STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAGNUSON

There is no question that more effective control over the use and possession of firearms is necessary. Mental incompetents, alcoholics, drug addicts, convicted felons, fugitives from justice and similar individuals should not be permitted to use firearms. Use of firearms by minors should be adequately regulated. Even in the case of guns used for sporting purposes, no minor should be permitted to use or possess a gun except with parental approval and under their supervision. I am confident that no responsible citizen would claim otherwise. The basic issue before the committee, then, is what constitutes effective control and where should that control be vested.

Any legislation, State or Federal, must consider the constitutional right of our citizens to bear arms. Responsible citizens have the right to possess firearms for purposes of self-protection, security of the Nation, hunting, and recognized sporting activities.

There are two Federal statutes presently in existence governing the interstate movement of weapons. The National Firearms Act, in practical effect, prohibits the use or possession of gangster-type weapons such as machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, gadget weapons, etc. The Federal Firearms Act is directed basically toward firearms commonly in use, including rifles, pistols, etc. Although certain technical and clarifying changes are desirable, the act is essentially a good one. It was designed to implement State and local law and prevent the circumvention of such law through the employment of instrumentalities of interstate commerce. For example, if a State requires an individual to have a license to purchase a firearm, the act requires that the purchaser ordering a mailorder firearm must exhibit the license to the manufacturer or dealer. If he submitted a fraudulent license he would be subject to 5 years in jail or $2,000 fine, or both. If the manufacturer or dealer shipped him a firearm without adequate evidence of a valid license they too would be subject to 5 years in jail or $2,000 fine, or both. Unless it is the intention that the Federal Government, and quite probably unconstitutionally, impinge upon the police powers of the States, in which case we might just as well enact Federal legislation to cover all criminal acts including murder, manslaughter, theft, burglary, etc., and create a Federal police force to implement it, neither the present legislation nor any other Federal legislation will or can provide effective firearms control. For example, the present legislation, while it might inconvenience, would not deter irresponsible persons from acquiring weapons through other means, legally and illegally. It would not prevent a minor or a criminal from purchasing a pistol or a rifle at any local sporting goods or hardware store. It would not provide effective control over weapons presently in the possession of private individuals, which some officials estimate total nearly 200 million. It would not prevent the sale and transfer of firearms between private individuals. It would not prevent a third party, over 18, with no criminal record even though potentially irresponsible, from ordering a firearm on behalf of a convicted felon or a minor. Knowledge of safe firearms use is not required.

I think the committee would be derelict in its responsibility to report out legislation which would mislead the public into believing that the problem had been solved when in fact it had not. A Nation aroused and demanding effective control because of the tragic event of the recent past would become complacent. The public's voice should not be quieted and their demands should be directed to their State legislatures. This is where the responsibility belongs, where it constitutionally lies and the only place where there can be effective and meaningful control.

The committee intends to explore this problem thoroughly. Every avenue of solution will be studied. But the solution must not be one conceived in hysteria, born of ignorance, intended to foster complacency and destined to futility. The solution must be total, not partial. . It must be dictated by the voices of reason not emotion. It must to the extent practical, prevent the possession and use of firearms by the irresponsible, but in so doing should not unduly inconvenience or burden the responsible.

If further Federal law is necessary to help the States prevent circumvention of adequate local law through the use of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce if it is necessary to further help the States to help themselves then

it will receive my enthusiastic support. If it is designed to shift responsibility from the States where it belongs to the Federal Government where it does not belong, and where meaningful control, as I have stated previously, cannot be effected, it will receive my firm opposition.

The committee will commence public hearings shortly. In the interim, I have directed the staff to consult with Federal, State, and local authorities, the American Bar Association and other interested parties. That a reasonable solution can be found, I have no doubt. But the panacea to every problem simply does not and cannot rest with the Federal Government. The solution here will depend largely, if not entirely, on the cooperation of the States.

Senator CANNON. Our first witness is the author of S. 1975, and the distinguished chairman of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee, Mr. Dodd, who has contributed so importantly to an understanding of this problem and the public awareness of a need for its solution. Senator Dodd, we are very happy to have you here this morning. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. DODD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator Cannon. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, I am very grateful to have this opportunity to urge passage of legislation to place reasonable controls over the shipment of dangerous weapons in inter

state commerce.

During 1963, approximately 1 million dangerous weapons were ordered through the mails and delivered by mail-order firms, via common carriers. Thousands of these weapons were delivered to persons with criminal records. One of them was used to murder the President of the United States.

Weapons available via mail order to juveniles, dope addicts, mentally deranged persons, and criminals range in size and destructive power all the way from small-caliber pistols to field artillery pieces. This is no rhetorical exaggeration, as my records will show.

In Fairfax County, Va., a 14-year-old boy was shot and killed with a mail-order weapon by a teenage friend who was mentally disturbed. When the head of the California firm which shipped this weapon, who by the way was a convicted pornographer, was confronted with this set of facts, he said, "They had the money. I sold them the gun. I didn't break any law, did I?" Unfortunately, he didn't break any

law.

In Sussex County, N.J., three youths in Nazi uniforms set up an antitank gun, purchased through the mails, and were in the process of demolishing a building with 20-milliemter, armor-piercing shells when they were seized by the police. Also seized was a veritable arsenal of mail-order weapons.

In Washington, D.C., since January 1, 1963, 72 persons were arrested in the second precinct alone using mail-order or foreign-made weapons in the commission of crimes.

In New York City, since June 1, 1963, there have been 131 persons killed or injured with mail-order or foreign-made guns. We are in the process of getting the figures for the whole year, and I would like permission to submit them when I have them.

Senator CANNON. We will be very happy to have you submit them when you have them.

Senator DODD. This figure of 131 persons is only from June, as I pointed out. In Los Angeles, five homicides have been committed with mail-order guns since September.

And so it goes on across the Nation.

To the extent to which the criminal element participates in this mail-order traffic can be demonstrated easily by police records in a typical metropolitan area.

The Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, in collaboration with local police, conducted an intensive survey of mailorder gun recipients in the District of Columbia. This is what we found:

Twenty-five percent of all recipients of mail-order guns had criminal records. In the precinct with the highest percentage of crime, 80 percent had criminal records. And these figures are not unusual. Chiefs of police from Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, from all over the country, have told us that what we found in Washington is typical of their own communities.

The question before us as a nation, then, is whether this interstate mail-order traffic in murderous weapons should continue completely uncontrolled, or whether reasonable controls should be instituted. I think it is as simple as that.

Some people are so out of touch with reality, so unwilling to be slightly inconvenienced, or so financially involved in the gun traffic as to hold that no regulation whatever should be imposed upon this commerce in deadly weapons. But any reasonable, objective person, looking at this problem from the viewpoint of public safety, will agree that some form of control must be achieved. The type of control is a question that is open to legitimate controversy by people of good sense and good will.

For more than 2 years, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, I have been conducting investigations into this problem and negotiating with the various groups principally concerned, seeking a legislative solution. The subcommittee has sought the advice of, and consulted with State authorities, law enforcement officers, bar associations, gun dealers, gun collectors, gun manufacturers, and trade organizations. We have consulted with the Departments of State, Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and the Post Office. The product of this joint effort is now before the Congress and this committee in the form of Senate bill S. 1975 with amendments. I believe this bill will solve or help to solve the mail-order gun problem. I add "help to solve." I don't suggest that this is a cure-all and that the passage of this bill will put an end to all this killing and crime. But I think it will help solve the problem and I think we can do better with it than we are doing now.

The purpose of the amendment which I have introduced, and which I introduced after the tragedy of President Kennedy's death, is, first, to broaden the measure to include all firearms and not just handguns. I point out that the bill, as originally drawn, did include just handguns. But we have amended it to include all firearms; and, second, to put more teeth into the affidavit provision. This legislation, as amended, contains the following provisions:

It prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of guns to persons under 18 years of age.

It bars mail-order weapons to those who have been convicted of a felony.

It tightens up licensing requirements for manufacturers and sellers of guns in a manner designed to discourage fly-by-night mail-order houses and others who operate on the fringes of law.

It requires one seeking to buy a gun through the mails to State in an affidavit his name, address, age, whether he has a criminal record and whether the purchase would be contrary to local or State law.

It further requires that this affidavit shall include the true name and address of the principal law enforcement officer of the locality in which the affiant resides and that the affiant shall deliver the statement in duplicate to the seller, who must forward a copy of the statement to the law enforcement officer named in the affidavit by registered mail with a return receipt requested.

Upon receiving that returned receipt, the dealer may then lawfully execute delivery of the firearm. I point out here that this particular section gave us the most trouble in our discussions with the various authorities, particularly with the officials of the National Rifle Association-who, by the way, have been very helpful to us, not only lately but throughout the period of time when we were conducting this investigation, this seems to be, among those of us who are primarily concerned with this particular bill, a provision by which all hands can agree. I thought that would be of interest to the committee.

Since there are many misconceptions abroad about this legislation, I would like to spell out what the bill does not do.

It does not involve a violation of our constitutional rights.

It does not pose a threat to the sportsman who knows how to handle a gun properly.

It does not adversely affect those legitimately entitled to bear arms or the responsible companies which make and sell them.

It does not outlaw the mail-order gun business. It will merely require the proper identification of purchasers.

It does not require the licensing or registration of weapons. That is a matter of local concern.

It does not place in the hands of police authorities any discretion as to who should and who should not obtain weapons. It merely gives the police information that will assist them to carry out local and State laws.

There are other questions raised about the bill which arise, not from ignorance of its provisions, but from concern over its effects.

It is contended, for instance, that this bill would place an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, who will comply, but will have no deterrent effect on criminals, who will evade. I contend that where the purchase of a dangerous weapon is concerned, it is not an undue burden on any citizen to fill out a brief affidavit.

It should be remembered that the person who feels he is unduly burdened by the provisions of this bill can always purchase his weapon over the counter at the local gun store. There is a good chance, however, that he will run into stricter controls at the local gun store than those in my bill.

Almost every community has local ordinances governing the sale of weapons. The following State regulations are, in effect, with respect to concealable weapons. Seven States require a permit for the purchase

of a concealable weapon; eight States require a waiting period between the purchase and the delivery of a weapon, and this is within the State, so that the police may check the identity of the recipient. The 17 million citizens of the State of New York must obtain a license for the purchase of such a weapon.

The 2 million citizens of South Carolina may not purchase a handgun under any circumstances-except via mail order, through which State law can be easily circumvented.

In that connection, on November 8, 1963, the Honorable M. Steed Stackhouse, judge of district 6, Dillon, S.C., reported that he had knowledge of the delivery of 10 German-made handguns on a single mail route on a single day. Thus does the uncontrolled mail-order traffic in lethal weapons make a mockery of State and local laws--in this case, a mockery of the laws of South Carolina, which has a total prohibition against the sale of guns in the State. The officials of the State of South Carolina can't do anything about the traffic through mail order in these dangerous weapons.

As far as criminals are concerned, this bill will close off one more avenue to lethal weapons. That is all. I repeat what I said earlier. I have never thought, never suggested, that this is a cure-all, or that this bill, if passed, will put an end to all our problems. All I have said is that it will help some.

If criminals violate this law, they open themselves to investigation by the Treasury Department and to prosecution by the Federal Government. This is a strong deterrent factor for any criminal and it will be of valuable assistance to police in putting more criminals where they ought to be, in my judgment, behind bars.

Some maintain that the second amendment to the Constitution prevents any regulation by Congress of the citizen's right to purchase weapons. I have a case on this, the only one I could find. First of all, let's look at the clause itself. It reads as follows:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) stated that the purpose of the amendment was to insure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of a militia.

That case, by the way, was on appeal from a criminal conviction for violation of the National Firearms Act. It went to the Supreme Court, and that is the decision. I think it is well worth reading. There is dicta in it that is, I think, helpful to a thorough understanding of the background of this constitutional provision.

Since there is no relationship between the mere regulation of mailorder purchases covered in the bill which I have submitted, and the maintenance of a militia, the law would not be in violation of the second amendment. So says the U.S. Department of Justice and, of course, I agree.

Ι

S. 1975 is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It merely prescribes minimal controls over the purchase of firearms shipped in interstate commerce. It doesn't prevent anybody from owning a gun or keeping a gun.

Some are concerned that these controls may open the door to Federal regulation of other products which could conceivably be put to