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. Scorт. 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.

Senator CANNON. There is no such provision in the bill. It simply is an informative procedure so that the law enforcement officer would then have notice of who the people are that are purchasing through the mails.

Dr. ATLAS. Yes, sir. But this, of course, would be an individual denial by the law enforcement officer who could act at he would see fit. While it is true we attempt to elect those officials and to appoint those officials of the highest character, nevertheless, I think we all agree that, in time, they can act prejudicially, particularly if the geographic location is that in which there are minority and majority groups, unrest, hysteria, and they may be forced even to act prejudicially against an individual

If there is no provision for the investigation of this affidavit, I believe that it is possible for a law enforcement for a law enforcement officer to acknowledge it, file it, and forget it, in which case it would accomplish nothing

This also only affects the individual who wishes to purchase this weapon through the maids or through mail-order purposes. Local law would come into effect if they wish to purchase a gun locally and this would be, therefore, discriminatory against this particular practice only. 29iralle gode gait9291941 blei giles. I I do not believe that a criminal or an individual of immoral purpose would comply with this law in its fullest intent. I believe falsification would not be out of the question and I think that we have to go a bit further into the availability of weapons and firearms in our гостят подала яона до ч.м гаЛТА С. СЛАЯДО Й НО ТИЗМЕТАТЕ can give detailed statistics, wil 94 ifity of existing weapbore you is incorpo

I

rated in our formal statement about the are you

ons today, without future sales, somewhat in the number of one gun for every three persons in the United States insipieva nitong Therefore, it becomes a relatively simple task to either create a black market, or for an individual with criminal intent to steal these weapons, if necessary, from the US Government, which loses a great Sa many weapons today.med to 909..nothlids 99uft evad hoiriem neig In other words, as a law-abiding citizen, we would be restricted. As a criminal, I would not be restricted and, therefore, I think it loses criminallyould its utentoa je tedwemoz bedutaib any I00 amA [gingstas,odt Senator CANNON, I don't follow quite why you say that, as a lawabiding citizen, you would be restricted when the only requirement is that you file an affidavit that you are 18 years or more of age, that you are not a person prohibited by the act from receiving a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, and that, there are no provisions of law, regulations, or ordinances that appear applicable to the locality to which the firearm will be shipped which would be violated by your receipt or possession thereof word of grieghe eyed availed I. gels W

Now, that is, just simply an affidavit that is rather straightforward Son its face, and I would certainly agree with you, that many, criminals would not hesitate to swear to this affidavit, even though it may not be true to alism edt doordt a dog of 29deiw od [subivibri But I don't quite follow what your point is in saying that this would be restrictive on the law-abiding citizen, 1991 wal Inqining art of 19 DATLAS, Ibelieve Mr. Field would like to answer that question, SU99109 wal 901 2918122999 doiw grod noisirong out 92 1989 I tivebits sluiting en strpavati of resito

Mr. FIELD. I would like to clarify our position insofar as it may appear to be obscure. Presumably the law-abiding citizen is the one who will attempt to comply with the best spirit of the law.

7.8 If he does so, then his local police chief, or whoever the person eventually defined by the regulations, is, as the principal law enforcement officer, is the person who is going to receive this notice.dont u › Our contention or our point is that, as compared to citizens of different circumstances within a community, citizens of different racial groups especially when you get to the question of what police statisties might show to be a crime-prone group that these people are going to bear a heavier and, in a sense, a discriminatory burden of investigation, of verification, and of attention from their local police for the sumple act of having tried to comply with this law, to moit

Now the discrimination is twofold. If you are a member of a group whom the police officer or the police authority suspects for instance, a poor unfortunate living in a certain area where the police authorities know it to be a high crime rate then their attentions are going to be devoted to you simply because yon tried to comply with this statute,

The second discrimination is as compared to a local purchaser: the local purchaser complies with his local laws, The interstate, purchaser, on the other hand, has a more difficult burden. no te

He complies with his local laws and there is a further verification or investigation based upon this affidavit being sent to his police chief, if the police chief cares to use itbi zhinsnerrieq of rebro ni „seni hoov Now, obviously, there are means of evading the affidavit provision, and the man who bears the heaviest burden is the fellow of poor cir cumstances, who tries to comply, who attempts to go along with the spirit of the statute, robo¶ 1992 107 9zurged jizebiña eng not We don't think that it is a wise, idea, to, provide this kind of fear without providing standards for the use of it and without assuring ourselves that the use of it is going to be consistent with the intent of the framers of the statute which is to assure, merely, that the individual is not a member of the excluded groups 29oustaji to đol s mi Senator GANNON. That is somewhat involved reasoning there, and I wouldn't say that I entirely agree with you I am somewhat of a gun collector, myself at least. I have a few and I certainly would not feel that I was in a discriminated group if I simply, had to file an affidavit that I was not one of these persons, that is, that I met the test prescribed, here if I wanted to purchase a gun, that was in interstate commerce, teod odt 18d7,7lls91,wogd j'nob I bas pisido of pain And, of course, it wouldn't be required if I was going to make any purchase locally as I would simply have to comply with the local State law. Jabluow no7 9wz mn I ban t'abinow I 190DI. ATLAS: Sir, in the city of Chicago, whern I was born and reside, in order to obtain a handgun, there is local ordinance, - All around the surrounding area of Chicago, I can go into a store, give my name, address, identification, and purchase a weaponrods not-up on ej gredT However, in the city, of Chicage, only because of my position in public life would I be able to obtain a pistol, a handgun, Most people cannot purchase a handgun, in the city of Chicago because of local ordinance iste 7197 90 697 & done to sam fenimiro To IsTommi aidt dat I-sau fanimity to Ironi to notion robo odT 319791q od dziw ew doiɗw noł 1918 odt to zimo 9d1 01 910m 199 blow 2920quq latimiтo not п09:97 &bue to 92 silt

This has not restricted the crime rate in Chicago, I am sorry to say, nor has the principle of gun restriction restricted the crime rate in any nation that I have been able to determine, statistically, nor have gun laws that permit the public to have military weapons, such as in Switzerland, increased the crime rate there.

In fact, basically, in Switzerland, there has been no attempt at assassination, though every male over 18 years of age bears arms and has a military weapon in his house.

Whereas in France, where there is relatively rigid gun restriction, De Gaulle's life was threatened by assassination at least three times in recent days.

So there is no restrictive effect, actually, almost because of the definition of a criminal or person of immoral purpose. They will find a way and seek the way.

Mr. FIELD. To clarify further, I would say that we are not only not opposed, but we are in favor of the affidavit provision, but where the parting of the ways come in, this draft ran our positions on the question of sending it to a local police authority without giving him any standards of administration as to what he is going to do with it, without providing him with a fund to make a reasonable investigation. What you are doing is, you are sending him a notice of an event occurring and with which he may not be at all sympathetic, to put it mildly. For the dealer to retain the affidavit, it is probably a very good idea, in order to permanently identify the purchaser and if he makes a criminal misstatement, which is now quite clearly punishable under these drafts, then you have him right there on the affidavit.

Senator CANNON. I think that is, probably, perhaps the basic reason for the affidavit because you see, the Federal Firearms Act, now, already makes those occurrences a crime, that is, it prohibits, makes it unlawful for the manufacturer or dealer to ship under certain circumstances.

Now, really there is no way that the manufacturer or dealer knows, in a lot of instances, and this simply, I think, is probably directed toward notifying the local law enforcement officer and, for example, in many places, they have on file the names of numerous criminals, and if a man has falsely sworn to an affidavit in order to get a firearm, of course, it would be a matter of checking records and determining it.

I am not sure that this is the thing that is needed, but, at least, I am sympathetic with the thought behind it, with the objective that we are trying to obtain, and I don't know, really, what the best method is to obtain that objective at the present time.

Dr. ATLAS. Sir, who is the man who would falsify such an affidavit? I wouldn't and I am sure you wouldn't.

Senator CANNON. Obviously, the people that you don't want to get the weapons would be the people most likely to falsify this type of an affidavit. Certainly that is one of the weak points of the proposal. There is no question about that.

Dr. ATLAS. Being in agreement basically with the need of an affidavit and only being in basic disagreement with what is done with the affidavit, would not the making of a Federal crime for the use, the immoral or criminal use, of such a weapon be very effective?

The Federal restriction of immoral or criminal use-I think this would get more to the crux of the matter for which we wish to prevent the usage of such a weapon for criminal purposes.