Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

felon, the person that is a habitual violator, who is hauled into court constantly, has spent perhaps a third of his life in the penitentiaries, and yet he is out to roam the streets over and over again on just little technicalities, because we have one more law constantly that overlaps some other law.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, of course, these laws are passed by representatives of the people to secure the rights of all people. Mr. BEERS. This is true.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And we protect constitutional rights, and we have police schools and train the law-enforcement officers in people's rights and you have to enforce the law and protect personal rights

at the same time.

Mr. BEERS. Incidentally, if I may, Senator, I have a letter from the sheriff of our county. May I have the privilege of reading it? Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes.

Mr. BEERS. It is addressed to the Senate Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., and it is dated January 28, 1964.

GENTLEMEN: I wish to express my opposition to current bills concerning gun registration. The Dodd bill, in particular, has caused me some concern.

I feel morally obligated, as do most of my fellow officers, to make every effort to enforce the laws of our country. Many laws now on the books are most impracticable, if not impossible, to enforce. The obligation to set up a registry, plus the necessary investigation of persons buying guns by mail, would necessitate an expenditure of manpower and money completely out of balance with any worthwhile gain. It is not the weapons that are the cause for concern, but the type of person that can and will use a weapon to break our existing laws. The person who will use a gun to violate existing laws will in no way be deterred by any law concerning that weapon. The law is only as strong as the punishment meted out for its violation.

In my opinion, there is a definite need for severe minimum punishment for violations concerning crimes against the person by use of guns. I feel this is the way to turn, rather than another law depriving our good citizens of their rights and privileges.

I trust you will consider, most seriously, the necessity and value of the proposed legislation.

Sincerely,

G. A. AYARS, Sheriff.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That will constitute a part of the record also. Mr. BEERS. I also have an article entitled "A Kind Word for Guns," by Richard Starnes, that I would like to submit for the record. Senator YARBOROUGH. We will make that a part of the record. Thank you, Mr. Beers.

(The above-mentioned article is as follows:)

[From the New York World-Telegram and the Sun]

A KIND WORD FOR GUNS

(By Richard Starnes)

Predictably and unfortunately, the antigun lunatics are seizing upon the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a simple excuse to propagate their peculiar bigotry. A firearm was the weapon that took the life of the Nation's Chief Magistrate; ergo, all firearms are inherently wicked and should be denied to all Americans.

This issue, sad to say, is not likely to be decided by reason. Emotion demands that some scapegoat be found, and indications now are that the man who enjoys a round of skeet or a tramp in the woods after a deer will be the victim of choice. The fact is, of course, that no gun law has ever been devised that could keep weapons out of the hands of individuals with criminal intent. New York's Sullivan law is the most apt case in point, for there is not one shred of evidence that

it prevented anyone from obtaining a weapon for illegal aims. On the contrary, it has prevented many people from keeping handguns for target practice or the protection of their homes and businesses.

It is nonsense to suppose that the madman with murder on his mind is going to be dissuaded from his foul deed by the momentary inconvenience attending the purchase of a suitable weapon. Texas law prohibits murder, just as Dallas law prohibits discharging a firearm within the corporate limits, and neither injunction saved Mr. Kennedy.

Recently, hearings were held on a bill that would have made it a crime to own certain classes of weapons in the Nation's Capital.

The earnest chaps who devoutly believe it is possible to legislate away human wickedness all bore witness in behalf of the measure, but it was not until Washington's able Superintendent of Police, Robert V. Murray, testified that any element of logic entered the proceedings. Here is what Chief Murray said: "If I felt that we could take the guns out of the hands of the criminal with this bill or any other bill, I would be a hundred percent for it. But if a criminal is going to set out to hold up a place or assault somebody with a gun, the [law against] carrying of a gun is not going to deter him. He is a criminal anyhow, and he cannot lawfully possess a gun. So a law on the books that he cannot

have a gun in his possession is not going to deter him.

"It may be argued that any legislation that would reduce the number of pistols in circulation would substantially reduce the number of aggravated assaults. The argument rests upon two mistaken premises. First, it assumes that restrictive legislation will prevent criminals from obtaining guns. The fact is that experience has shown that legislation such as the Sullivan law does not reduce the number of pistols in the hands of criminals. Second, the argument assumes that handguns are used in most aggravated assaults, whereas the fact is that pistols are used in only a small percentage of assaults."

The same arguments hold against the growing clamor for registration or other restrictions upon sorting firearms. Honest people would comply, of course, but villains who plotted to murder Presidents would not. What, then, would such legislation accomplish, other than to inconvenience the honest hunter or skeet shooter? A year ago, a burglar stole a fine fowling piece from a locked cabinet in my home. Would he have then complied with a law requiring him to register it in his name?

Moreover, we have seen in New York City (as we saw in the early days of Vietnam) how determined criminals can manufacture effective firearms out of radio aerials, bits of gas pipe and other catch-as-catch-can materials. Bathtub gin was a poor substitute for bonded goods, but during prohibition it did the job.

All that can be accomplished by the wave of antigun hysteria that is now being fanned by poorly informed organs of opinion is to hand some chinless bureaucrat another means of depriving 20 million American hunters and/or target shooters of a portion of their liberty.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Our next witness is Mr. Darrel Peeler, Lexington, N.C.

STATEMENT OF DARREL PEELER, LEXINGTON, N.C.

Mr. PEELER. Thank you, Senator Yarborough, and thank you for the privilege of appearing before the committee.

I should begin by identifying myself. I am Darrel Peeler. I am a private citizen, a engineer by profession. My interest in this bill comes from my hobby, which is modifying firearms, making them shoot more accurately by mechanical changes and the use of handloaded ammunition.

I am not here representing any group, although what I am about to say is probably typical of the people whom I know who are interested in this problem.

If I may, I will read through my statement and then I would like to amplify it just a little bit on a couple of points.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You may proceed in your own way.

Mr. PEELER. If the objectives of the Dodd bill are to reduce the number of crimes involving firearms and to discourage the possession of firearms by undersirables, then I approve of those objectives.

The difficulty is that the bill, as presently written, will put unreasonable bureaucratic restrictions on the student, the experimenter, the collector, and the shooter of modest means without appreciably hampering the criminal or undesirable in obtaining weapons. I know from my own experience that any person who requires a firearm can obtain it by purchase, trickery, or theft.

The thing which we should penalize is not the possession or lawful use of firearms, but the accidental or criminal misuse of firearms.

The key to preventing accidental or criminal misuse of firearms. is safety and marksmanship training from childhood. In my youth, every boy in the community grew up to respect firearms and use them well. None of these boys were ever involved in a shooting accident, none were delinquent, and none became criminals.

Unfortunately there are no easy ways to prevent criminal use of firearms. My experience suggests the most effective means are to identify the actual or potential criminal, to discourage him from possessing firearms, and to put heavy additional penalties on crimes involving firearms.

This would include penalties on the possession of firearms by designated persons, such as persons convicted of a crime of violence, drug addicts, and habitual drunkards.

I do not suggest that such penalties would stamp out crime, but they would lessen the number of crimes involving firearms and would give us another means of isolating criminals.

The objection has already been raised that legislation in this area is reserved to the States. Some States now have such legislation, and doubtless others would follow where the need exists.

So far I have said that the proposed Federal legislation can do little good and considerable harm, and that more effective legislation is reserved to the States. What, then, can the Congress do to reduce the number of weapons falling into the hands of unsupervised juveniles, for example?

First of all, the Congress should realize that the vast majority of persons who order firearms by mail are law-abiding citizens, and that most dealers are honorable men. They should not be subjected to unnecessary redtape or harassment.

I suggest the following as a reasonable arrangement, and one which would be as effective as the proposed legislation:

1. Mail-order customers would furnish the dealer a simple statement, which need not be notarized, similar to the one presently proposed. I can see no advantage to the notary seal, since the notary could not in most cases detect criminal intent.

2. If the item being ordered is a concealable weapon, the local police would be notified as in the proposed legislation. This provision is personally repugnant to me, and I doubt its effectiveness, but I see no better alternative.

Now Mr. Avery and Mr. Beers both outlined what seemed to me good reasons why this would not be an effective provision. But I would try to live with it, if it does come into being.

3. Much of the remaining problem can be solved by voluntary limitations by the dealers themselves and by advertising media. Progress

29-119-64- -18

is already being made in this direction, and no new legislation would be required. Dealers can make reasonable efforts to determine that a given customer is stable and of age, and they can refrain from advertising in media designed for the young and impressionable.

Magazines can cooperate by accepting only those advertisements who obey this code of ethics. Dealers can be monitored for compliance by the Treasury Department, and both dealers and advertising media can be monitored by the postal authorities. There would be few cases where it would be necessary to revoke a dealer's Federal license and thereby put him out of business, or to limit his use of the mails.

Let me conclude by saying that I believe widespread ownership of firearms by private citizens is an asset to our economy and our national security, and that proficiency in their use is not only desirable but

necessary.

I urge the committee to be exceedingly careful that any legislation we adopt puts the penalty for crime on the criminal, and that we do not put any restrictions on the law-abiding citizen which are not absolutely necessary.

Το me, this would mean dropping Senator Dodd's requirement that the statements be notarized, and dropping the requirement for a notice to the police except in the case of concealable weapons.

If I may, I would like to comment a little bit more on something that was brought up.

Mr. Lindsay, earlier this morning, or early in the afternoon, in describing his bill, he mentioned a $10 Federal firearms dealer's license fee. If I may, I would comment on that to this extent.

I have maintained a Federal dealer's license since 1954, and even though I am not in the business of offering for sale guns, or having guns for sale to the public, the reason I maintain it is this: that I do modifications, as I explained, and the $1 is nominal, it is no problem to carry this, but it is the convenience, I suppose, in that I can obtain the material in interstate commerce and, also, it is a convenient way to keep my records.

Now I urge the committee, when they consider the amount of the fee for the Federal firearms dealer's license, to consider this. There are many people who maintain dealers lists experimenters, like myself-and they do not sell weapons or components therefor.

The fee should not be excessive. If it were high enough to pay the cost of, say, an annual inspection of your records, and so on, this would be fine. But I have heard fees ranging up to $150 mentioned here.

This would work an unnecessary hardship on a lot of people who are experimenters, and so on, like myself, and there are many in this category.

If $10 is a reasonable fee, this is not, to my mind, excessive. It is a little higher than I would rather pay, but it won't put most of tinkers or gun nuts that I know, out of business, as far as losing their license.

If it goes to $150, these people will have to cut off their Federal license.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You say you people don't sell guns, but your hobby is modifying them and you pay a dealer's license?

Mr. PEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I presume you go to shows and probably trade guns?

Mr. PEELER. I don't trade to shows very much. I do do a little trading with some of my friends, mostly people who also have dealers' licenses.

The reason for trading is, well, it is twofold. One, you get some interesting items to study this way, but also you can keep your inventory down. If you have very many good guns, you have a lot of money invested, and a lot of times you can swap off a piece you have, and you have extracted the information you are interested in, and you can swap it off for another one and experiment with it for awhile.

To me, they are tools-devices to be studied-and I do not do very much serious shooting, except to test the accuracy of the weapons I have worked with.

Another thing I would like to comment on is the effectiveness of the notification to police. Mr. Avery and Mr. Beers both outlined a number of reasons why notification to the police would not necessarily be effective and also, why it might be undesirable; namely, the nucleus of a registration law.

Mr. Reisman, the gentleman from New York, this morning said he did not feel that possession of firearms by private citizens helped to prevent crime. I can't agree with that. In my area, I think it does have a definite effect in preventing crime.

For example, my wife is an accomplished shooter. I left home this morning at 2 o'clock-we live in an isolated area in the countryand I have no hesitation about leaving her there alone, because we have a good dog, if somebody starts to come in the house, she would be adequately warned and I have no doubt whatever that she would be capable of stopping a person from coming in. I am very careful at night that she knows it is me. There are other experiences in this line.

But in my area, at least, an armed citizen is the master of his house and nobody goes in on him.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You are advocating that everybody be his own police force; that everybody be armed?

Mr. PEELER. No, sir; I would advocate this, that all citizens be familiar with firearms, to the extent that they can use them safely, and use them well.

I personally feel that homes in isolated areas should have firearms and that the occupants of the homes should know how to use them, the reason being the law enforcement personnel are too far away in time and in distance to make any significant contribution to the defense of that home.

I do not advocate carrying arms or going about with a pistol strapped on your waist, and so on, no.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Peeler.

I believe counsel has a question.

Mr. BEEKS. In line with your last statement, you said in your prepared statement:

The key to preventing accidental misuse from my own experience is safety and marksmanship training from childhood.

« AnteriorContinuar »