arms, subject to local law. Our country has existed with this principle intact since the time of its founding.

Who might support a destruction of this right? We have previously mentioned the group interested in "energetic" innovations in our legal system. Many of the remainder of the supporters of this significant change would be (and are) those idealists who object to all weapons and defense. Today, they propose unilateral and complete disarmament by the United States without matching moves or inspection elsewhere. Spokesmen for some persons of this persuasion have indicated that they object to private arms ownership in the United States, as they feel it to be an obstacle to the realization of their goals. This view could be enacted into our national firearms legislation only covertly, as its assumptions flatly contradict the practical and realistic policies of alert and extensive defensive measures which all of our national administrations have been compelled to adopt since the 1940's. Therefore, these persons propagandize as to the "dangers" and "cruelty" of hunting, and the "danger" inherent in private ownership of arms.

Some individuals have accepted the belief that the density or prevalence of weapons is a key factor in the probability of the occurrence of war and crime. Yet modern history does not confirm their view. Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries primarily rely for their military protection upon universal and compulsory participation in the armed services by a majority of their male citizens. As each male citizen may be a soldier, he takes his full military equipment to his home in time of discharge from active service, to await mobilization. None of these countries have experienced excessive incidence of violent crime, and none of them have given great indication of particularly warlike policies. All of them encourage in one way or another, the private ownership of, and practice with, military weapons. In none of them has anyone made an attempt on the life of the chief of state in recent years.

We can contrast General de Gaulle's France, in which the private citizens are prohibited from owning a weapon of military characteristics, but in which no prohibition, no penalty, no measure, has been able to relieve the General from the threat of attack, and in which at least three attempts with firearms have been made on him with near success within the close memory of most of

us.

The rates of violent crime in France and Italy (which maintains a similar legal approach) exceed those of Scandinavia or Switzerland, and the political histories of these countries do not suggest that having less comprehensive military systems saved them from war. In this area, the history of Denmark is most instructive. Prior to the German attack in 1940, Denmark had just about completed a total unilateral disarmament. The purity of this intention did not cause the German attack to hesitate, and after the lesson of the Second World War, Denmark has adopted a military system on the Swiss and Swedish model.

The current weapon with which every new Swiss trainee is now being equipped is the STG-57, a semiautomatic and full automatic rifle, using 20-round capacity magazines. This weapon is kept in the home by the Swiss reservists, who constitute a vast majority of the male population. Military weapons kept in homes, present no source of alarm to the Swiss, Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian Governments, or their police, and the practice of having a majority of the male population keep their own military weapons has been followed satisfactorily by some of these governments since the turn of the century.

What rationale, based on this experience, can be offered for relating the ease or difficulty of getting a gun to armed crime?

It is interesting to note that our daily newspapers suggest that neither England nor the State of New York has seen any benefit from legislation limiting firearms ownership. The incidence of violent crime in England since 1937, in which year a highly restrictive act of Parliament was passed, has increased and not declined, and in New York, the situation is obviously much worse now than before the passage of the Sullivan Act.

Why is any of the above digression to examine a partially philosophical question necessary? Because the heart of the objection which we have to Senate bill 1975's affidavit provision is that it appears designed, in part, to deter the lawabiding citizen from purchasing a firearm with the threat of an official inquiry. This can be only based on the "no gun no crime" rationale, when viewed contrasted with the total silence of Senate bill 1975 on the subject of punishing any part of the overt act for which the criminal acquires the

weapon. This deterrence is a direct assault upon the principle of maintenance, to a reasonable degree, of an armed citizenry, a "militia." This principle may have an archaic flavor, but it has also remaining important psychological implications on the question of the relationship of the individual citizen to his country.

The idea of a militia is one which defines the duty of the citizen, in the ultimate instance, as the defense of his country by whatever means may be available to him, and takes this aspect of patriotism seriously enough to assure that the means available are at least somewhat equivalent to the need. This concept places the responsibility on the individual, not on the vast, and often impersonal, institutions of the modern state, to which the individual may or may not feel some loyalty. To diminish, to the smallest degree, the sense of community, the sense of direct relationship, between armed citizen and country, will, to an even greater extent, increase the individual dislocation and loss of values which cause the national demoralization which many wise observers claim to detect in the United States of today.

Citizen firearms ownership and training have been, and continue to be, valuable national assets both for defense and recreation. Lack of firearms use and ownership, by either private persons or governments, has not prevented either war or crime. This is why it is our national policy to have a civilian marksmanship program with strong Government support.

To us, part of the answer seems clear. We must deter the criminal from criminal acts, without deterring the citizen from purchasing firearms. We wish that the affidavit provision of Senate bill 1975 could at least accomplish one of the above ends, but it fails on both accounts.

Senator CANNON. The next witness is Mr. La Dow Johnston, president, Ohio Gun Collectors Association.

Mr. Johnston, we are very happy to have you here. I understand you are president of the Ohio Gun Collectors Association and also represent the American Society of Arms Collectors.

STATEMENT OF LA DOW JOHNSTON, PRESIDENT OF THE OHIO GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, TOLEDO, OHIO

Mr. JOHNSTON. And Kentucky Rifle Collectors Association in addition.

Senator YARBOROUGH. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator CANNON. Yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Is that Kentucky Rifle Collectors, is that the genuine Kentucky rifles, or is that the company formed that used the modern replicas?

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Kentucky Rifle Collectors Association is a group of specialized collectors within the field. I like to define a Kentucky rifle as a rifle that has probably been made prior to 1820, when the individual art and the artistry was epitomized in that area. of Pennsylvania, and perhaps Lancaster and York County, in spreading out from there, when those makers made them lock, stock, and barrel, let's say, and there were great artistic merits to them.

After that, when those arms were made by factories such as Leeman started in Lancaster about 1830, the artistic merit declined. They were shooting guns, to all intents and purposes, about the same.

But the artistry which had gone into those fine guns had been lost. and in common parlance today, you might say, that any octagonal barrel rifle with a full stock is called, by those who are not particular about it, a Kentucky rifle-when in fact it isn't-such as the Bedford rifle which was made in Bedford County, Pa., as late as the 1870's, let's say. They still had relief carving on them and they still had some of the attributes of American artistry in them, but they are not

29-119-64- -12

a true Kentucky rifle, although most people call them that. It is a fine point, but collectors are a funny breed of cats, may I say, in some instances. I intend, sir, to read a prepared statement here, but I might preface that statement to this extent by saying that I just wonder how this committee can recommend legislation that will satisfy every gun collector. I think it is an absolute impossibility, and with that thought in mind, the remarks that I shall read here in a few moments are acquainted to the extent that we can obtain some reasonableness that most of the collectors can live with.

Whatever definition you make of a collector's arm, there will, of course, be exceptions to it and the proposition of permitting arms to a collector who is not of ill will, and who will not use that arm for an immoral or illegal purpose. How you are going to define those and still protect every collector, I don't know.

And frankly, it is a matter that I think is of relative impossibility because, for instance, my particular forte in the collecting field is Kentucky rifles. Another man likes military rifles, and he likes everything that the military has produced, from the very earliest, even the French musket the American colonies used during the Revolution and which finally was adopted for the first American musket on the Charleyville pattern.

Senator CANNON. Obviously, most of your acquisitions would have to be obtained in interstate commerce. Let me ask you this: Under the Dodd bill-you heard my discussion just a little earlier with Dr. Atlas-would you believe that it would be unreasonable to file an affidavit setting out the matters concerned therein and having your local law enforcement officer receive a copy of that affidavit?

Do you think that would be unreasonable or not?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Answering your question, if I may say so, the thought of most collectors is that they hate to ask the permission of anyone to buy a collector's arm.

But I realize that, with the unfortunate events of last November, some corrective legislation is indicated. We all want it. What that affidavit should be, personally wouldn't bother me at all. But to answer for a large collectors' group, I couldn't do it. I couldn't answer for them because this man might say, "Well, no, I am most violently opposed to that." Another man might say, "It doesn't make any difference to me at all." But with the problems that confront this committee certainly there are a whole group of facets here that must necessarily be considered-how you are going to approach it? As I said a while ago, you are never going to come up with anything that every collector or every gun enthusiast can live with. There will be exceptions to it. The man who wants a modern military arm wants the latest and will try to get them. I like to get them before 1820. But as far as I am personally concerned, that affidavit wouldn't bother me one whit. I would be perfectly willing to make such an affidavit.

If I may proceed with this prepared statement, which I understand has been distributed to the members of the committee

Senator CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSTON. My name is La Dow Johnston from Toledo, Ohio. I am president of the Ohio Gun Collectors Association, an organization with slightly less than 3,100 members from all of the 50 Statesincidentally that is the largest gun collector's organization anywhere.

Senator MCGEE. FCC has tried to cut down on commercials, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Pardon.

Senator MCGEE. We are trying to cut down on commercials by the FCC. I am wondering if you

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am hoping we will be given poetic license. I am also president of the Kentucky Rifle Collectors Association. We have a couple hundred members; it is a specialized group.

Senator YARBOROUGH. By the way, Mr. Chairman, isn't there a publication in Louisville somewhere, Kentucky Gun Magazine, by this Kentucky Rifle Association?

Mr. JOHNSTON. We have no publication.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What organization is it in Kentucky that does publish a gun magazine?

Mr. JOHNSTON. The National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association with headquarters in Shelbyville, Ind., publish a magazine called Muzzle Blast.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This is one on the newsstand, not one of the big publishing companies, but there is a magazine published about antique arms.

Mr. JOHNSTON. There are several of those but I know of none published in Louisville.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Pardon me.

Senator MCGEE. Another one published in Kentucky, however, by a director of the John Birch Society, is antique.

Senator CANNON. You may proceed, sir.

Senator McGEE. His name is Tom Anderson.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am also a member of the Michigan Gun Collectors Association with a membership of slightly under 1,000, and a member of the American Society of Arms Collectors with a nationwide membership of approximately 300 specializing in rare arms.

While I am an attorney by profession, I am also by avocation acutely interested in prehistoric American archeology and in the collecting of muzzle-loading arms. I am appearing here as an interested hobbyist, not as an attorney representing anybody.

Legitimate collectors of antique firearms cannot find fault with the intentions of this committee or the purpose behind the legislation that is being considered by this committee. However, S. 1975 as presently amended will cause gun collectors a great deal of unnecessary difficulty and inconvenience. I do not think that such difficulties are desired by Senator Dodd as he seeks to curtail the ease of accessibility of firearms to the criminal element and the juvenile malcontent. I do not feel that this committee will disregard the rights and privileges of the law-abiding gun collector by enacting a scatter-gun type of legislation that would embrace all gun fanciers. Anyone that is familiar with the hobby and/or business of gun collecting is aware of the many business transactions in antique firearms between fellow collectors. Many items change hands on numerous occasions during a single year. Buying and trading are the lifeblood of gun collecting. Much of the business is handled by mail or common carrier. I strongly object to any inclusion of antique firearms, directly or indirectly, in the legislation that is being studied today.

Under the terms of the existing Federal Firearms Act, antique firearms are exempted from the provisions of that act by the wordsthe provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the transportation, shipment, or receipt of any antique or unserviceable firearms, or ammunition, possessed and held as curios or museum pieces * * *.

It has long been the contention of collectors that the exemption for antique guns is vague in application because of the lack of any definition of "antique" firearms. Since neither the Federal Firearms Act nor the pertinent part of the Code of Federal Regulations defines "antique" per se, many collectors feel that these weapons could be considered firearms in the same manner as modern day weapons and, therefore, would be subject to the provisions of Senator Dodd's bill as most recently amended.

Antique firearms, in some Government circles, are considered to be weapons older than a certain date in time, such as 1898. From a gun collector's point of view, there are many firearms of contemporary manufacture that qualify as valuable collector's items by virtue of the history of a particular weapon or its origin. There are also many replicas of antique firearms that are being manufactured at this moment. While these replicas do not have the same value to the collector as the true antique firearm, many are true copies of the original weapon. These replicas are not capable of discharging modern ammunition, yet are considered to be modern firearms by some Government agencies by virtue of their date of manufacture.

If I may digress for just a moment from this prepared statement, I happen to like to shoot those old arms and we have an association that has a couple of shoots each year down in Friendship, Ind. Last fall we had about 700 registered shooters there and no arm is fired except a muzzle-loading arm.

We found by experience that if we are interested in good target shooting, we cannot have that old rifle refreshed-the bore freshened out and cleaned up-because the steel that was in it had no known analysis and the steel might not be proper, so those who are interested in shooting muzzle-loading arms build new weapons so they know the quality of the material that is in them and thereby increase accuracy.

For instance, I happen to possess 11 brand new guns, which, if I want to shoot every event on that program, each fall, it requires 11 arms to do it and I, for some reason or other, have them.

Continuing now with this statement, gun collectors find it difficult to understand why antique firearms are mentioned together with unserviceable firearms in the general exemption mentioned above. Unserviceable weapons are those that have been rendered inoperable by welding, barrel plugging, or other methods under Government supervision and direction. The value of a firearm to a gun collector is destroyed by such deactivation processes. Therefore, antique and unserviceable firearms cannot be equated as far as the collector is concerned.

Those firearms falling within the scope of the term "antique" weapons are highly prized by collectors and enthusiasts as specimens of a bygone era. They mark stages in the development of small arms through the process of experimentation, trial and error, and plain American inventiveness. Their sole value today lies in their his