Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, SCRANTON, PA., Chairman, Subcommittee No. 5, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: President Johnson's message to Congress on Febrary 6, 1967 proposed that Congress pass certain anti-gun legislation and licensing similar to the Sullivan law in New York. Senator Thomas J. Dodd has introduced bill S-1 in the Senate and Congressman Emanuel Celler has introduced bill HR 5384 in the House of Representatives. The Dodd-Celler bill mention above is known as the "State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1967" and concerns itself with the sale, shipment, and use of firearms and ammunition. As a law-abiding citizen who loves good guns, who enjoys hunting, and who is concerned about the safety of himself and his family because of the criminal acts of others, I wish to state my views to you concerning this subject of guns, criminals, and law enforcement. I am very much against any kind of federal, state, or local gun legislation which infringes on the constitutional right of a law-abiding American citizen to purchase, own, transport, and use firearms for legitimate purposes. I oppose legislation such as the Sullivan law in New York State, and the relatively recent anti-gun law passed by the City of Philadelphia which does nothing to prevent a person who wishes to disregard the law from obtaining a firearm, but makes it either impossible or extremely frustrating for a person to purchase, own, and use a firearm for legitimate purposes. A gun by itself has never killed anyone. A gun is a perfectly harmless instrument unless it is used improperly. We all know that no matter what restrictive gun legislation may be enacted, if a criminal or potential criminal wishes to obtain a firearm with which to commit a criminal act, he will not hesitate to obtain one through any means, legal or illegal. Therefore, gun legislation directed at the purchase, ownership, transportation, or legal use of firearms hinders no one except the law-abiding citizen. If we take the position that guns are dangerous because some people are killed by their use, is it unreasonable for us to take the same position concerning ice picks, poison, automobiles, knives, or clubs. I don't feel that I am being ridiculous about this-the whole point being that it isn't the instrument that is used which in itself is dangerous, but the person using the instrument. It is my opinion, and I am sure that you know that it is the opinion of many others, that a tougher attitude on the part of parents, the courts, parole boards, and the public in general towards those who commit illegal acts will do considerably more towards the deterrent of crime than any sort of legislation that can be enacted which hampers and frustrates the purposes of law-abiding citizens. I refer you to a bill already introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Robert Casey of Texas known as HR 360 which provides mandatory prison terms for those who commit certain criminal acts while armed with a firearm. My only objection to this bill is that it doesn't go far enough in that the weapon should not be restricted to firearms. However, I am in favor of a bill such as this. I am also in favor of a bill regulating the interstate or foreign commerce in firearms in contravention to the law of the state in which the firearm is being sent. HR 2839 introduced by Congressman Robert Sykes of Florida is such a bill. In summation, I take exception to the preamble of the Dodd-Celler bill which states in effect that crime is so prevalent among juveniles in this country because of the easy availability of firearms. I respectfully submit that criminals or potential criminals, juvenile or otherwise, would be considerably more reluctant to commit a crime if they knew that their punishment would be sure, swift, and severe. As things stand in this country today, both you and I know that certain Supreme Court decisions, certain technicalities in present laws, and public apathy have tended to favor the position of the criminal, have tended to insubordinate the rights of the law-abiding citizen, and as a result the criminal or potential criminal feels that he can get away with criminal acts with either little or no punishment. This, in my opinion, is the crux of the crime situation in this country today. 77-540-67-52 I am in favor of action, legislative or otherwise, which would subject people who commit crimes using any kind of a weapon to punishment which would be more sure and more severe than presently seems to be enforceable. I am opposed to HR 5384 or any similar legislation. Further, I request that my opinions as set forth in this letter be included in their entirety in the official record of the hearings on HR 5384. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. HOFFMAN. STATEMENT CONCERNING H.R. 5384 SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. Referring to H.R. 5384 and its narrow and discriminatory concern with firearms and their potential for being used as instruments of violence, the enormity of the problem of so-called lethal weapons and the fallacy of the proposed solution as set forth in the aforementioned bill was dramatically presented to me in the following manner. Recently, at my place of employement, a worker had need to borrow from a co-worker a draftsman's compass. Briefly, such a compass is an instrument normally used to draw circles or arcs around a fixed point and consists of two legs hinged together at one end. The two opposite free ends contain, respectively, a piece of pencil lead and a steel needle point. Upon returning the borrowed compass, the worker, in an impromptu and innocuous manner, referred to the instrument as a "lethal weapon." That very same evening, on a popular television program two ordinary household items, a pair of scissors and an electric iron, were depicted as being used as instruments of violence to do harm to human beings. The conclusion is obvious that objects are not, or do not become, lethal in their own right but require human activation to make them so. Therefore, many objects other than firearms can be used as weapons. Unfortunately, H.R. 5348 does not serve to effectively reduce the availability of weapons, generally, and therefore cannot be considered a valid, objective anti-crime measure. A more positive approach would be to increase the penalties for crimes wherein a firearm is used, thereby placing guilt upon the criminal, rather than requiring the legitimate buyer or merchant to continually prove his innocence through various restrictive administrative devices. In addition, it is suggested that the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act be strictly enforced. Respectfully, ROBERT NYE, PENNSYLVANIA GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, April 1, 1967. STATEMENT TO HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON HR 5384, CELLER BILL This Organization represents a cross-section of Pennsylvania gun-collectors, dealers, hunters, shooters, sportsmen and gunsmiths, many of whom are veterans of recent wars, and all of whom place a high value on their right to arms which is guaranteed to them by both State and Federal Constitutions. We feel that these rights are infringed by HR 5384. We disagree with the preamble to HR 5384 and, in particular the claim that easy availability of firearms is a factor in the increase of crime. Crime is caused by the criminal and is largely due to failure to enforce present adequate laws and laxity of the courts. We object to having our right to firearms decided by the police i.e., the vesting in any police department the right to approve or prohibit our ownership of firearms for legal purposes. This legislation is designed to make it difficult if not impossible for the law abiding citizen to enjoy ownership of firearms and could be a large step toward elimination of private ownership firearms. To ask the law abiding citizen to accept harsh and restrictive regulations such as these during an increasing national crime wave, while ignoring the criminal who causes it, is too much and for these reasons we protest HR 5384 and trust that your Committee will reject it. ROBERT C. SмгTH Jr., President, WASHINGTON ARMS COLLECTORS, INC., In opposition to H.R. 5384 Hon. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5, Washington, D.C. HON. CHAIRMan and MembERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: It is requested that the following statement in opposition to Bill H.R. 5384 be incorporated into the official record of your subcommittee's hearings: H.R. 5384 is being unalterably opposed by our organization for the reasons enumerated below, which are self-evident and which vitally affect the interests of all gun collectors organizations, all target shooters organizations, all sportsmen-hunters organizations and, in the final analysis, those of the 40 million gunowners in the United States and their families: 1. Firearms laws have no relation to, nor bearing upon, incidence of crime, as exhibited by the New York Sullivan Law, which was enacted in 1911 and during the strictest enforcement of which during prohibition days of the 1920's and 1930's beer runners, in fast cars, shot each other up in all 5 boroughs of the city. In additional confirmation of its ineffectiveness, during the last 6 years, murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidence gradually increased from 50 cases per million of population in 1960 to 78 cases per million of population in 1965. 2. Firearm laws have no effective bearing on keeping firearms out of the hands of undesirables, who obtain them mostly through theft and burglary. 3. Less than half of crimes of violence are committed with firearms (statistics of F. B. I.) and firearm laws are inherently useless with regards to their alleged crime preventative capacity even with reference to that half. 4. Firearm laws through red tape, waste of time and humiliating procedures deprive the law-abiding citizen of means to exercise his common-law right to self defense against an armed criminal, while more than half of the State Constitutions spell out the right of the individual to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and his home, without any reference to militia service. Therefore any infringements (including any and all restrictions, licensing or registrations) are in violation of the majority of State Constitutions. 5. With undermanned police cruising in distant squad cars, the one and only deterrent to an armed criminal, who is also understandably no longer afraid of arrest and courts, is the armed citizen. The hideous murder of the 8 nurses in Chicago would have been prevented if one of them had a gun and used it (the killer had no firearm). The wholesale murder of 13 women in Boston by the "strangler," over a period of two years, would have been prevented if his first victim had a gun and used it. There are records of thousands of cases during the past 20 years where armed citizens thwarted and prevented crime. Contrary to the assurances of proponents of firearm laws, such laws definitely do disarm the average lawabiding citizen, (we are not referring to a sportsman, who will fight his case in court) and definitely do not disarm the criminal, thereby AIDING, ABETTING and ENCOURAGING CRIME in the "unsafe streets." 6. With specific reference to Federal Firearm Laws, not to mention numerous other features of Bill H.R. 5384, including that of $1000 unconstitutional taxation of revenue producing "license fees", its denial to private citizens of their constitutional property rights of selling personal valuable or rare firearms to other private citizens through interstate shipment, except through "Federal Dealers" at a large loss of value, is in clear violation of the A. Fifth Amendment in depriving them "of property without due process of law", particularly in estate settlements, B. Tenth Amendment in exercising "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" which "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" and C. Second Amendment in "infringing" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". 7. The only bills aimed directly at the commission of armed crime itself and NOT at firearms of the law-abiding citizens and NOT violating the U.S. Constitution and 70% of the State Constitutions are the Bills of Honorable Bob Casey H.R. 360 and H.R. 6137 and of Honorable Robert L. F. Sikes. These, and only these Bills, do we recommend as deserving your wholehearted approval and enaction into Law. Very truly yours, By direction: WASHINGTON ARMS COLLECTORS, INC. A. A. de CARRIERE, Chairman Legislative Committee. STATE OF WASHINGTON HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 30 To the Honorable Lyndon B. Johnson, the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled: We, Your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, most respectfully represent and petition as follows: Whereas, There is pending before Congress, the Dodd Bills, known as S. 1591 and S. 1592, relating to regulation and registration of interstate firearms sales; and Whereas, This legislation, if enacted, could; (1) Deny private citizens their constitutional property rights of selling personal valuable or rare firearms to other private citizens through interstate shipment; (2) force private citizens to sell firearms in interstate commerce only to dealers at a property value loss; and (3) infringe upon the constitutional right of private citizens to keep and bear arms; Now, therefore, Your Memorialists respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to take great caution not to enact any legislation relating to the regulation and registration of interstate firarms sales which would tend to infringe upon the aforementioned constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. Be it resolved, That copies of this Memorial be transmitted to the Honorable Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each member of Congress from the State of Washington. [Excerpt from radio address recorded by Senator Allen J. Ellender for broadcast over WWL, New Orleans, May 1, 1965] GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION I am receiving a great deal of mail in reference to the so-called gun-control legislation now pending in the Congress. My mail has been uniformly in opposition to these measures, and I am inclined to share the view that strict, nation-wide gun control regulations are unneeded at this time. It seems to me that this nation has too many legitimate sportsmen who would be affected and hindered by adop tion of legislation aimed at correcting a few isolated abuses, although these abuses often receive a great deal of publicity. Laws are already on the statute books giving the federal government control over illegal interstate shipments of arms and ammunition, and it would seem to me that these laws would be applicable to control the few unscrupulous gun dealers who do most of their business through the mails. These are the sources of many of the abuses, and where they are carrying out activities on the fringe of legality, I believe the necessary and called for action should be taken by the State and Federal authorities. But I do not believe that nation-wide gun-control legislation is either necessary or justified. As I said, its adoption would be inimical to the great multitude of law-abiding sportsment we have-not only in Louisiana, but in all states which still have within their boundaries large areas of open fields, hills, and great quantities of wildlife. April 4, 1967 WABASH VALLEY GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman Committee on Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. STATEMENT OF WABASH VALLEY GUN COLLECTORS' ASSOCIATION DEAR MR. CELLER AND MEMBERS OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I am writing to you on behalf of, and as President of the Wabash Valley Gun Collectors' Association. The Wabash Valley Gun Collectors' Association, Inc., is an Illinois Corporation, having a membership of approximately 1,000 persons, which is comprised of gun and arms collectors, hunters and sportsmen, and other individuals interested in guns, arms and related sports and hobbies. These members reside in various states; the majority residing in Eastern Illinois and Western Indiana. On behalf of our organization, I would like to express to your Committee our unanimous opposition to the House Bill (HR 5384), on which your Committee is now holding hearings, and all other similar bills pertaining to gun restriction or regulation in any manner. The reasons why our association opposes these bills are as follows: First, our present National and Federal firearms acts completely cover lawful and unlawful use of firearms. Any further Federal control of firearms is totally unneeded and uncalled for. We recommend honest and strict enforcement of our present laws against all criminals instead of more new complicated gun legislation which would harass the legitimate gun collectors, hunters, target shooters, and sportsmen. Second, to stop the imports of cannon, bazookas, antitank rifles, and machineguns, etc., etc., we have the Mutual Security Act of 1954 which gives the President of the United States authority to stop these imports at any time he sees fit. We recommend that he use this authority instead of asking for more. Third, we are of the opinion that present proposed gun legislation could, and in all probability, would lead to total gun registration restriction and control. It is a matter of historical fact that a disarmed people is a helpless nation and easy prey to an aggressor and criminal. As Brigadier General Rafael Ileto, who leads the 3,000-man Constabulary force fighting the Huk Communists in the Phillipines says: "If you are the only man with a .38 in the barrio that barrio belongs to you." Fourth, we believe the proposed bill, and others similar to it are founded upon the false premise that firearms themselves are the cause of crime and violence. The true fact is that the cause of crime and violence is the criminal person, not the instrument which he chooses to use to carry out his purposes. The criminal is not only more determined and capable of circumventing any gun registration or restriction laws, but is not bothered by the fact that he is not complying with them. The elimination of guns in the hands of the legitimate public merely makes the criminal possessed of a weapon, a more terrible, stronger and fearless lawbreaker. Fifth, the proposed law seeks to prohibit the mailing, shipping or selling of firearms across State lines. This would seriously hamper gun collectors residing, as do many of the members of our organization, in close proximity to a State line from legitimately trading or selling to each other. It is inconceivable that prohibiting Mr. A in Illinois from selling or trading guns with Mr. B in Indiana, who resides 10 miles away; while permitting Mr. A in Illinois to sell or trade with Mr. C in Illinois, who resides 200 miles away, and is unknown to Mr. A, can have any effect in a reduction of a crime rate in America. We sincerely hope and request that you and your Committee will not be influenced by the hysterical and panicky attempts brought about by the recent publicity given the murder of President John F. Kennedy to pass the numerous anti-gun bills. Such bills will have no effect on those who use guns for unlawful acts, and will merely remove the deterrent of possible defense of habitation or person from the mind of the would-be criminal. Yours very truly, GEORGE E. HANCOCK, President. |