We are wholly in accord with legislation to prevent the present circumvention of local law by unrestricted availability of handguns in interstate commerce. At the same time we advocate legislation aimed at the criminal misuse of firearms. We are concerned with the apparent ease with which cases are dismissed or sentences converted to lenient paroles. A recent study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed that nearly 80 percent of all major crimes are committed by repeat criminals. A great deal could be accomplished by more rigid enforcement of existing laws, including the existing provisions of the Federal Firearms Act. Uniform State laws requiring mandatory penalties for crimes involving firearms would be in order. We also hope that our society will devote more attention to removing the basic underlying causes of crime. We favor a bill like H.R. 7472 with certain changes, to remove the easy interstate availability of handguns to juveniles, felons, mental defectives, et cetera. This type of bill appears to us to be consistent with the facts available about the misuse of firearms (predominantly a misuse of concealables), but at the same time it does not unduly penalize the law-abiding citizens. Because the handgun is by its nature concealable, it has come under heavy criticism. We would like to emphasize that thousands of lawabiding citizens enjoy pistol shooting on ranges and in some sections of the Nation the handgun is used for varmit shooting. Handguns are also lawfully owned for the protection of life and property. We believe a bill, similar to H.R. 7472, would be more acceptable to the public if it contained a preamble recognizing the basic indiviual right to own and use firearms. Also, the sportsmen would like to see the preamble state that it is desirable to avoid a centralized record system relating to firearms ownership. The specific changes we suggest are as follows: Under definition 5 (p. 2, line 18) "manufacturer" we would like to see added the phrase "in the business of," and also clarify that individual or club handloaders, and small custom gunsmiths, are excluded. In the definition 11 (p. 3, line 22) "crime," we would like to see the latter part read: or otherwise similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or the payment or collection of taxes. We would suggest a further definition (12) the term "engaged in the business of" shall be limited to those persons engaged in the business for the purpose of making a profit. In section 2(1) (p. 5, line 20), we would suggest removing: * * * a person exhibiting a license prescribed in subsection (c) of this section ((2) of the Federal Firearms Act). Subsection (c) permits the delivery in interstate commerce of a firearm to a person exhibting a license if such is required by his State law. It seems to us unreasonable to expect a dealer in San Diego, for example, to know what constitutes a valid firearms license for a Massachusetts citizen, and therefore we think the affidavit discussed below should be required of any nonresident purchaser of a handgun regardless of the State license. Concerning section 2(1), we believe that a simple "sworn statement” (p. 5, line 23) is not enough of a deterrent, particularly as some juveniles may not understand the implications of "sworn," and that a substantial deterrent is added if they have to appear before a notary public or other public officials such as a postmaster. Therefore, we recommend (in line 23) the addition of "which shall have been attested to by a notary public," with the necessary changes elsewhere to carry out this meaning. Further, in subsection (1), we would like to see the words "or certified" added immediately following the word "registered" everywhere it appears. This is because certified mail, return receipt requested, accomplishes the same purpose for a much lower postal fee. We would like to see added at the end of subsection (1) a paragraph: This subsection shall not apply in the case of a handgun shipped to a licensed manufacturer or dealer for repair, service, or legal modification and which is being returned to the sender by such manufacturer or dealer and the records of the manufacturer or dealer shall properly show such information. We would like to see the affidavit required in subsection (1) similarly apply in a new subsection (m) to the person who travels across a State line and purchases a handgun across the counter. Our suggested subsection (m) would read: It shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer or dealer to sell or otherwise dispose of any handgun as defined in this act to any person other than a person whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a resident of (or, in the case of a corporation or business entity, which has a place of business in) the State in which the manufacturer or dealer's place of business is located, unless the person to whom such handgun or firearm is sold or otherwise disposed of has submitted to such manufacturer or dealer a sworn statement in duplicate, in such reasonable form as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe, which shall have been attested to by a notary public, to the effect that: (1) his complete name and place of residence; (2) such person is 18 years or more of age; (3) he is not a person prohibited by this act from receiving a handgun in interstate or foreign commerce; (4) there are no provisions of law, regulations or ordinances applicable which would be violated by such person's receipt or possession of such handgun, and (5) the name, title, and address of the principal law enforcement officer in the locality in which such person resides. It shall be unlawful unless such manufacturer or dealer has, prior to the delivery of such firearm, forwarded by U.S. registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) to the local law enforcement officer named in the affidavit, the description (including (1) manufacturer thereof, (2) the caliber, (3) the model and type of handgun but not including serial number identification) of the handgun to be delivered, and one copy of the affidavit, and has received a returned receipt evidencing delivery of the registered or certified letter, or such registered or certified letter has been returned to the manufacturer or dealer due to the refusal of the named law enforcement officer to accept such letter, as evidenced in accordance with U.S. Post Office Department regulations. We suggest that section 7 of the Federal Firearms Act read: The Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Such regulations shall be made on the record after opportunity for a public hearing, and shall be reviewable pursuant to section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Attorney General Katzenbach has testified that the Administrative Procedure Act is ample protection for the public from an overzealous Secretary of the Treasury. We respect fully disagree with this. In section 4 of the APA, even administrative hearings can be avoided— except when notice of hearing is required by statute. Hence we are suggesting that they should be required by the legislation under consideration here. Secondly, the judicial review steps in APA section 10 are applicable except so far as cretion. * * * agency action is by law committed to agency dis Competent legal advisers are not exactly certain as to just what this means, but we think it should be the intent of the gun legislation under consideration that these judicial review steps are effectively available to a person who may feel the Secretary of the Treasury is unduly extending the legislation. It would seem to us very logical, and simple enough, to included the above suggestions specifically making the review steps of APA section 10 applicable. Because of the sportsman's dread of complete "registration" we think it would dispel a lot of opposition to a sound bill if in connection with its introduction (and in any press releases about the bill) it be specifically emphasized that "the bill does not and cannot require or permit registration." Perhaps this wording should be put in the bill itself. Foundation members are not in unanimous agreement on all aspects of importation. Concerning the importation of new, high-quality firearms, there is general agreement that no legislation should prohibit these imports. As to light military surplus-such as revolvers, rifles and shotguns, but not "destructive devices"-there is a widespread business in making these firearms into "sporters." Thousands of sportsmen enjoy the hobby of converting surplus military rifles into acceptable hunting and target rifles. Some surplus, because of its low cost, appeals to juveniles. But a bill like H.R. 7472, with the above suggestions, we think would curb the sale of surplus handguns, and eventually would slow their imports into this country. It should also be kept in mind that used domestic firearms are also available at low prices so that importation is not the only source. We urge that the crime problem be attacked in the area of basic social causes of crime. We thus do not see any reason to discriminate against firearms on the basis of whether they are of foreign origin or domestic make. We would also like to add, before leaving the subject of surplus military rifles, that we think the executive branch already has the authority, under section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, to control the flow of surplus military firearms into America. The foundation is opposed to the administration's proposal to amend the Federal Firearms Act (H.R. 6628, H.R. 6783, and S. 1592), as introduced. The reasons for opposing these bills are: 1. Heavy military weapons are of no interest for sporting purposes and therefore should not be included in legislation designed to regulate commerce in sporting firearms. "Destructive devices" would be more appropriate in the National Firearms Act which already regulates gangster-type weapons. The fact that the bill was written so as to lump missiles, bombs, and cannons in with sporting firearms is the main reason the public has been confused on the entire issue. 2. The bills would ban all mail-order sales of firearms (including sporting shotguns and rifles) to consumers, although the majority of firearms used in crime are of the concealable type. The fact that the individual States have not seen reason to regulate the sale of shoulder arms indicates that shoulder arms are not a major factor in crime; also, it would work a hardship on rural people who order sporting shotguns and rifles. 3. Under reasonable, prescribed conditions a sportsman should be allowed to buy a handgun in a State other than his home State. 4. There should be no limitation on shipment of firearms for legitimate repairs, service, and modification and for recreational purposes. 5. The proposed dealer's license fee of $100 is too high and would force thousands of small dealers to quit handling sporting firearms and ammunition, especially in rural areas. 6. The provisions, especially as to licenses, affecting more than 2 million people who reload ammunition are not clear and could work a hardship on them and others who use reloaded cartridges. It appears that in some cases individual custom gunsmiths would be required to obtain a manufacturer's license of $500 per year. 7. In accordance with previous recommendations of the Treasury Department, there should be no regulation on interstate shipment and sale of any sporting ammunition. 8. Regulations on importation of firearms for lawful uses should be clearer. 9. The bills would give the Secretary of the Treasury too much authority. The bills should have clear language protecting the rights of sportsmen. The Secretary of the Treasury should be required to hold public hearings for the record before issuing regulations. We are aware that a great many citizens, disturbed by the extent to which some of the proposed legislation would go, have written their Congressmen. We regret that a few of these writers have not been as informed or as objective as would be ideal. But the significant point is that there does exist a widespread fear of governmental encroachment on firearms ownership. A mutual confidence between people and government must exist for an effective democracy to operate. The momentum of citizen concern about firearms legislation is not going to be stopped easily or immediately. The National Shooting Sports Foundation offers its full cooperation to the Committee on Ways and Means. Again we are certainly grateful for the opportunity to present our views to the committee and we are available to help in any way that we can. Thank you very much. (The information referred to follows:) COMPANY MEMBERSHIP LIST,' NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Amateur Trapshooting Association Daisey Manufacturing Co. Detroit Bullet Trap Firearms International Corp. Groody Advertising Agency, Inc. The Gun Digest Co. Lyman Gun Sight Corp. O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. INC. Manufacturing Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Hornady Manufacturing Co. Iver Johnson Arms & Cycle Works Lead Industries Association, Inc. 10-X Manufacturing Co. Thermos Co. Trap & Field magazine Trius Products, Inc. Utica Duxbak Corp. W. R. Weaver Co. of King-Seeley Winchester-Western Division Mr. WATTS. Thank you very much for your statement. Any questions? Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. WATTS. Mr. Broyhill. Mr. BROYHILL. I certainly want to commend you for the statement. that you made. Somewhere you indicate in your testimony-I am trying to find it now-we could do a great deal more to curb crime or to make crime less profitable by other legislative action. I know that as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia we have been trying to do just that here in the Nation's Capital, but surprisingly enough we are being met with a great deal of resistance and opposition to coming forth with what we feel is effective anticrime legislation, again seeking to do what you are suggesting in your testimony, that is, to make the punishment a little more severe. 1 Certain members, including some firms that are also members of the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, have indicated that their views are somewhat different from the foundation's. |