(g) License to sell handguns at retail: 23 States-Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota (certain counties), Oregon (certain counties), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia (certain counties), Washington, and West Virginia. Also the District of Columbia.

Negative controls

(a) Prohibition of the manufacture or sale of handguns: One State, South Carolina.

(b) Prohibition of the carrying of a handgun on the person: 21 States— Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas (as a weapon), Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota (with intent to assault), Mississippi, Missouri (in specified areas), Nebraska, New Mexico (loaded), North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee (with intent to go armed), Texas, Vermont (with intent to assault), and Wisconsin.

Federal

MINIMUM AGE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FIREARMS

No minimum age is specified for the various kinds of licenses under the National or Federal Firearms Act, or for the transportation, shipment, or receipt of firearms in interstate or foreign commerce.

State

Minimum age for the purchase, possession, receipt, or use of handguns vary from State to State. There is an even greater variance in the minimum ages that allow for the possession or handling of any firearm by a minor.

The majority of States provide that a person must be at least 18 or 21 years of age in order to acquire a handgun. As to rifles and shotguns, the minimum age frequently differs from that for a handgun; and sometimes none is specified.

Judge RUMMEL. I can furnish additional copies, if you wish. It is a short summary of State laws and the kind of summary that a busy person has time to read.

The CHAIRMAN. If we could get 17 of them, we will give them to other members of the committee.

Judge RUMMEL. We will see that they are filed with the committee members.

The CHAIRMAN. We will recess for about 5 minutes.

(A recess was taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Judge, I wanted to ask this one question; if you can't answer it right now, we would like to have your opinion and that of others in the association later. Mr. Bennett, and I'm going to quote him, said on page 5 in his statement:

First of all, I would recommend that the bill be amended to back up State gun laws as fully as possible. The Federal Firearms Act and S. 1975 as they now stand, do this in part, but I hope the committee will consider extending the scope of the Federal act further. This can be accomplished by amending section 2 of the bill to restrict all interstate transactions in firearms to dealers and manufacturers licensed under the Federal Firearms Act, on condition that to obtain or hold a Federal license the dealers and manufacturers must observe all local and State laws.

Do you have any opinion on that?

Judge RUMMEL. I think it is going a little too far to restrict all interstate shipments. Does that mean you couldn't even go hunting in another State without applying? I mean, it is a difficult thing to enforce. I believe the Dodd bill goes far enough now, and the Federal Firearms Act requires registration by dealers of all these guns that are sold. Certainly, if the mail-order business can be controlled, there is adequate control already.

The CHAIRMAN. Then if you have any opinion on the suggestion of Mr. Bennett regarding increasing fees

Judge RUMMEL. You mean for the dealers?

The CHAIRMAN. For the dealers.

Judge RUMMEL. I don't believe we opposed a reasonable fee. We certainly would oppose a tax on the ownership of guns as such-I mean an actual tax where you had to pay a license fee.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the real purpose of the fee provision when the act was passed was to provide a records system. Judge RUMMELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Obviously a dollar, as Mr. Bennett points out, would hardly take care of even the administrative expense.

Judge RUMMEL. I don't think that we oppose any reasonable fee. However, if the fee were unreasonable, it would be an unjust and unreasonable restriction. I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true. None of us would want anything unreasonable, but we ought to have at least a minimum to take care of the administration.

However, if you have any further opinions or any of your people have any suggestions for amending section 2, we would be glad to leave the record open for it.

Judge RUMMEL. All right, we will consider it, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Now we will hear from V. K. Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin is the first vice president, National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, from Indiana. He has a short statement. We would be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF VAUGHN K. GOODWIN, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL MUZZLE LOADING RIFLE ASSOCIATION, SHELBYVILLE, IND.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, before I start my statement I want to say one thing. Under our organization, or the NRA, had anyone brought these guns in with the bolts closed they would have been thrown off the range.

The CHAIRMAN. Bolts should be open.

Mr. GOODWIN. I suggest someone take a course in firearm safety. I want to give you a short background about our organization I don't think most of you know either, and then go on and give you what our feelings are with reference to any gun legislation.

The National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association had a typical American beginning. It was started in February 1933, at Portsmouth, Ohio, by a handful of sportsmen who gathered from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, to shoot the old muzzle-loading rifles of our Nation's forebears. From this meager beginning the present National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association has grown. The platform for the association is and has remained the same since the beginning. It is dedicated to the grand sport of competitive shooting with early American muzzle loading firearms; matching promotion for the purpose of improving accuracy with these arms and to promote standard practices for competition; and last but not least to promote safety with all firearms, especially with muzzle-loading arms.

Today the NMLRA numbers over 7,500 members and 148 charter clubs. It is steadily increasing in size. We have members in all

29-119-64--10

50 States and in 22 foreign countries. We own our own range, clubhouse, and camping area in southern Indiana and publish our own nationally read magazine Muzzle Blasts.

From the very beginning this association has constantly directed its efforts in furthering the traditions of the American way of life. Our shooting matches are family affairs which feature matches for both ladies and junior members of the association. I might also add we_restrict these entirely to muzzle-loading arms and black powder. During our national matches held each year for 6 days over Labor Day, we play host to thousands of shooters, their families, antique gun dealers, and spectators. Since its inception there has never been a serious gun accident at the association matches. Neither have we ever experienced acts of delinquency among our junior members-or senior members for that matter.

Mr. Chairman, our association is fully aware of the problems confronting this committee today. However, we strongly feel that we should not be stampeded into passing any hastily conceived antigun legislation. It must be realized that firearm laws disarm the lawabiding citizen, not the criminal. Over the years we have all witnessed the many attempts to register our firearms. Fortunately, except in some few cases, the thinking citizenry and legislators have successfully resisted the attempts to register and control the firearms of our private citizens. As a lesson we have only to look at the places where police regulation of firearms has been in effect for many years. Has the Sullivan law controlled juvenile delinquency in New York or reduced the crime wave in New York? The answer is an obvious "No." It should by now be clearly apparent that criminals by definition are individuals who lack respect for and circumvent the law. So, why should we dignify the fanciful supposition that a law against weapons is going to cause criminals to go weaponless?

In 1955, a case history study of more than 4,000 cases of aggravated assault reported by Washington, D.C., police showed that revolvers and pistols were used in only 193 cases, while rifles and shotguns were used in 37 cases or a total of 5.8 percent which involved the use of firearms of all kinds. Recently, one of the Washington, D.C., newspapers published an article which stated how many guns have been taken from criminals in the past year by the Washington, D.C., police. However, the article neglects to tell us what was done by our law enforcement agencies to the criminals from whom the weapons were taken. Such a report would probably be quite interesting and enlightening. It would also be interesting and enlightening to know just how many of the owners of the sawed off rifles and shotguns-evidenced in the picture which accompanied the newspaper articlewere prosecuted under the present National Firearms Act for possessing illegal weapons.

We as a group believe that the existing gun regulations are sufficient, but there are insufficient penalties to punish the transgressor. As American citizens, we are proud of our heritage and cherish our rights. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and heritage. We as a group oppose any attempt to remove those privileges from the honest citizen in the guise of disarming the dishonest. A gun is a simple device to fabricate, and for the less ingenious ar even simpler device to steal.

The NMLRA will back to the utmost any efforts to put teeth into our existing criminal laws. Until the present existing loopholes and light sentences for assault are corrected our crime waves and juvenile delinquency will continue unabated. Like the National Rifle Association, we are opposed to the registration of the ownership of firearms at any level of government; to the requirement of a license to purchase or possess a firearm; to control measures which levy discriminatory or punitive taxes or fees on the purchase or ownership of firearms; and to the registration which denies or interferes with individual rights of our citizens or is designed for the purpose of circumvening due process of law. Such registration would impose withering and degrading redtape on an otherwise free sport.

Many of our lawmakers are well aware of the dangers of antigun legislation and of attempts to disarm the reputable American citizen. We should all well remember the effect of England disarming its citizenry during the 20 years preceding World War II, through the operation of a firearms legislation law. Likewise, we should remember the vitally urgent pleas which came to the United States from the British people and British Government in 1940 and 1941 for donation of pistols, rifles, and shotguns for defense of their homes from domestic and foreign looters. Even if this lesson has since been forgotten by the British, it should not be forgotten by the United States. The constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, a treasured right of the American citizen, is for a very good purpose. It is to assure the ability of people to arm themselves for self protection and the right to enjoy the fruits of one of the earliest of our truly outdoor sports.

In view of the above, the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association would like to go on record as being opposed to any legislation which would deprive us of our right to be armed.

I

I would like to add one thing, that in our muzzle-loading game, we have only two or four people who manufacture muzzle-loading muskets, so the majority of our guns are obtained by mail order. did want to throw this in here. It is a very important point as to how it affects us and the legislation that is presently being considered. The CHAIRMAN. When they come to Indiana, do they have to register their guns?

Mr. GOODWIN. They do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Indiana does not have a registration law?

Mr. GOODWIN. I take some 40 guns with me to the national matches every year in the back seat of my station wagon, lying in the back. They are all muzzle-loading arms, either are newly manufactured or otherwise. We do not.

Senator CANNON. I am sorry I did not get to hear all of your statement. I am wondering, at the end of your statement you say that you would like to go on record as being opposed to any legislation which would deprive yourself of the right to be armed. Do you feel the Dodd bill as amended would deprive you of your right to be armed? Mr. GOODWIN. We feel, the way it is, that present legislation is sufficient to take care of this if it is properly enforced. If you have to go to some type, we back the NRA in this respect, that the Dodd bill as it presently stands would not be the best for our best interests, but

we would at least back it in lieu of any other more serious. But we don't believe there should be any other legislation other than that.

The CHAIRMAN. No further questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Irvine C. Porter, who is past president of the Alabama Bar Association and past president of the National Rifle Association. Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF IRVINE C. PORTER, MEMBER, ALABAMA BAR ASSOCIATION, BIRMINGHAM, ALA., AND PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I believe there should be a correction on the identification of that introduction. I have not had the honor of serving as president of the Alabama Bar Association. I am a member of the Birmingham, Ala., and the American Bar Association, and am a past president of the National Rifle Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Past president of the National Rifle Association. Mr. PORTER. Presently I serve as the chairman of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the State Bar Association of Alabama. The CHAIRMAN. With all those titles and background we should. nominate you for president.

Mr. PORTER. I would like to give a little bit more of a background too, for the benefit of the committee.

I have not had the pleasure of knowing personnally many members of this committee, but I would like to say that, like Judge Rummel, I am a civilian member of the National Board for Promotion of Rifle Practice and have served on that board for a period of almost 10 years. In addition, I served as the city attorney for two suburban cities in the Birmingham area, Irondale and Homewood. At present I am also vice chairman of the executive committee of the National Board for National Council of YMCA, and the reason I state those qualifications is that I would like for this committee to have some knowledge of those facts so that I do not want to be put in the light here of just appearing on one isolated element involved in this pending legislation.

I might also say that I do hold a lifetime qualification as master in .22 and .30 caliber shooting and am probably the only civilian that is qualified for the Distinguished Rifleman's Badge of the Army in the State of Alabama as a civilian. There has been less than 300 of those awards made by this board since 1903. And while I am not active competitively in shotgun shooting at the present time, at least in one year on registered trap targets I had the highest average in the State of Alabama. So I do feel that there is some element of familiarity with the weapon situation, not only from the law enforcement and the officer's point of view, which Mr. Bennett, from the Department of Justice, has attempted to touch on here but also on this question of how it affects young people, how it affects adults, and how it affects the citizenry as a whole.

I believe that is one of the basic problems that this committee itself is faced with is to determine what, of anything, to do under existing circumstances.