you that the law did not keep pistols out of the hands of a single criminal in his considered opinion.

I apologize for the length of this statement. But from the bottom of my heart as an American, I want to say a final word. I have just read the latest poll by Dr. George Gallup purporting to show that Americans want a law requiring a police permit before a gun could be sold to anyone. The poll was taken during the emotional upheaval following the assassination of President Kennedy; following 4 tragic days during which TV commentators intoned every hour or so: "The time has come when we must stop this needless sale of guns to just anyone." And they made much ado of the fact the gun was purchased by mail. I did not once hear a single commentator comment on how it was possible to trace this gun within 3 hours from present sales records kept under the Federal Firearms Act, even though it was purchased under an assumed name. Two things have caused much of our problem today. One is the exaggerated western the TV networks show, that make killing an act of heroism in almost everyday life contrary to every principle of law. And the other is the dumping of literally millions of castoff military guns of foreign countries along with a staggering array of cheap pistols made with cheap labor overseas in our country. And this has been done despite efforts to get Congress to pass a law limiting such imports.

Let us regain our perspective. There is no member of the National Rifle Association who would not like to curb the use of firearms by criminals, but it cannot be done in this manner. All such laws as this will accomplish, in the long run, is the disarming of the American people.

If Dr. Gallup had taken his poll in America right after Dunkirk, when the brave but disarmed British people dug trenches on their beaches, waved only pitchforks and shovels, and appealed to American sportsmen for guns-what do you think the answer would have been?

Or what do you think it would have been if he had asked this question in 1942 after Pearl Harbor, after a handful of heroic Americans finally gave up Wake Island, after Gen. Douglas MacArthur had slipped out of Corregidor and was trying to find the men and the guns to defend Australia?

Have we forgotten Pearl Harbor? Have we forgotten that American chaplain who stood on a pitching destroyer's deck and shouted, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition," as he braved the withering fire of Japanese Zeros? I don't think President Kennedy would want us to forget, and start down the path that disarmed the British people, merely because one enemy bullet finally found him. What a ridiculous monument to his memory.

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, I have some other statements here by rifle clubs in our State, and one from the president of our State senate, which I would like to have entered into the record.

Senator CANNON. Very well. They will be received and made a part of the record.

Mr. AVERY. The first is a statement by the Mesa Gun Club, in which they oppose the registration and licensing of all firearms. I have another from the Miami

Senator CANNON. You say they opposed registration and licensing. That, of course, is not required in the bill.

Do they take a position on the bill that we are considering or not? Mr. AVERY. Sir, they didn't know what was in the bill. They were honestly trying to express their opinion.

I have a letter from the Miami Arizona Rifle and Pistol Club. Another from the Coconino Sportsmen of Flagstaff. Then another one from the statewide sportsmen's organization, the Arizona Game Protective Association, in the form of a resolution adopted at a recent meeting. Then I have a letter from the Arizona Gun Collectors Association.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statements follow :)

Mr. BEN AVERY,

GILA BEND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS PISTOL CLUB,

Arizona Republic Outdoors Director

December 27, 1963.

(Attention: Mr. Glenn Taylor, Arizona Rifle & Pistol Association).

DEAR SIRS: I am writing this letter to you so that it may serve as a vote of confidence to Mr. Taylor when he makes his trip to Washington to appear before the Commerce Committee on antigun legislation, January 20, 1963.

As citizens of the United States, sportsmen, and law-enforcement officers, we are very much against any type of antigun legislation.

As citizens and sportsmen we do not want to be denied the right to protect our homes and loved ones. We want to be able to teach our children to use and respect firearms and to be able to enjoy all of the adventures of the great outdoors.

As law-enforecment officers we do not want to see the citizenry denied the right to bear arms. In the recent case involving the shooting of Sheriff Tarr, of Kingman, we feel sure that there might have been more bloodshed had not the agriculture inspector had access to his hunting rifle which he had in his car. Having access to this gun put an end to the shooting and caused the apprehension of the subjects involved.

As law-enforcement officers we ourselves have had the occasion of having been in a jackpot and have been readily assisted by a citizen who had access to a firearm.

Our pistol club is made up of members of Gila Bend city police, Maricopa County sheriff's deputies, Arizona highway patrol, Arizona game and fish wardens, and U.S. border patrol officers.

I am sure you understand that this letter cannot be used as an official statement by any of the organizations mentioned but may be used as a consensus of opinion of good American citizens who cherish their right to bear arms.

Your truly,

JAMES R. YOUNG,

Patrol Inspector, U.S. Border Patrol, Gila Bend, Ariz.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE L. CARPENTER, PRESIDENT OF THE ARIZONA STATE SENATE, TO THE U.S. SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE OPPOSING S. 1975

Gentlemen of the committee, I have studied the provisions of S. 1975 and I urge you to amend it so it will not conflict with and nullify the State laws of Arizona, and, I am sure, of many other States.

We feel strongly that the regulation of the possession of firearms is essentially a State matter and must be a State matter because the constitutions of the various States differ in this respect. And we also feel that regulation of the use of firearms must, of necessity, be a State matter, because no two States are alike. Arizona and other Western States, even your eastern State of Maine, has great open spaces, and the rifle or shotgun still stands behind the kitchen door. The rifle, the pistol, and the shotgun is widely used for legitimate purposes in the West such as hunting, killing predators and varmints, protection against rabid animals, and even the criminal or killer that would invade the home, and for target shooting.

We have, we believe, a model body of statutes regulating who may possess, carry, and use firearms, and a separate statute to govern the problem

municipal limits, because here again conditions differ. But even more important, we have the law-enforcement personnel to enforce them. The Federal Government does not. It has only two men in our State representing the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit, and the last arrest I recall in this State was several years ago when one of our dealers was arrested, and later released, on ground sale of .38 caliber fountain pen tear gas guns was a violation of that act. These little defensive items had suddenly become very popular in Phoenix because of a series of cases of forced entry by rapists and attacks on working women while waiting for buses at night. I believe the situation had even gotten so bad that some of the police were urging women to get these tear gas guns to use in their self-defense.

I urge you to leave firearms regulations to the States. The best thing you could do would be to amend the present Federal act to merely require common carriers to comply with State law in delivering packages containing firearms. Particularly objectionable in the present law is the provision making any person under indictment for a felony who receives a firearm in the mail guilty of violating the Federal Firearms Act. This provision does violence to the basic American principle that every man is innocent until proven guilty.

MIAMI-ARIZONA RIFLE AND PISTOL CLUB,
Globe-Miami, Ariz., January 22, 1964.

BEN AVERY,

Secretary, State Rifle & Pistol Association,

High Power Rifle Division, Phoenix, Ariz.

DEAR MR. AVERY: We would like to inform you that our club is 100 percent in agreement with you and your views on gun registration in general and on the Dodd bill in particular.

We wish you a successful trip to Washington and if we can be of any help to you, just holler.

Good luck again.

Sincerely,

BURTON M. ROOT,

Secretary, Globe-Miami Gun Club (formerly Miami-Arizona Rifle &
Pistol Club), Globe, Ariz.

Mr. GLENN C. TAYLOR,

COCONINO, SPORTSMEN, Flagstaff, Ariz., January 15, 1964.

President, Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association,
Tucson, Ariz.

DEAR GLEN: Many of our members have been following with great interest, the developments on the proposed Dodd bill regarding firearms registration. Last evening at our regular meeting a motion was passed asserting our opposition to such a proposal and an endorsement of the position taken by your organization was made.

It is our sincere belief that the intent of such a proposal would not be accomplished by legislation which woud be utterly disregarded by the criminal element. It appears that the vast majority of opinions expressed by people on the streets or through the letters to the editor are opposed to this encroachment on our personal liberties.

We hope that you and the delegation are successful in stifling this regretable piece of legislation and our membership pledges support this cause.

Sincerely,

MILTON G. EVANS, Secretary.

ARIZONA GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION STATEMENT OF POSITION RE FIREARMS

LEGISLATION

The Arizona Game Protective Association does hereby oppose the enactment and/or amendment of legislation or the promulgation of regulations by any political entity or subdivisions or administrative agencies thereof, whereby restrictions are placed upon the acquisition, ownership, or use of firearms or upon their possession without registration by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or whereby the burden of establishing the lawful purposes or the lawabiding character of the citizen is established as or declared to be a prior requirement to be met by the citizen.

I hereby certify that the foregoing motion was made, seconded, and unanimously adopted at a meeting of the executive board of the Arizona Game Protective Association on Saturday, January 18, 1964, in Phoenix, Ariz. Dated and signed this 23d day of January, 1964.

J. PHILLIP CLEMONS, President, Arizona Game Protective Association.

ARIZONA GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
January 23, 1964.

Mr. Glenn Taylor, Mr. Ben Avery, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C., Other Interested Persons or Parties:

The Arizona Gun Collectors Association, Inc., affiliated with the National Rifle Association, wishes to take this opportunity to support the views of the NRA, Arizona Rifle and Pistol Association, and countless other organizations in reference to any restriction deemed harmful in the sales or registration of guns, certain aspects which are present in the Dodd bill.

We, as gun collectors, have many firearms, and as collectors do much buying, selling, and trading. A considerable amount of these transactions are consummated through the U.S. mails. For this specific reason, we object violently to the method of obtaining affidavits, check of affidavit by law enforcement officers, which would seem to add a burden to them, and return of the affidavit and signed receipt from such officer. We fail to see what this can accomplish, but cause confusion, delay, irate citizens pursuing their constitutional guarantee, and an added burden to our already overburdened law enforcement officers, particularly in a time of reducing many bureaucracies and useless paperwork. A good point to be brought out in the proposed legislation is that the law enforcement officers cannot possibly know, or even be able to check, without added expense, all the citizens under his jurisdiction for such references. The person who has past violations, etc., would not order by mail, but more likely have a friend with no record, order it for him. It is obvious that the loopholes are many and very large, and that, at best, the proposed legislation is nothing but an added burden to the law enforcement officers who have a job to do apprehending criminals and violators of the present, adequate laws that we now have in force.

Many of our members and colleagues are also dealers of collector guns-both antique and modern-for a collector may collect military arms or modern autopistols as well as flintlocks; these dealers in many cases would be forced out of business by such legislation, as they deal through the mails. This in itself, would seem unconstitutional and against principles of the small businesses in America.

LARRY TIMMER,

President, Arizona Gun Collectors Association, Inc. Senator THURMOND. I want to commend you upon a most excellent statement, sir.

As I understand, your feeling is this matter should be left to each State? And then if Congress chooses to do so, it could merely require the common carriers to comply with the State laws, when delivering packages containing firearms?

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thurmond, that is correct. I have with me, which I would be happy to give to the committee, a hastily marked-up copy of the bill the way I think this could be accomplished, and also, accomplish some of the objectives of the Attorney General, who would like to bring under the Federal Firearms Act some of the crimes that were not previously enumerated.

We have our State laws which were written to conform to the old Federal Firearms Act, to strengthen it in enforcement. And we would refuse to change our laws to conform with this law, I am certain. But to make the thing more effective, we must have State laws conform to the Federal Firearms Act.

Senator THURMOND. Isn't it a matter of fact anyway that the criminal, if he is determined to get firearms, is going to get firearms, and you merely are handicapping the citizen who wants to keep a gun or pistol in his home for his protection? And you may hamper him from doing so, if you are not careful what you pass here?

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Thurmond, I feel that is exactly correct.

Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much for your appearance

here.

Senator CANNON. Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Avery, I think your statement on page 5, where you point out two things that have added to this problem today, I think those remarks are very well taken.

First, you say a cause of the problem today is the exaggerated Western on TV network shows that make killing an act of heroism in almost everyday life, contrary to every principle of law. I fear that our rate of homicides in America is going to increase as the generation reared before television sees murder hour after hour, day after day, so easily and passed off as such a minor thing-with none of the great tragedy, gory details and aftermath shown on television. With their young, impressionable minds, they will grow up viewing murder as something easy that happens every day. I fear we haven't even seen the beginning of the trouble that is being caused by that.

The second is your point that the dumping of millions of cast-off military guns, the staggering array of cheap pistols made with cheap labor also contributes to the problem.

I recall I grew up in a rural area, where possession of a gun was deemed very desirable, necessary in some areas, and guns were treasured because they were expensive. They were not easily to come by. A man bought a gun and it meant he had to sacrifice along some other line. You couldn't just go out and buy a gun as if you were buying a steak. And the cheap availability of guns, I think, is one cause of part of the present problem.

I agree with those two points in there. We have a terrific problem in the country and I think you put your finger on two of the basic

causes.

Mr. AVERY. Thank you.

Senator CANNON. Mr. Avery, you have said you feel firearms control is the responsibility of the States. I wonder if you feel there is any responsibility at the Federal level?

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, I do think, at the Federal level, the States can be assisted tremendously if we can have a law that will require and I think it probably should require-both the manufacturer and the mail-order house and the common carrier-to comply with State laws in making deliveries.

I don't think this is an undue burden, because at the present time these people, the manufacturers and the mail-order houses, are required to comply with State tax laws anyway and we send our tax auditors out to audit their books, whenever necessary.

Senator CANNOK. In other words, you feel the Federal responsibility or authority should be limited to the prevention of circumvention of the local laws, insofar as the use of the interstate commerce is concerned?