The bill would also make it unlawful for any person (other than a person excepted by section 4 of the act) to acquire from any manufacturer or dealer any firearm through the use of any instrumentality of or facility for interstate or foreign commerce unless such person has delivered to such manufacturer or dealer the above-described certificate containing all the required information. The bill would require the Attorney General to have prepared and distributed to all State and local law enforcement officers appropriate forms for use by them in executing the certificates required for the lawful shipment of firearms. It is noted at the outset, that neither the bill nor existing law apparently would preclude a firearms transaction involving a person concerning whom adverse information is furnished in the certificate as to his purpose in acquiring a firearm, his mental competence, stability, or reputation for observance of law. Existing law does prohibit firearms transactions with a person who is under indictment or who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or who is a fugitive from justice. Also, although probably not intended, it would appear that under the bill a licensed manufacturer or dealer apparently would be required to furnish a properly executed certificate in order lawfully to receive any firearm shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. The information required to be furnished in the certificate to be executed by the local law enforcement officer is to be based upon such information or records as are available to such officer. The bill is not clear as to what records are to be considered as available. For example, available records might include not only local law enforcement records, but also law enforcement records on the State level, and might include Federal Bureau of Investigation records provided the local officer could furnish the person's fingerprints. It is not clear whether records from other localities or other States might also be considered available to the officer. The same may be said of the requirement that the officer list available information relating to the person's mental competency and stability. Therefore, the bill would seem to place an onerous and almost unreasonable burden on the local law enforcement officer, especially in view of the vagueness of the bill with respect to the records or information to be considered available to the officer. Finally, under existing law the Treasury Department is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Federal Firearms Act and it would seem that the preparation and distribution of the certificates contemplated by the bill should be under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury rather than the Attorney General. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Department of Justice is unable to recommend favorable consideration of this bill. The Department does, however, favor strengthening the Federal Firearms Act and in this connection submitted a report to your committee on December 3, 1963, on S. 1975 suggesting amendments to that bill which it is believed would effectively accomplish that objective. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on amendments intended to be proposed by Senator Dodd to the bill (S. 1975) to amend the Federal Firearms Act (amendment No. 360). In our report of December 3, 1963, on the bill, S. 1975, we also commented on earlier proposed amendments intended to be proposed by Senator Dodd (for himself and Senator Fong) to the bill (S. 1975) to amend the Federal Firearms Act (amendment No. 335). The amendments proposed by amendment No. 360 are similar to those proposed by amendment No. 335. With respect to the sworn statement to be required of a purchaser by proposed section 2(1) of the act (pp. 5–6 of S. 1975), amendment No. 335 would re quire that such statement be accompanied by a certificate of the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the purchaser resided. This certificate would indicate that to the best of the officer's knowledge and belief the statements made in the sworn statement of the purchaser are true. Our report stated this would be a desirable and essential amendment. We note that amendment No. 360 would not require a certification of the purchaser's sworn statement by the local chief law enforcement officer. Under this proposed amendment a purchaser would submit his sworn statement to the manufacturer or dealer who would be required to send by registered mail a copy of the purchaser's sworn statement to the local law enforcement officer with a description of the firearm, and upon the return of the receipt evidencing delivery of the registered letter the manufacturer or dealer could ship the firearm to the purchaser. In our view the procedure outlined above as proposed in amendment No. 360 is not a satisfactory substitute for amendment No. 335 which would require certification of the sworn statement by the local law enforcement officer. We believe the certification by local law enforcement officers, as would be required under amendment No. 335, would be more effective in preventing the acquisition of firearms by those who should not have them than would be the case under the procedures provided by amendment No. 360. We again suggest the importance of amending the bill to make it illegal to transport, ship, or receive firearms in interstate or foreign commerce except as between licensed dealers or manufacturers or as between any such licensed dealer or manufacturer and any person excepted from the application of the Federal Firearms Act by section 4 of that act (15 U.S.C. 904). Such an amendment would eliminate any need for the affidavits contemplated by section 2(1) and would, of course, necessitate other conforming changes. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH, Deputy Attorney General. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to S. 1975, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act. The Federal Firearms Act (15 U.S.C. sec. 901 et seq.) makes it unlawful for an unlicensed manufacturer or dealer to transport, ship, or receive any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to issue, suspend, and revoke licenses for such purpose, and must collect a fee of $25 per annum from a license applicant who is a manufacturer and $1 per annum from anyone who is a dealer. S. 1975 would make it unlawful for a manufacturer or dealer knowingly to deliver handguns, short-barreled weapons, and machineguns to any common or contract carrier for transportation to anyone other than a licensed manufacturer or dealer without written notice thereof to the carrier; for any such carrier knowingly to deliver such weapons to anyone under 18 years of age; for a manufacturer or dealer to ship such weapons to an unlicensed person unless such person has submitted to the manufacturer or dealer a sworn statement that he is 18 years of age or more, that he is not a person prohibited by the bill from receiving such a weapon, and that there are no other provisions of law, regulation, or ordinance that would be violated by the person's receipt or possession of the weapon. The scope of the Federal Firearms Act would be limited to handguns and other firearms as defined in section 5848 (1) of the Internal Revenue Code and would exclude ammunition and small firearm parts from its coverage. Certain presumptions of guilt from the possession of firearms would also be eliminated from the law. The bill would also raise fees, providing for a $50 per annum fee for manufacturers and pawnbrokers and a $10 fee for other dealers. The Department of Commerce is fully in accord with the objectives of this bill to strengthen the Treasury Department's control over the distribution of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce and eliminate unnecessary and undesirable features of the law. We do not believe that the firearm industry would be substantially injured by proposals of this nature which are intended to provide reasonable regulation of the sale and shipment of firearms. Such regulations should be no bar to recreational and other legitimate use of firearms. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, LAWRENCE JONES, Acting General Counsel. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Amendment No. 335 to S. 1975 would alter the regulatory scheme proposed in that bill in two significant respects: (1) Broaden coverage to include all firearms regardless of size, shape, or description. S. 1975, as introduced, would regulate interstate retail sales of handguns, short-barrel weapons and machineguns essentially nonsporting weapons as distinguished from sporting types, rifles, shotguns, etc. Amendment No. 335 would bring the latter group within the regulation proposed. (2) The amendment would also require that the prospective purchaser's sworn statement (as to his being 18 or more years of age; not barred from acquiring under the Federal Firearms Act; i.e., not convicted or under indictment, or a fugitive from justice; and not barred by State or local law) be supplemented by a certificate of the chief law enforcement officer of the purchaser's locality attesting that the statements are true to the best of the officer's knowledge and belief. The impact of the controls as proposed will fall primarily on those firms engaged in retail mail-order sale of firearms in interstate or foreign commerce. It will affect some of the well-know, long-established firms engaged generally in the mail-order business with respect to their sales of sportingtype weapons. On the other hand, direct over-the-counter retail sales, or even intrastate mail-order sales, would be left entirely to such State and local regulations as may exist or be adopted. As indicated in our earlier comment on S. 1975, we concur in the need to strengthen controls over the distribution of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce. That a weapon is widely regarded as a sporting arm does not remove its homicidal capabilities nor insure against its use for sinister purposes, even assassination. We do not believe that the regulatory plan of S. 1975 as proposed to be amended would work undue hardship on those persons engaged in interstate retail sales nor present unreasonable obstacles to persons seeking to purchase firearms for recreational or other legitimate purposes. Since our earlier comment on S. 1975, it has come to our attention that the bill would subject to the sworn statement and certification requirements of section 2(1) the return shipment in interstate commerce of a repaired or modified firearm from a gunsmith to its present owner. We believe that the legitimate repair service of gunsmiths ought not to be included in the coverage of this part of the bill. We also believe that certain types of modification such as the alteration of chokes on shotguns, restocking, and changes from military to hunting sights should not be rendered more difficult. We recommend amendment of the bill to exempt these services from its provisions. However, other types of modification such as conversion to automatic fire, shortening of barrels, equipping of silencers and mufflers, and possibly the mounting of telescopic sights, might properly remain within the purview of the certification procedure. S. 2345 would amend the present Federal Firearms Act by forbidding the sale of a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce to any person (other than a person falling within an excepted category-police officers and the like) unless he furnishes a written statement by a local law enforcement officer. Such a statement shall cover: (1) The purchaser's stated reason for acquiring the firearm; (2) Record of indictments or convictions of purchaser (for crimes punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or more) from information available to certifying officer; (3) Information available as to whether purchaser is a fugitive; (4) Information available as to probable mental competence and stability of purchaser, and his reputation for law observance. S. 2345 introduces the elements of probable mental competence, instability, and reputation for law observance (sec. 2(j) (4)). While we fully agree that firearms should not go to mental incompetents, persons of unstable temperament, or habitual lawbreakers, the language of S. 2345 on these points we feel, offers no objective definitions, would present serious administrative difficulties, and would invite abuse. Information as to probable mental competence might not represent sanity and competence; but might embrace unqualified statements of lay persons, reflecting personal bias, disaffection, etc. Moreover, it might include the certifying officer's own subjective opinion. The same problems will be encountered in determinations of instability and reputation for law observance. Further, the provision of this information under the terms of the bill would impose no restriction on the sale of firearms, and thus would be ineffective. Neither S. 2345 nor the Federal Firearms Act, which it would amend, would forbid the seller to complete the sale even if the officer certifies that the prospective purchaser is probably mentally incompetent, unstable, or has a bad reputation with respect to observance of the law. S. 2345 does not include a number of changes of the Federal Firearms Act which are proposed in S. 1975 and which have a general measure of acceptance and support. We refer, for example, to the proposal in S. 1975 to eliminate antitrust law violations and other nonviolent economic offenses, from the range of disqualifying offenses as respects acquiring firearms. In view of the foregoing considerations, we believe that the regulatory scheme set forth in S. 1975 as proposed to be amended (amendment No. 335) is preferable to that set forth in S. 2345. Accordingly, we so recommend to your committee. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report to the Congress from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, LAWRENCE JONES, Acting General Counsel. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C., November 21, 1963. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Your committee has requested a report on S. 1975, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act. The bill does not appear to relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of this Department or to affect any matter upon which the Department would be in a position to give helpful information or advice. Accordingly, we have no comment to offer with respect to the merit of the bill. We welcome the opportunity to submit recommendations on any measure where possibly the activities of the Department may be involved, or where its experience may be of value. Sincerely yours, GEORGE E. ROBINSON, Deputy Administrative Assistant, Secretary of the Interior. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., December 10, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Your committee has requested the comments of this Department on S. 2345, a bill "To amend the Federal Firearms Act to further restrict the use of instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce for the acquisition of firearms for unlawful purposes," and on proposed amendments to S. 1975, a bill "To amend the Federal Firearms Act." Both S. 2345 and S. 1975, with amendments, amend the Federal Firearms Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. sec. 901 et seq.) and are designed to curtail or prevent the use of firearms by irresponsible persons. These bills do not appear to relate to any matter that is within the competence of this Department, except insofar as the bills, if enacted, might affect the hunting public. In this regard, it is our opinion that hunters generally would not object to the provisions of either of these bills. It should be pointed out, however, that the definition of the term "State" in S. 1975 does not include the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Guam. We suggest, therefore, that on line 4, page 2 of this bill a comma be inserted after "Puerto Rico" and that on page 2, line 5 the bill be amended to read as follows: "the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States." The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, FRANK P. BRIGGS, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., January 23, 1964. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Your committee has requested our comments on amendment No. 360 to S. 1975, a bill "To amend the Federal Firearms Act." This amendment to S. 1975 does not appear to relate to any matter that is within the competence of this Department, except insofar as the bill with this amendment, if enacted, might affect the hunting public. On this point, we are unaware of any reason why hunters would object to the provisions of this amendment. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, KENNETH HOLUM, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., November 13, 1963. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of August 8, 1963, requested the views of the General Services Administration on S. 1975, 88th Congress, a bill "To amend the Federal Firearms Act." The purpose of the bill is to curtail the shipment in interstate commerce and delivery by common carrier of "mail order" handguns to juveniles; to provide that firearms dealers and manufacturers give written notice to common carriers of handguns being transported in interstate commerce; and to provide that each purchaser of a mail-order handgun enclose a sworn affidavit with his purchase order to establish his bona fide age, felony convictions or criminal record. Inasmuch as section 4 of the Federal Firearms Act (52 Stat. 1252), as it would be amended by the enactment of this bill, would continue to exempt the United |