were very suspicious of unbridled government power and demanded that these amendments, later to be known as our Bill of Rights, be passed as soon as possible after the establishment of the government to be formed under the Constitution.

Of course our response to the words "peace" and "security" depends on our understanding of these two terms. Peace and security do not mean the same to all people. To the growing cult of mildness, peace means simply freedom from the threat of war. We can have this brand of peace any time we seek it. All we have to do is surrender our sovereignty and our capacity for self-defense, and thereby throw ourselves on the mercy of the powers that be. Security, to some people, means being taken care of from cradle to grave. These people generally reason that an allpowerful Federal Government is best qualified to take on this responsibility. We can get this kind of security at any time by merely surrendering our liberties. Those who seek the power to impose their will on the majority are only too happy to assume full responsibility for the peace and security of others. Naturally, those who relinquish their responsibility are expected to surrender their capacity to disturb the "peace." Not too long ago we had an offer to "bury us," and I'm quite sure it was intended that this service be rendered entirely free of charge.

Although a kind of peace and security is always easily and instantly obtainable, the conditions have always been repugnant to the vast majority of the American people. We are endowed with a heritage which inspires us to fight-if necessary-to preserve our national sovereignty and our individual liberties. Need I point out the fact that without forefathers, friends and relatives willing to die for this causeas many have we would not enjoy our liberties today?

Yes, I think we can say quite definitely that 30 million gun owners are a threat to a peace and security which involves surrender of our liberties or a surrender of our government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Most of our founding fathers who were responsible for our Constitution were learned men. They were aware of the poisoning influences which seeped into

Dictator states don't dare allow their citizenry to bear or even to keep arms.

the Roman Empire and brought about its fall. They knew that a nation of people not ready and willing to fight its own battles is effete. They themselves were fresh from one of freedom's greatest struggles, and they were satisfied that the government of a free, self-governing people has no reason to fear its own citizens. They knew that citizens experienced in the use of firearms add strength which only a nation of free people can muster.

By the same token, our founding fathers were apparently fully aware of the fact that the government of an oppressed people does fear its subjects. That, in a nutshell, is a very good reason for there always being a right to keep and bear arms-our Second Amendment. Lose our Second Amendment, or pervert its meaning, and it will signal our downfall as a great nation-the bastion of freedom.

The legislative attempts at outlawing guns can be dealt with by an alert people, and wrong-way legislation can be corrected; but there is an entirely new threat looming big in the form of a disarmament treaty proposed by our government. If accepted, it would leave us powerless to act. The decisions relative to whether or not we can have guns and the conditions under which we will be permitted to use them -if at all-will not even be made by our government. These decisions will be made by representatives from various countries, including enemy powers. It also appears that we would have foreign inspectors in this

Replacing the word "police” with the word "peace" really doesn't change anything.

country to see that the conditions imposed on us are enforced. Our only recourse as a nation will be through the World Court. The World Court consists of 15 judges, of which one may be an American. The other 14 will be from various countries, including enemy countries. Can we expect them to be sympathetic to our cause? Does this sound like a pretty package? It is not exaggeration. Unless you have studied the provisions of the proposed treaty, you don't know the half of it. It is far worse than I've been able to reveal in a few words.

The treaty outlines a three-phase disarmament plan. All parties to the treaty would agree to do away, for all practical purposes, with their entire military forces and all armaments within a period of something over six years. The only military force, as such remaining would exist only to be placed at the disposal of a United Nations command. This would be called a "Peace Force." As the treaty puts it, by the final stage of the plan: "Parties to the Treaty would complete the reduction of their force levels, disband systems of reserve forces, cause to be disbanded organizational arrangements comprising and supporting their national military establishment, and terminate the employment of civilian personnel associated with the foregoing." There are vague provisions for retaining armaments for forces which parties to the treaty would be permitted to retain to maintain internal order and protect the personal security of their citizens. Dictator states don't dare permit an armed citizenry. Is it likely that the administrators of the proposed treaty would permit United States citizens to have weapons?

The United States presented this treaty, referred to as an "Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," at the 17-nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva. Reports coming out of Geneva would indicate that the negotiations are concerned with nuclear weapons only, but this by no means reflects the thinking behind the entire disarmament picture as revealed in the treaty proposed by our government.

The provisions of the treaty are found in a seldommentioned government publication "Blueprint for the Peace Race-Outline of the Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." It is United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Publication 4, General

Series 3, released in May 1962. It has been available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C.-price, 30 cents.

The basic provisions outlined in this treaty were presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations by President Kennedy on September 25, 1961. This was just two days after the Congress had approved the Disarmament Act establishing the

An efficient registration of weapons makes confiscation an easy and rapid procedure.

United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, now headed by William C. Foster.

The fact that this treaty proposes that we do away with our entire military establishment and place ourselves militarily at the mercy of a world order means surrender of our national sovereignty. It would seem that such a drastic, history-making proposal by our own government would be top news. But it has had very little mention in the press or on the air. The long silence regarding the terms of this treaty is, I think, one of the most baffling mysteries of our time.

As late as April 5, 1962, about six months after the

President presented the disarmament plan to the United Nations, even key senators in the United States Senate stated that they had no knowledge of the plan. A colloquy on the floor of the Senate, as recorded in the Congressional Record for April 5, 1962, reveals this very clearly.

Some members of Congress have since indicated that this treaty does not include sporting weapons. It doesn't mention sporting weapons specifically-nor does it exclude them. It would be exceedingly naive to expect specific mention of sporting weapons. However, if you read the treaty, you can see that these can easily be included after the treaty is put into force. But from that time on an aroused American public won't mean much. The treaty does refer to all armaments, with certain exceptions for what is apparently a police force. "Subject to agreed requirements for non-nuclear armaments of agreed types for national forces required to maintain internal order and protect the personal security of citizens, the Parties to the Treaty would eliminate all armaments remaining at their disposal at the end of Stage II." We'll be told that sporting weapons are not included in the treaty terms. Then try to get sporting weapons (carefully defined) excluded and see how far you get.

As soon as the proposed treaty is agreed upon, ratified by the Congress and put into force, the In

ternational Disarmament Organization would be established to function within. the framework of the United Nations in accordance with the terms and conditions of the treaty.

After a careful reading of the terms of the treaty, it becomes apparent that it makes little difference whether sporting weapons are mentioned or not. If the International Disarmament Organization decides to include them, they can do it. There are provisions for amending the treaty and/or adopting rules for implementing the broad terms of the treaty. As a nation, we have only one vote in the matter. As a nation our only recourse is to the World Court, where at present we have only one vote-not as a nation, but a vote cast by one United States-appointed judge out of 15 sitting on the World Court.

As individual citizens, we would have no recourse, because our elected representatives, once the treaty is signed, have no voice in disarmament matters, and it appears that our courts would have no jurisdiction. The disarmament treaty would spell the end of the Connally Reservation. This reservation consists of six little words "as determined by the United States." When the United States accepted jurisdiction of the World Court in 1946, we excluded disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. By the Connally Reservation we also reserved the right to determine whether or not a dispute is within our domestic jurisdiction. We might point out that the Communist nations have not accepted the World Court, and there are other western nations which have also placed restrictions on acceptance of the court's jurisdiction.

A careful reading of the disarmament treaty also reveals that we will be under the surveillance of a foreign "Peace Observation Corps" and policed by a foreign "Peace Force." The individual citizens of this country will have no control over these peace cadres. They will constitute an international Gestapo. Let's face it, replacing the word "police" with the word "peace" in the names of these organizations doesn't really change a thing-another subterfuge.

There is nothing in the United States Constitution which allows for this sort of thing, but there is reason to fear that the Supreme Court, citing Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, will decide that treaties supersede the Constitution. If we are not intent on upholding the Constitution and wish to circumvent it, then I suppose the treaty route is the quick and easy way to do it. If this is our government's decision, even if we offer no protest, let's at least go into it with our eyes wide open. Our Bill of Rights will no longer have any meaning-least of all the Second

Amendment, guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. Surrender our military forces, our armament and our sovereignty, and we are heading up a one-way, dead-end street. After all of the blood that has been shed to gain and protect our freedoms, why should

we

now offer them up on a silver platter as a sort of sacrifice to the United Nations? Do we have the right to subject future generations to possible untold misery and possible enslavement because we have surrendered their sovereignty and destroyed their means of protection?

Now, if we disband our military forces, and destroy all of our armament -except what we turn over to the command of the "Peace Force"-who will then be the guardians of our liberties? Perhaps this deserves looking into. The United Nations Security Council directs the UN military actions, and I presume that this will also be the case with the UN "Peace Force." I wonder how many people know that since the beginning of the United Nations, the Undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs has always been a Russian?

1946 to 1949 Arkady S. Sobelov

USSR
1950 to 1953 Konstantine Zinchenko
USSR

1953 to 1957 Ilya Tchernyshev
1957 to 1960 Anatoly Dobrynin

USSR

USSR USSR

1963 Vladimir Suslov There is nothing new about attempts at restrictive gun legislation on a local, state and national level. Our Second Amendment has been under almost constant attack ever since I can remember. The sportsmen and other citizens who are alert to the influences tending to weaken our rights-going so far as to use them for political bait when fishing in international waters-have done a pretty fine job of blocking the most brazen attacks. Nevertheless, having compromised with principle on various occasions, some of our liberties have been severely nibbled. We must come to the realization that to protect the Second Amendment we must be alert to protecting all of our liberties. As one falls, all of them are weakened.

Instead of simply standing ready to go on the defensive, the American people should be demanding the repeal of some objectionable and useless legislation now on the books. At the federal level, let's take a look at the National Firearms Act. This act is another subterfuge. It is a tax act, but its real purpose was to prevent criminals from obtaining gangster weapons. The socalled "gangster weapons" include fully automatic v'eapons, shotguns with bar

rels less than 18 inches, rifles with barrels less than 16 inches, altered shotguns or rifles with an overall length less than 26 inches, pistols with shoulder stocks and silencers. This act has caused legitimate gun users and gun collectors much inconvenience and many headaches. After I tried, unsuccessfully, to ascertain the number and the nature of convictions under the Act, I have concluded that the Act has done little or nothing in the way of curbing crime. I am informed by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Department that the only figures available show seizures and arrests. The figures they sent me do not reveal the number of convictions. Why not get rid of the tax act and deal directly with the criminal, as was indirectly intended?

We might ask the same question concerning the Federal Firearms Act. This is an act to regulate interstate traffic in firearms, but it was designed to deny the criminal lawful access to firearms. This act is of little, if any, concern to the criminal, but it does cause the sportsman and dealer inconvenience and some anxiety. Both acts are good cause for anxiety-for the reason that the Internal Revenue Department, administrator of the act, has the power to make regulations for administering it. In 1957 this bureaucratic power to make regulations was exercised, and regulations which would have worked a real hardship on sportsmen and dealers, even concerning the purchase of ammunition, pretty nearly got by the American public. An alert dealer happened to spot the advance notice of these regulations in the Federal Register. He sounded the alarm. Dealers and sportsmen throughout the country rallied to the cause, and another objectionable bit of legislation was given the heave-ho. The matter shouldn't have ended there. The power to make law by bureaucratic fiat has no place in our form of government. This power should be removed, and I don't know of a better way to do it than to shoot at getting the acts repealed entirely. If anyone can prove any real merit in these acts, perhaps it can be preserved in new legislation which is directed squarely at the real problem-the criminal, not the gun.

Sonetimes even legislative action at the federal level slips by. In 1961 a bill was written to "strengthen" the Federal Firearms Act, and this bill was passed. The significance of this bill was not recognized at first and even received some support from the sportsman's

corner.

Among other things, the Federal Firearms Act before the 1961 change prohibited the shipment of firearms in interstate or foreign commerce to or by a felon (convicted of a crime of violence), a fugitive or a person under indictment for a crime of violence.

29-119 0-64- 17

as

A crime of violence is defined murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, housebreaking, assault with intent to kill, commit rape or rob, assault with a dangerous weapon or assault to commit any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. This regulation, as it stood, was not readily abused, because it is not too easy to trump up a charge of a crime of violence.

However, the 1961 bill amended the act to eliminate the term "crime of violence" and inserted in lieu thereof the words "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." It is doubtful that this change will do one particle of good in curbing crime. It does open up the possibility of abuse of the act. There are numerous things for which a person can be indicted and for which punishment involves imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Revenue agents may, for example, have a dealer indicted for selling a certain collector's item which the agents claim is illegal, or perhaps indicted for something in connection with his income tax. Let's assume that there is no idea of convicting the dealer, but while he is awaiting trial and a verdict, he is prevented from shipping or receiving firearms in interstate commerce. This could work such a hardship on this dealer that it could put him out of business without his ever having had a trial. This new amendment makes it possible to use the act as a threat of harassment and nothing more. It's another subterfuge and avoids coming to grips with the real problem-the criminal.

Has the Second Amendment outlived its purpose? Is it out of place in our modern society? Of course not; there has never been a greater need for the Second Amendment, Stand before a globe of the world, turn it slowly, and look at the countries which have fallen to tyranny since World War II. They comprise a vast area of the globe's surface, and their boundaries confine millions of people who have lost their liberties.

Why have so many nations fallen, and why have the suppressed people not been able to gain or regain their freedoms? The reasons may not be quite the same in every case, but these people in every case most certainly lacked either the power or the will to resist the take-over. We won't explore all the reasons, but it is axiomatic that compulsory registration of sporting and protection weapons preceded their downfall. Please note that I said registration preceded their downfall. Registration doesn't necessarily lead to downfall. However, an efficient registration of weapons makes confiscation a very neat, easy and rapid procedure. And when this confiscation takes place, it is for one reason only. The citizens

have lost or are about to lose their freedoms. The government-be it their own or a government imposed by outside influence-feels that it has good reason to fear the governed.

Of course people will argue that weapons must be registered or confiscated to curb crime. This scarcely seems to make any sense, and like most things which are contrary to sound reasoning, it won't work.

In the first place, individual citizens in the past have been responsible for the taking of a large percentage of criminals. A study made in Chicago several years ago revealed that 45 percent of the criminals killed while committing a crime were killed by "unofficial self-defenders."

I'm not aware of any more recent comparative figures, but I suspect that the percentage of criminals taken by private citizens has been drastically reduced. The trend has been toward discouraging people from defending themselves. It seems that if a person is so rash and undisciplined as to attempt self-defense, he had better be in a position to prove that he was unsuccessful in an attempt to run from his assailant. (A knife in the back is generally accepted proof.) I've actually seen where authorities have advised people to submit to whatever abuse or indignity is demanded and then scream for the police.

The trend has also been toward making it more and more difficult for the private citizen to have a gun readily available for self-defense. The American citizen is thereby frequently denied the weapon which, under certain circumstances, would be the most effective means of protecting himself and his family. This denial, of course, tends to give the criminal a tremendous advantage. Legislating against the gun rather than the culprit can successfully remove guns from the hands of lawabiding people, but it is mighty difficult to prevent the criminal from getting a gun. This has been demonstrated in New York State, where they have the disarming Sullivan Law. Even young punks are able to fashion handmade guns. These guns don't look like much, but at close range they are just as deadly as the most expensive gun money can buy. If some nervous thug puts a gun in my ribs, I'd prefer it to be a regular factory-made gun. While I'm deciding my next move, I'd hate to contemplate the uncertain mechanism of a crude, handmade zip gun. I wouldn't gamble on its not working, but on the other hand it might be a trifle too sensitive in the hands of some hopped-up twerp with trigger-finger twitch.

There is only one way to stop crime with guns, and that is to make it very tough on those who use a gun in the commission of a crime. It is doubtful that this will prevent crime. Let's not

forget that there are such things as knives and all sort of everyday instruments which are silent, practically impossible to trace and very deadly. I detest the idea of having someone hacking at me with a knife. I even protested having my tonsils removed.

Try to outlaw all weapons-impossible. Legislating against inanimate objects is no substitute for dealing directly with the individual. We have an obligation to teach our young people responsibility and self-discipline. Failing this, we have no choice but to be tough on those convicted of criminal activity. We can deal severely with the criminal and still make every attempt to get him back on the right track. With severe and fair treatment, we would certainly discourage new entries, and perhaps make possible the quicker rehabilitation of the habitual offenders.

How about the police? Do they recommend the registration and outlawing of guns? Sure, you can find some police authorities favoring the outlawing of guns. I don't know of any police who do, but I haven't really been looking for them. There are a lot of police I know who favor private ownership of firearms.

The National Police Officers Association of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation Incorporated recently signed a joint resolution. I won't repeat every "whereas" and "be it further resolved." but here are enough to indicate the feeling of the National Police Officers Association of America:

"Whereas: The beginning history of our

nation was written and our sovereignty assured by the heroic sacrifice of volunteer riflemen, adept in their use and armed by their own personal weapons, and Whereas: The professional military

forces of our country have through the conflicts of the past relied upon trained citizen soldiers who were capable in the use of firearms and Whereas: It is reasonable to believe

that a capable and well-armed citizenry, as a potential back-up to our regular forces, could well deter an aggressor from our shores and effectively assist in interdicting the enemy's progress, should he effect a bridgehead, and Whereas: Restrictive antigun laws do

not succeed in disarming the criminal, but do disarm the law-abiding citizen, thus denying the law-abiding citizen effective self-defense, as well as jeopardizing his opportunities for training in the use of firearms and discouraging his hunting and gun sports afield. We, the undersigned, make the following statements for and in behalf of the National Police Officers Association of America and National Shooting Sports Foundation Incorporaed in the best interests of all

law-abiding citizens of the United States of America:

Be it Further Resolved: That we now commend the prosecutors of the Federal Government and the various states for the vigorous action taken on their part in the prosecution of criminals committing felonies while armed with a firearm. And, further strongly recommend to the courts a continuance of the policy of strict enforcement of the penalties prescribed wherein a crime is aggravated by the use of a firearm.

Be it Further Resolved: That we believe that an American citizen of voting age or a member of the United

a

States Armed Forces, of whatever age, should have the right to legally purchase, without restriction, handgun, rifle, air rifle, shotgun or a like item, excepting fully automatic firearms."

We are accustomed to resisting what we consider misdirected legislation on local, state and national levels, but now we are faced with international control outside the sphere of our government, and this calls for a new awakening. Within the framework of our government, even when we lose a round, there is always the possibility of changing the law. In the final analysis, the will of the people prevails, and in this we believe. With our background of freedom and self-government, we have

confidence in the will of an informed United States public. The fact that our people do not seem to be informed about the general disarmament treaty proposed by our government at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva is cause for alarm.

We feel sure that the American people, fully aware of what is involved in our government's "Blueprint for the Peace Race"-a treaty on general and complete disarmament-would flood the Congress with mail protesting this instrument for national suicide. Our best hope is to keep in touch with our senators and representatives regarding this treaty and to let them know what we think about it.