enue. I submit to his definition or his conclusion of what he thinks this law will accomplish.

Frankly, I do not think so. I think a man who is going to kill will not only do what you immediately suggest, but he would do anything else to obtain a weapon, and if he doesn't obtain a firearm, he will just use another weapon, as Professor Wolfgang says.

I am not saying this is not a step in the right directon; I am for it. But any man who wants to cheat, lie, steal, perjure himself-and he will if his objective is murder-can do it anyway under the bill you are considering. I agree that the recommendation that I make is not infallible. Neither do I believe the law will be infallible. I hope it is—but you cannot leave it to the law enforcement office to arbitrarily refuse registered mail and thereby deny a proper person from legally obtaining firearms.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Governor.

Senator Hart?

Senator HART. No questions.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Governor.

The hearings will resume approximately the third week in January. Specific dates will be announced at a later time.

We plan to hear the Justice Department and other interested Federal, State, and local authorities, a number of organizations and private individuals.

Persons desiring to testify should submit their requests in writing no later than January 10.

The meeting will be adjourned at this time.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing in the above matter was adjourned.)

INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF FIREARMS

THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m. in room 457, Old Senate Office Building, the Honorable Howard W. Cannon presiding.

Senator CANNON. The Committee on Commerce will resume its hearings today, which commenced last month, on the matter of firearms control.

As mentioned at the outset of these hearings, the committee intends to review all aspects of this problem thoroughly and welcomes all comments germane to its scope and extent and recommendations for a reasonable and effective solution. While the committee has not requested the testimony be limited to specific measures presently pending before the committee, attention will be directed to S. 1975 introduced by Senator Dodd, and S. 2345 by Senator Scott.

On December 18, the committee announced that requests to appear as witnesses before the committee must be submitted in writing prior to January 10. All persons who submitted such requests will be accommodated.

We are pleased to have as our first witness the Honorable Robert L. F. Sikes, Congressman from Florida.

I would like to state that the Commerce Committee is presently conducting another hearing this morning, and that is the reason we had to meet over here in this room, which is not our usual place. Congressman Sikes, we are very happy to have you here.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my feelings on the subject of additional gun laws now before this committee for consideration.

During the years that I have had the privilege of holding elected office, the subject of the right of the law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by our Constitution, has been, and continues to be, a subject of interest and deep concern to me. It is a matter of particular moment now, because of renewed agitation for tighter gun laws.

The tragic and senseless assassination of President Kennedy quite naturally resulted in a wave of hysteria against weapons and the ownership of weapons. However deplorable this inexcusable act was, it

scarcely follows that a crime committed by one man should cause 35 million gun owners to be persecuted. I seriously question that the legislation now proposed would have prevented the purchase of a gun by Lee Oswald or would have resulted in tighter security measures than those which were in effect.

There is already a Federal law that requires anyone selling guns interstate by mail, or otherwise, to buy a Federal firearms license. This law further requires that every sale be recorded and this record retained on hand for a period of 10 years. This record contains a detailed description of the gun, including the name and address of the buyer as well as the serial number. These records are available to any law enforcement officer. The fact to be remembered here is that this law is already in effect, and since the records are kept by the people in business, it does not cost the taxpayers one red cent. That this is an effective system is demonstrated by the fact that the information concerning the gun purchased by Lee Oswald was announced by the Dallas police on Saturday, the day after the assassination. The ballistic information on the bullet taken from Governor Connelly was announced on Monday. In other words, it would seem that the gun controls we already have may be more effective than some law enforcement agencies of the State and Federal Government.

We do not measure loss of human life in dollars and cents. Nor would we decry the cost of a gun control law which effectively prevented crime. Nevertheless, it is well to remember that any form of registration or control will cost tax dollars to operate and enforce and this is a burden which will be shared by all the people.

Mr. Chairman, you cannot legislate against human inconsistencies. The person who shot President Kennedy was the instrument of his death, a gun is an inanimate object and, by itself, can harm no one. The only people really affected by gun restrictions are the honest people. A man who needs a gun to commit a crime will get one by some method or other.

If anyone is convinced that antigun laws will reduce crime, and be a guarantee against violence and murder, then he is worse off than the ostrich. New York State has the toughest gun laws in America and probably the highest crime rate.

Great Britain, after Dunkirk, had only a few thousand small arms available in the entire country, and was requesting the people to contribute swords and crossbows for defense. This was the dilemma they faced because they did not have an armed civilian population to fall back on. Britain has tight gun laws.

During the German occupation of Norway and Denmark, in World War II, the Germans were required to keep one soldier for every 10 square miles of territory because of the partisan groups effective resistance. These people fell into the roles of guerrilla fighters easily because these were nations where gun ownership was encouraged. In other countries where government gun registration was required, the Germans had a handy list of all gun owners and were able to effectively disarm the entire nation.

When I purchase a weapon which is delivered in Washington, even though I own a Federal firearms license, I must go personally to the express office to receive it, and I must fully identify myself and sign a number of forms. Thus, I would assume that Washington is one of the stricter cities on ownership of firearms. But during a recent pe

riod when crime increased in the United States as a whole 14 percent, crime was increasing 41 percent in Washington. Gun laws don't appear to be the answer.

In a study by the FBI made in 564 cities during August 1960, involving a total populace of 69 million people, the following statistics were compiled:

Out of 7,348 aggravated assaults, 44 percent of the offenses were committed by cutting or stabbing; 24 percent by blunt objects; 12.7 percent by shooting; 12.3 percent by hands, fists, or feet and 1.2 percent by use of poison.

Now, if it follows that crime will be reduced or eliminated by doing away with all the criminal's weapons, then it is reasonable to assume that these weapons should be dealt with and eliminated according to their frequency of use. Since 44 percent of the above assaults were the result of cutting and stabbing, then all knives, ice picks, scissors, et cetera, should be registered. Since blunt objects accounted for 24 percent of the mayhem, then naturally rocks, hammers, baseball bats, rolling pins, sticks, et cetera, should be serialized and registered. Under the shooting heading should be included all weapons which propel any objects-whether by compressed air or rubber bands.

I do not question that there is a need for improvements. My statement simply is designed to show that we can easily go too far. The National Rifle Association, the leading organization of American sportsmen, has stated that it has no objection to legislation aimed at preventing the misuse of firearms, but that it opposes general registration of firearms and proposals to license the possession or purchase of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the association has said that it does not oppose legislation designed to prohibit possession of firearms by persons who have been convicted of a crime of violence, fugitives from justice, mental incompetents, drug addicts, and habitual drunkards; or making the sale of firearms to juveniles subject to parental consent.

In the event this distinguished committee feels that legislation is necessary, it is my belief that the amendments submitted by Sentaor Dodd, which would provide notification by the shipper to the local responsible policy agency when a firearms order has been placed, would provide adequate additional security and permit proper action to be taken to limit or prevent ownership of weapons by criminals, or those incompetent or irresponsible.

Now, let's take a broader look at the picture of firearms controls. In recent years, seldom has a session of any State legislature or of Congress met without the introduction of at least one bill that would curtail the legitimate use and possession of firearms by citizens of good repute as well as bad. This vast majority of these bills are introduced with the intention of curing some social ill, or to limit such use and possession by the juvenile delinquent and the criminal element. While I do not take issue with the purposes for which these bills are intended, if administered correctly and given the proper emphasis, but I certainly decry the efforts of some people or governmental agencies to severely limit the peaceful enjoyment of firearms by lawful citizens.

As the committee well knows, thousands of Americans who own and enjoy firearms for defense and support now feel strongly that the