles. This seems to me to be completely unnecessary in any approach that will be taken by any governmental body to reduce crime.

In passing, I will add that there are provisions of this bill which could be of some assistance to us in certain areas of our crime problem. I am speaking particularly of the attitude of this bill toward destructive devices, such as cannons, bazookas, etc. However, I am mindful that this bill is proposed as an amendment to the Federal Criminal Code; and I am mindful that we have before us the National Firearms Act regulating fully automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. I believe that these destructive devices could well be controlled by amending that act to include such instruments, and I particularly have in mind the bill introduced by my colleague, Hon. Frank Horton, of New York, in the form of H.R. 7174.

In conclusion, may I thank you gentlemen for the opportunity to present my views on this subject, and I urge you to reject this bill completely.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Price. We will hear from the Honorable David Pryor.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. PRYOR. I am gratified for this opportunity to set forth my views on the firearms control bill (H.R. 5384 and S. 1). First of all, upon careful examination of the contents of this measure it is my opinion that an unjustified hardship would be imposed on many sportsmen who would find that mail-order gun purchases would become almost prohibitive under this proposed legislation.

Also of vital importance in the consideration of these measures is the matter of the Congress granted entirely too much discretionary authoriy to the Secretary of the Treasury. We have seen the Congress, in many instances, delegating authority to various agencies and arms of the Government, waking up later to find that that authority has been vaguely defined and in some instances arbitrarily carried out. In this instance we find that the Secretary of the Treasury is vested with the sole authority of deciding who shall or shall not purchase certain firearms by mail.

There is a great hue and cry across America to do something about the rising crime rate. I join many other concerned Americans in our present dilemma with regard to meeting this problem head-on and using all of our resources to combat this terrible problem, but I do not feel that either of the bills under consideration (H.R. 5384 and S. 1) would curtail the problem of crime. In particular, I do not believe that any criminal or anyone with criminal intent would be denied the use or access of firearms under these measures. In effect, if enacted into law, either of these measures would, in my opinion, ultimately cause more problems than they would cure.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Pryor. Our next witness is the Honorable Al Ullman.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE AL ULLMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement on H.R. 5384. I know of the concern of my dear friend, the gentleman from New York, that meaningful legislation be presented in this field. However, I submit that the bill before you today does not accomplish its announced objectives and merely duplicates controls already established in the Federal Firearms Act.

Permit me to review a few provisions of the Federal Firearms Act, enacted in 1938, which this bill in effect repeals. The Federal Firearms Act has effectively controlled commerce in automatic weapons and sawed-off rifles and shotguns and is a useful tool in regulating nonsporting firearms and "destructive device."

I quote from section 902, subsection (c), of the 1938 law:

It shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer or dealer to transport or ship any firearms in interstate or foreign commerce to any person other than a licensed manufacturer or dealer in any State the laws of which require that a license be obtained for the purchase of such firearm, unless such license is exhibited to such manufacturer or dealer by the prospective purchaser. (emphasis supplied)

This statute clearly provides the mechanism for limiting interstate transport of firearms; it gives to the several States the responsibility for regulating the sale and transport of firearms. To the best of my knowledge, the States have not sought relief from this responsibility. Indeed, I know only of resolutions sent to the Congress opposing the enactment of this legislation. I submit that H.R. 5384 raises a serious question of unwanted Federal interference in an area which has heretofore been left to the prerogatives of State governments.

I am deeply concerned that we make all reasonable efforts to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. The Federal Firearms Act stipulates the following:

Section 902, Subsection (f): It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or is a fugitive from justice to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this chapter.

As is evident, the United States Code leaves no doubt that a criminal is prohibited from receiving firearms transported in interstate commerce. If this law has proved inadequate in the past, perhaps what we need is more effective enforcement instead of a new statute.

Mr. Chairman, as you and the members of this committee know, I represent a geographically diverse district which encompassess 71,000 square miles in the State of Oregon; the population is widely scattered, and towns are few and far between. The strict provisions of H.R. 5384 work a real hardship on law-abiding gun users. Because of high mountain ranges and traditional commercial patterns which transgress State lines, many of the residents of eastern and central Oregon shop almost exclusively in out-of-State towns and cities. The restrictions on nonresident purchase of firearms and interstate transport of firearms in effect prohibit these Oregonians from buying guns for sport or hobby.

As I understand the purpose of H.R. 5384, this legislation is regulatory and not revenue producing. However, the dealer license fees recommended in the legislation appear to be much higher than in other comparable commercial enterprises. Serious attention must be given to this aspect of the legislation.

Finally, I note that the current proposal omits the provision of the Federal Firearms Act which permits the shipment of firearms to organizations and individuals approved by the Secretary of the Army. Since 1903, the Secretary has supervised the civilian markmanship training program of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice. I am pleased to report of the many successful projects of Isaak Walton Leagues and rod and gun clubs of the Second Congressional District which have provided a valuable civic service by teaching the youth of Oregon proper handling and respect for firearms.

Mr. Chairman, I have not attempted today to propose alternatives to a vexing national problem which the President has labeled "Crime in the Street." I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that this is a problem which deeply concerns all parts of our country. However, I cannot endorse restrictive legislation which unnecessarily prohibits law-abiding citizens from engaging in a sport and a hobby which they enjoy.

H.R. 5384 is not a realistic solution to the problem of crime in the streets. I urge the committee to consider the serious questions I have raised today before recommending this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, before I close, I should like to point out that the Congress has before it a balanced program of additional firearms controls which avoids many of the problems outlined above and protects the legitimate interests of sportmen and gun hobbyists.

The program consists of new legislation in three general areas1. A bill to provide a mandatory penalty for the use in the commission of certain crimes of firearms transported in interstate

commerce.

2. A bill to provide that no license manufacturer or dealer may ship any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that State.

3. A bill to place "destructive devices" (bombs, grenades, mines, crew-served military ordnance, and similar items) under the tax and registration provisions of the Federal Firearms Act. This three-part approach is embodied in H.R. 360, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casey); H.R. 2839, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Sikes); H.R. 7174, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton); H.R. 7457, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. King); and H.R. 7467, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Many of our colleagues have entered companion bills to these legislative proposals. The National Rifle Association has testified in support of this approach. I thoroughly endorse this three-part program as realistic and meaningful legislation in a very difficult area.

Thank you for permitting me to present today this testimony on H.R. 5384.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Thank you Mr. Ullman. Our final witness for today is the Honorable John M. Zwach.