Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. SCOTT. There are periodical notifications that the permit holder must appear at the station house with his guns to be inspected and this must be complied with promptly.

About once a year a police officer comes to the applicant's house and examines the guns on the premises and checks each serial number. The inspections at the police station and at the permit holder's home usually must be attended to during the business hours of the day and not all people are situated so that they can afford the time for that

purpose.

All this paperwork and administrative procedure consumes a large amount of the citizen's time and, in addition, costs him money and is a great inconvenience, hardship, and annoyance.

Moreover, when the applicant dies, his guns immediately are taken by the police, without any compensation to his estate, and seldom are they ever seen again; they are dumped at sea as a method of destruction, as required for all guns which are unlicensed under the New York law; and I am informed that a certificate is made to that effect to evidence compliance with the requirements of the law and departmental regulations. It is a matter of speculation whether all of them are thus destroyed but I could not make any affirmative statement about that. I believe there are many people who reserve their doubts about it.

I desire at this time to give you certain examples of the harsh and unjust way the registration law in the State of New York operates. I have before me a copy of a letter dated January 7, 1964, from Harry H. S. LaFond of 165 Broadway, New York City, to Edward S. Silver, district attorney of Kings County, a copy of which was sent to me after I had participated in a television show on Sunday, January 5, 1964, at 11:30 a.m. on WCBS-TV, concerning the problem of firearms control. This letter recounts in a simple but effective way the problems of an ordinary citizen in keeping a registered gun. This letter

states:

For over 15 years I carried a pistol and a permit for my work for the Higgins Co. here necessitated my going very frequently to piers, etc.

It got harder and harder each year, and most expensive. In my many years, at least 15, I furnished photographs, fingerprints, and letters from six reputable men as to my character, and then I decided finally that it was becoming a nuisance and more and more expensive, and that eventually the Police Department would, literally, have hundreds of my photos and fingerprints and got along without the permit for I gave up the pistol. This I sent to my son-inlaw who lives in New Jersey, owns a home and is permitted to have a pistol at home for self-protection. The police here, however, went so far as to have the chief of police at my son-in-law's home call on him to examine the pistol had sent him, compare the number, etc., and advise the police department here. I was treated from beginning until past the end as a thief or criminal. I was born and have lived in New York all my life, 85 years, and have never been accused or tried for any sort of a crime.

Also, I have a copy of a letter dated December 6, 1963, from Wallace S. Hayes, of 1990 Seventh Avenue, New York City, and copy of a recipt for $20 as a license fee. This letter shows that his application for license was filed and not acted upon during a period of approximately 14 months. That letter states:

Herewith attached is a receipt showing that on October 5, 1962, I filed an application for a pistol permit giving this reason "Being a member of the National Rifle Association (Washington, D.C.) and of the Eureka Rod & Gun Club Inc. (Mount Vernon, N.Y.), I want to be legally protected while carrying a pistol to and from target practice."

29-119-64-11

Fourteen months later apparently no action has been taken thereon as to date no pistol permit has been issued to me.

An interesting situation which illustrates vividly the wrongful manner in which the Sullivan law too often is used against the citizen causing him unnecessary and irreparable hardships is the case of People v. Noel Wilmot, a house painter, who after a day of hard work, was on his way home carrying his paint brush in his pocket. While he was crossing the street at an intersection, a motorist turned the corner, apparently a little to sharply, and came near striking Wilmot.

The motorist stopped and Wilmot stopped and there was an immediate confrontation of these two people who had never seen each other before, but who immediately had and expressed different ideas about the traffic situation they had created.

An argument ensued and the motorist claimed that Wilmot struck him on the head with the paint brush, but Wilmot denied this charge, claiming that the motorist had done whatever striking had occurred. A policeman was in the vicinity and Wilmot was arrested and was charged with assault and carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of the Sullivan law-to wit, that he carried a paint brush. He was tried and convicted.

On appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department in Brooklyn, the conviction under the Sullivan law was reversed on December 17, 1962 (18 App. Div. 2d 695; 236 NYS 2d 11). This case is an example of how the law enforcement agencies use or misuse the Sullivan law to the disadvantage and embarrassment of the citizen who never should have to undergo the ordeal of a trial, conviction and appeal under the Sullivan law.

Our experience in New York with the Sullivan law has been so unfortunate that any registration law at any level of goverment is considered undesirable and unacceptable. We have pending now in New York City Council a bill to require the registration of rifles, introduced by Councilman David Ross, of Bronx County. This bill is meeting strong opposition. We are hopeful it will be defeated. We feel that it is unnecessary and undesirable and, moreover, that the city council has no right to pass such a bill where there exists a State statute on the general subject of firearms regulation which speaks as clearly concerning what it does not cover as concerning what it does

cover.

Typical of the type of strong opposition there is to this bill is a resolution of a well-known post of the American Legion in New York City dated January 16, 1964, a copy of which I have before me. This resolution reads:

Whereas the John Purroy Mitchel Post No. 208 of the American Legion is vitally interested in preserving the traditional rights of American citizens to possess and use firearms for lawful purposes and

Whereas a bill has been introduced in the city council to require the registration of rifles and other similar bills are anticipated: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the John Purroy Mitchel Post No. 208 of the American Legion is opposed to the bill introduced in the city council for the licensing of rifles and any bills similar thereto and believes that such bills do not assist in the prevention of crime and consequently do not serve any useful purpose but impose unreasonable and unnecessary hardships upon good citizens.

You will observe that this resolution states the opposition of the post to the bill pending in the city council or any similar bills and

states the reasons for the opposition. I submit that these reasons are valid and that they should have your serious consideration in relation to any proposed Federal law.

Inherent in every registration or licensing law is the terrible specter of confiscation when for any reason the registration or license is terminated, whether by illness, death, or other causes. Guns that are turned in to the police on the termination of the license are confiscated and seldom are seen again by the people who own them or their personal representatives. There is presently no provision in the New York law which would permit them to be retained in safekeeping as an asset of an estate after the licensee dies. I have several times proposed such an amendment of the law but always there appears to be determined opposition to it.

It is my belief, based on the experience we have had under the Sullivan law in New York, that a general registration law goes a long way to disarm the good citizens but not the criminals, and that such a law would be a misguided step toward a police state, which would be a great mistake in a free country such as the United States of America.

I ask you in all earnestness, as distinguished lawmakers in this great Nation, to reject and disapprove all proposals for a general registration law for guns. Such a law would be an unnecessary hardship on the millions of law-abiding gun owners throughout the country and would accomplish nothing in the interest of public safety. Laws proposed under the police power for the public safety should be directed against the unlawful use of guns and against the criminals who commit the crimes.

Senator CANNON. Mr. Scott, you have made a very good statement and you certainly make a very eloquent argument against the Sullivan law and the administration of it. I am happy, after hearing your argument, over the fact that this committee had nothing to do with it.

Is it true that it is relatively easy for a person to illegally buy a gun in New York if they are willing to pay two to three times its real value?

Mr. SCOTT. I cannot give you a responsible answer in reply to that question because I don't know the facts. I have heard many stories, secondhand, thirdhand, or fourthhand; hearsay. I would not know what importance to attribute to them.

But I would say this: That in many other fields, where something is wanted, it is not unusually hard to find a black market for it. I think the greatest source of illegal guns comes from stolen goods, guns that are stolen and passed around.

But in the newspapers recently, I can give you this bit of information. They found a man, I think it was in Brooklyn, who was renting guns for holdups. Go over and rent one from him. Now I wish I could answer your question more, but I do believe this, and I think this is even a better answer to it, that if a criminal wants a gun, he can always get it-if not within New York, nearby.

Senator CANNON. Mr. Scott, keeping in mind that this bill does not require registration in its amended form, and that it does at least require notification to the local police officer, do you think that the bill is not a good bill, or is it a good bill?

Mr. SCOTT. I can answer your question very readily on that.

The bill had a great deal of consideration, at the National Rifle Association and Committee on Firearms Legislation, of which I am a member. The officers of the association have made certain proposals which have been accepted and as I understand the bill in the amended form, it is acceptable to the National Rifle Association.

Senator CANNON. And that expresses your personal view also? Mr. SCOTT. My personal view is identical with that of the National Rifle Association.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions.

Thank you very much for a good statement.
Senator CANNON. Thank you.

That concludes the hearings today. The hearings will recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearings in the above-entitled matter were recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., January 24, 1964.)

INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF FIREARMS

FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 1964

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10:05 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable Howard W. Cannon presiding.

Senator CANNON. The committee meeting will come to order. We will proceed this morning to hear additional witnesses on S. 1975 and S. 2345, bills to amend the Federal Firearms Act.

The first witness will be Dr. Gerald D. Atlas, accompanied by Mr. Leslie E. Field, representing Shore Galleries, Chicago, Ill.

Dr. Atlas, Doctor, we are happy to have you here and have Mr. Field with you, and you may proceed as you desire. Dr. ATLAS. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. GERALD D. ATLAS, M.D., OF SHORE GALLERIES, CHICAGO, ILL., ACCOMPANIED BY LESLIE E. FIELD

Dr. ATLAS. By way of introduction, I am Dr. Gerald Atlas, a practicing physician in the city of Chicago, and director of medical services for Chicago Park District.

I am a gun collector, have written numerous articles on gun collecting. My primary avocation is that, as I said before, of a physician, married, have three children, one of them a student at the University of Illinois.

I am representing the Shore Galleries, Mars Equipment Co., and the Centennial Arms Co. I was disturbed somewhat at some of the provisions of this intended legislation. However, basically, I think that as an individual and as the representative of the concerns mentioned before, we agree primarily in the desire to keep guns from the possession of incompetents, minors, and criminals.

I believe we also have in common the desire to protect our constitutional rights and a common desire to prevent guns from being used for criminal purposes.

We also, I believe, have a desire to prevent prejudicial discrimination against any groups or individuals. I think on these basic points, there is very little contention. One of the disturbing factors is the affidavit required in Senate bill 1975 in which it is necessary for an individual, who wishes to purchase a gun through the mails or through a mail-order service, to file an affidavit which, in turn, must be sent to the principal law enforcement officer.

In itself, it sounds as though this would not be harmful. However, I can see no provision here which necessitates the law enforcement officer to investigate this particular affidavit.

« AnteriorContinuar »