However, I do not think that H.R. 7472, which I heard Mr. Orth for the first time this morning endorse wholeheartedly, will accomplish this. This bill that is before this committee is weak enough, but that one has even less beef, so to speak, in it.

Until this morning, I had not realized that Mr. Orth would approve a bill which would restrict the sale of handguns, even to nonresidents of the State. He suggested that that might be included.

The question of the control of the licenses has been a matter of great issue. The National Rifle Association has objected strenuously, and the bill has been amended with regard to the kind of regulations that the Secretary of the Treasury might issue.

If we are going to be able to control these dealers, somebody has to issue some regulations that will determine when and whether and under what circumstances their licenses may be withdrawn, what kind of an individual may get a dealer's license.

As it is now, anybody can get a dealer's license that has a dollar, and most anybody that wanted one would get one for $10, but if we can get something in the law that will enable the Secretary of the Treasury to see that the dealer is a reliable, trustworthy person, as most of them are now, we will go a long way toward helping to solve this problem.

Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Battin.

Mr. BATTIN. Unless my recollection is completely wrong, the National Rifle Association last year at their meeting endorsed the Dodd bill of that year, which is basically the King bill of this year.

I don't think your statement is fair. Of course, you did qualify it by saying that you didn't have any knowledge of it, but the fact is that I personally believe that they did support the Dodd bill of last year, which is basically the King bill this year.

Further, I don't believe that your suggestion that this committee or this Congress act on proposed legislation based upon polls that are conducted by newspapers or magazines is a very good one, in view of the fact that these people have never read the proposed legislation or have knowledge of the present law.

If we were to follow through with your suggestion as to the number of editorial writers that favor this bill or some control, why have a Congress? Why not then just submit their opinion to the President and have him endorse whatever they believe and make that the law of the land?

I happen to know one of the local papers here, the Washington Post to be specific, endorses this legislation, and even more restrictive legislation, editorially, but I want you to know I live in this area and I, for one, disagree with the editorial opinion of the Washington Post as it pertains to gun legislation.

I don't think editorial opinion always reflects what the readership believes. Remember, it is the opinion of the editor.

Certainly I question the statement you made regarding the misinformation that circulates in the country about this bill.

Perhaps the testimony you have given us, sir, could end up in somebody else's hands who would say you are misconstructing and misinforming. I don't believe you wish to leave that impression before this committee, that the National Rifle Association, the wildlife asso

ciations, and the other people who oppose this are circulating misinformation so as to defeat the purpose or the intent of this bill. I don't think you want the record to stand with that information.

Mr. BENNETT. I commend you, Congressman, the testimony before the Dodd committee with respect to certain letters and certain information that has been sent to members of the National Rifle Association. It is quite a long statement, but they had a full day of hearing on the matter, and you can judge for yourself.

If you will permit me, I will see that that information is sent to you, that testimony.

Mr. BATTIN. Fine.

I have no further questions.

Mr. BENNETT. I hope, and I am delighted to know that this committee is given this bill so much attention. It looks to me that for the first time in the last 27 years some worthwhile legislation is going to come out of the Congress.

I think that whatever these differences are perhaps can be reconciled, and we can get something meaningful and just, and if that is done, I predict that we will be able to control the shootings and killings and crime much better and much more safely than we are now.

Mr. HERLONG. I thank you very much, Mr. Bennett, for your appearance before this committee, and for the information you have given to us.

The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 20, 1965.)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FIREARMS ACTS

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in the committee room, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John C. Watts presiding.

Mr. WATTS. The committee will come to order. We will continue the hearings on the firearms bill. The first witness will be the Honorable Frank Horton, a Member of Congress from New York. Come around, colleague. Proceed as you desire.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK J. HORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee and to testify in connection with your current hearings on legislative proposals to bring firearms under greater control.

I appear in support of H.R. 7626, a bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act which I introduced on April 27. This is a moderate measure which is intended to restrict and regulate the mail-order sale of handguns. Its target is the widely identified problem area of handguns too easily being permitted in the hands of those who cannot give such weapons the respect they demand.

The legislation I propose is purposely limited in scope. It does not embrace those areas which are typically the province of millions of law-abiding Americans for whom the sporting use of firearms is a wholesome recreational outlet.

In assessing legislative needs in the field of firearms or any other realm, a necessary first step is determining the nature of the problem wo seek to remedy. I believe, in this instance, the statistics on the type of recipients for many mail-order handguns provide a good guide.

The testimony of police officials, criminologists, and other authorities has established that about one-quarter of all mail-order guns are received by individuals with criminal records. They obtain these death-dealing instruments with remarkable ease, too.

All that is usually required is for the ordering party to complete an order form and mail it to one of the many sources for handguns. The weapon is shipped via some form of commercial transportation over which there is no present Federal firearm restriction.

I understand that some 1 million pistols and revolvers are moved through this so-called mail-order and common carrier route every year.

Of course, it is not only the criminal or dangerous person receiving guns in this way that concerns us. Youngsters and those with mental illnesses also can and do obtain cheap and inferior, but nonetheless deadly weapons in this manner.

In recognition of these problems, varying answers have been suggested. Many of them are sound. Yet, there are others which would impose a kind of rigid regulation on all firearms to the extent that harsh and, I believe, unwarranted controls could result. I do not believe this approach is the answer for it attempts to remedy a social wrong by stifling the mechanism of the wrong the gun-rather than the wrong itself-the criminal.

In specific form, the bill I have introduced requires a sworn statement of age and absence of criminal record for the mail-order purchase of a handgun in which is included the name of the principal law enforcement officer of the purchaser's community.

This would be used for the manufacturer to provide a description of the gun to the local police department. It should be pointed out that the description expressly excludes the serial number. My bill also prohibits the interstate commerce of a handgun where the recipient is under 18. It sets new license fees for dealers, manufacturers, and pawnbrokers, as well.

Based on the problem of handguns which has been brought to us, I believe this type of proposal protects the public interest without interfering unreasonably with pleasure-seeking firearms enthusiasts. And, I am confident the support which a bill of this kind has-including endorsement by the National Rifle Association-is evidence of the reasonable requirements it urges.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I urge that your committee take under consideration and report out a bill of this moderate type rather than the more strict bills that have been proposed in this body and also in the other body.

Mr. WATTS. Thank you for your good statement. Any questions? Mr. BETTS. Mr. Horton, is this similar to Mr. King's bill?

Mr. HORTON. Yes, sir, it is and I certainly support the statements that Mr. King and others who have supported that bill have indicated. Mr. BETTS. Is it exactly the same as his bill, identical?

Mr. HORTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Battin.

Mr. BATTIN. I would like to thank our colleague from New York for appearing this morning. Almost all of the witnesses who have testified favoring the Dodd bill have been very frank to admit that they didn't believe that legislation would keep guns out of the hands of a professional criminal, a person who is dedicated, if you will, to a life of crime and uses a weapon in its perpetration.

Your bill, being similar to the King bill, really goes more to the legitimate Federal question of interstate transportation, doesn't it? Mr. HORTON. Yes, sir, and I thank the gentleman from Montana for the kind words he had to say and I certainly would emphasize that it does go to the regulation in interstate commerce of these types of

weapons. I believe, as I indicated, in my statement, that to take the Dodd bill approach, the more harsh measure, would penalize those people who legitimately are attempting to utilize their ability with weapons-gun enthusiasts, wildlife supporters, and that type of thing. It would curtail their activities and they would be injured and severely harmed as a result of that more restricted and harsh legislation, and I don't believe that the Congress should go that far, not at this stage, anyway, and I certainly don't feel that the Dodd bill or its approach is going to prevent, as others have testified, people who have in mind to commit a crime from getting weapons because of course it doesn't cover knives and all the other types.

Mr. BATTIN. There has been very little testimony concerning the value that this country has derived from the number of people who are trained by the National Rifle Association, gun clubs, and the shooting groups throughout the country in the proper use of a rifle and in marksmanship. This can be shown very easily when we think of World War II, Korea, and now in Vietnam and I personally believeI think the gentleman would concur-that when a person is taught the use of a firearm, taught the safety factor and how to use it properly, it does in fact add a great deal to the military strength of the country. Mr. HORTON. I certainly would agree with the gentleman from Montana with respect to that and would like to underscore it at this point in my testimony, and I also would wish that the members of the committee could have been with me about 2 or 3 weeks ago in my district when the Genesee Conservation League sponsored a pistol and rifle match there in which people from all over the State of New York and other States came to participate in a match that was well supervised, that showed the limits to which the organization would go to protect and to see that safety measures were carried out.

I also think that it is important for young people in our country to know how to use firearms in the right manner to protect themselves, to protect others, and to learn the legitimate uses of firearms, and this I think would be prevented by the Dodd bill approach and it is not interfered with under the more moderate approach that I have suggested.

Mr. BATTIN. I thank the gentleman for giving his time to appear before the committee.

Mr. WATTS. Any further questions? I would like to compliment the gentleman on his approach to it. He takes a very fine view of it. He does not interfere with legitimate use of firearms. There is one thing in his statement that I wish he could give me the reason for. It should be pointed out that the description expressly excludes the serial number.

Why is that essential and necessary? Shouldn't the law enforcement officials have the serial number of the gun?

Mr. HORTON. I think if they have the information that is provided in this bill that that would be sufficient without the serial number. I think that this is again a harsh penalty on those who legitimately would use the weapon.

Mr. WATTS. Two .38 Smith & Wessons are made, one gun 1 minute after the other. I would think the only difference between the two would be the serial number, wouldn't it?