74 INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF FIREARMS Why the legislatures of those States have seen fit not to tie-in, I don't know. But the cities have acted, and yet we haven't afforded those metropolitan areas protection. Mr. BEEKS. On page 10 of your statement you say it would be impractical for an individual to obtain a firearm by mail-order shipment without the knowledge of local authorities, or in violation of local laws. That is predicated upon the assumption that the local authorities are going to follow through when they get this information. Mr. COGGINS. We feel that, if the local authorities desire-certainly in places where the local authority is in a position to know that the firearm is being shipped in, and if it is a violation of their local laws or ordinances we presume they would take action. Mr. BEEKS. I can see where they could Mr. COGGINS. And there is also, I think, as far as irresponsible persons and juveniles are concerned, a great psychological deterrent to the procedure set forth in Senator Dodd's bill. Mr. BEEKS. But a person could still go to a notary public and swear to anything. The notary doesn't attest to the validity of what is contained in the affidavit, only what is sworn to. One could give a wrong name, wrong age, swear he was not a felon when in fact he was, and give a wrong address. Unless the police followed up on it, the bill wouldn't accomplish anything. Mr. COGGINS. You say he could do this. I don't say so, personally. I think it is doubtful a juvenile would go through this procedure. Mr. BEEKS. Psychologically? Mr. COGGINS. Psychologically. I think it would have a great psychological deterrent. Certainly someone who has something to hide or who has a criminal record is not going to spread this kind of situation on the record. In other words, first he has to go before the notary public and he knows the police are going to get a copy of this affidavit. I just don't believe that an irresponsible person or a juvenile would go through this procedure. Mr. BEEKS. But it does depend on the cooperation of the local police? Mr. COGGINS. Yes; and I think that is proper. In other words, we feel these cities, particularly, who have enacted requirements, are entitled to know that these guns are coming into their jurisdictions, possibly in violation of their own laws, and to juveniles. Now we feel at least they are entitled to that type of protection from the Federal Government. Mr. BEEKS. Could the States enact laws requiring manufacturers to notify local police authorities of the fact that weapons were being shipped into that State; would it be a violation if they were not notified? Mr. COGGINS. The States, of course, can't go outside of their jurisdiction, and their jurisdiction stops at their border and the State has nothing to do with a mail-order dealer in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Mr. BEEKS. Except when it hits the border? Mr. COGGINS. That is true, but there the only effective action they could take would be try to deal with the carrier, who is bringing in the gun. The person in the commerce of this is the man in Los Angeles and the State has no effective way of reaching him. Take the case of South Carolina, where they prohibit the sale, or the laws are construed to prohibit the sale. South Carolina has no way to reach the dealer in Los Angeles. Now we would reach the dealer in Los Angeles by the Dodd proposal. Mr. BEEKS. Could they provide, through State statute, that anyone who caused a weapon to be shipped within the State of South Carolina without notifying the police would be in violation of law? Mr. COGGINS. Well, I don't know how much beyond their borders they can project their jurisdiction. That is a difficult problem there. It is true, they have to do something basically that comes within the reach of the State authority. The State authority basically doesn't reach out of the State. That is where the Federal Government does have the responsibility in the transactions that go between States, and between United States and foreign countries. Mr. BEEKS. Senator Dodd has in effect three versions of the bill before the committee. Do you have your preference toward one or another? Mr. COGGINS. We prefer the bill with the amendments offered by the Senator on December 12, which is the version with the new subsection "L." Mr. BEEKS. You believe that would be more effective than the amendment of November 27. Mr. COGGINS. I think actually the National Rifle Association, as I understand I wasn't here when they testified, but there were some questions raised, and I think possibly reasonably, concerning the police officer certification—that just by failure to act that they could prevent anyone, whether it was or wasn't against the law, from shipping firearms. And it would, of course, place a greater burden on them. Here it doesn't place a direct burden, any more burden than they wished to assume on the police department. Senator HART. Thank you very much, Mr. Coggins. Our next witness is the executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Thomas Kimball, of Washington. STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. KIMBALL. May I begin by recalling a pleasant experience, when you addressed our annual meeting last March in Detroit. Senator HART. It was pleasant for me, but it is usually tough on the recipients. Of course, I should not burden the record by thanking you for supporting some national recreation proposals affecting Michigan, that I think we are about to get. Mr. KIMBALL. It was our pleasure. Mr. CHAIRMAN. I am Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation which has its headquarters here in Washington, D.C. A private, nonprofit organization, the Federation is dedicated to the attainment of conservation goals through educational means. In all States are located independent conservation organizations which are affiliated with the National Wildlife Federation. These affiliates are made up of individuals who, when considered with other supporters of the Federation, number an estimated 2 million persons. All Americans, indeed all compassionate people the world over, have shared the initial disbelief, then the shock, dismay, and grief over the tragic assassination of our beloved President. This most infamous act in recent history has concentrated the irrepressible fury of the law-abiding citizen against all crimes of violence, the people who commit them, and the instruments employed. Most thoughtful, reasonable Americans have been asking themselves these simple questions: Will the enactment of laws controlling the sale and possession of firearms, short of complete and effective disarmament of the citizenry, prevent the brutality and senseless murder committed by the assassin, the felon, the criminally insane, the juvenile delinquent? Would such laws if in force at the time have prevented the assassination of one of the greatest men of our times? Insofar as the National Wildlife Federation is concerned, the answer is a forceful and resounding "No" to both questions. Would the alleged assassin Oswald have been effectively prevented from acquiring the same weapon used in the assassination of the President_if there had been a law completely prohibiting the sale of mail-order guns? Could he not have purchased-or had a friend purchase or have stolen the same type of weapon from a dozen or more outlets in the city of Dallas? When purchasing firearms, no responsible and law-abiding citizen should object to providing an affidavit that he is of age, has not been convicted of a felony, or been committed to a mental institution. Would such a law, however, eliminate the probability of criminals and the mentally disturbed from falsifying such an affidavit? Most individuals of this ilk have proved they have no respect for any law. It is conceded that such an approach may, however, deter a number of individuals, particularly juveniles, with only an inclination toward the misuse of firearms, and the National Wildlife Federation would support this approach as a means of alleviating the problem. If penalties for giving false information are sufficiently severe, the deterrent value can be exceedingly worthwhile. S. 1975, introduced by Senator Dodd, distinguished chairman of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee, generally speaking is a good bill and is supported by the National Wildlife Federation with some slight modification. At least two provisions contained within its framework are worthy of further consideration, discussion, and change. Section 2 provides that an affidavit must be executed by an applicant intending to purchase a gun by mail order, providing thereon his name, address, age, criminal record, if any, name, and address of principal law-enforcement officer, and whether or not the purchase would be contrary to State law. The proposed bill then provides that the affidavit must be furnished the seller who shall forward the same by registered mail with a return receipt requested, to the principal law enforcement officer of the locality in which the affiant resides. Only when receiving the return receipt may the seller lawfully execute delivery of the firearm. As I read the provision, the language provides police veto power over any and all gun purchases by mail order. There is no law requiring the intended recipient of registered mail to sign unless he desires to receive the message being conveyed. Without the return receipt, the gun dealer is powerless to conclude a sale. The provision requiring the seller to receive the returned receipt from the police should be eliminated and the penalties for executing a false affidavit should be increased. Senator Dodd has testified that his bill is not intended as a measure to license or register firearms, and the National Wildlife Federation strongly supports his desire in this respect. In this connection, a review of section 2 of this bill, containing the form of the affidavit to be executed, is in order. Paragraph C of this section provides that a sworn statement shall be "executed in such form and manner as the Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe." While there is no objection to the intent of this section, which gives police authorities information which will assist them in crime prevention and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, there should be very definite and specific limitations placed on the authority of the Secretary to impose additional requirements or information other than those specified in the law as a condition of firearm purchase. The Secretary should be prohibited from promulgating any regulations other than those specifically permitted by the Congress. More specifically there should not be a requirement for the serial number of a firearm as a condition of purchase. A requirement of both name of purchaser and serial number of weapons purchased would undoubtedly be used as a firearms registration device. I repeat again for emphasis that this law and all others contemplated by State and local authorities should be directed toward the criminal element and unlawful use rather than mere possession or registration of firearms. Gun registration lists, no matter how subtly obtained nor how intensely desired by law enforcement agencies, can and will provide the most effective and convenient way of disarming the private citizen should a subversive power infiltrate our police systems or our enemies occupy our country. Mr. Chairman, there are still those who would make a mockery of article II of the Constitution of the United States. There are those who would eliminate completely the American tradition, heritage and right of the law-abiding citizenry to bear arms. There are still those who evidently have forgotten that upstanding citizens, trained and expert in the use of firearms, won our country's freedom from tyranny and obtained for us all the great individual freedoms we possess today. There are still those who have forgotten the important role of the expert American rifleman, who has yet to be defeated in war and continues to be an important force in the constant and ever-continuing effort to preserve individual freedoms we possess today. We have only to review the experiences of some European countries which have disarmed the law-abiding citizen who is now subjected to tyrannical rule of the police state with little possibility of retrieving individual freedom without massive outside help. At this point may I insert in the record a newspaper clipping from the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, Colo., dated November 29, 1962 The article reports on a proposal by Dr. E. U. Condon, professor of physics at the University of Colorado, written to the Attorney General of the United States and to all 50 State Governors, recommending that the possession of firearms by citizens be permitted only after licensing and then be left in police custody at all times, except when taken out for a specific period and purpose. He further advocates that all persons so permitted to have firearms in their possession be required to wear distinctive garb to identify them as armed persons. According to the newspaper story, Dr. Condon was described by the House Un-American Activities Committee as "one of the weakest links in our atomic security." According again to the newspaper account, the description was based on no allegation of disloyalty, but rather on acquaintance of alleged Russian spies. I am hopeful that the committee will not be influenced by extremists of this type. (The newspaper account follows:) [From the Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colo., Nov. 29, 1963] FULL CONTROL URGED FOR PRIVATE FIREARMS (By Jack Gaskie, Rocky Mountain News writer) BOULDER, November 28.—Dr. E. U. Condon, professor of physics at the University of Colorado, Thursday called for complete control of private possession of firearms in the wake of President Kennedy's assassination. Dr. Condon proposed that private possession of firearms be permitted only under licensing; that all private firearms be left in the custody of police except when taken out for a specific period and purpose, and that anyone taking his private firearms from police custody should be compelled to wear distinctive garb. Dr. Condon outlined his suggestion in letters to U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy and to the Governors of the 50 States. REEXAMINATION He also suggested a reexamination by the armed services, particularly the Marine Corps, of their handling of men, and a boycott of violence in movies, television, and printed matter. Dr. Condon is one of the Nation's foremost theoretical physicists. When he was described in 1948 by the House Un-American Activities Committee as "one of the weakest links in our atomic security," his reaction was vigorous and loud protest. The description was based on no allegation of disloyalty, but rather on acquaintance with alleged Russian spies. The Atomic Energy Commission thereafter authorized his scrutiny of classified atomic information "in the best interest of the atomic energy program." Dr. Condon has served as Director of the National Bureau of Standards and president of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Association of Physics Teachers. His appointment to the Colorado University faculty was made September 20. REVIEWED DEATHS His letter to the Attorney General and Governors reviewed the three deaths in one weekend—those of the President, of his suspected assassin, and of the policeman who tried to arrest the assassin. He noted all three men left widows and small children. He said those who wish to honor the memory of President Kennedy will try to find ways to make this a better world to live in. "Millions of Americans are now asking themselves, What can we do?" Condon wrote. "Many things need doing, not just some one single best thing. So let us begin." One of the things needing doing, he wrote, is control of firearms, which are responsible for so many intentional and accidental deaths annually. "Aside from their use in the commission of crime,” Dr. Condon wrote, “private possession of firearms has only three uses: |