As presently worded, these two requirements appear to pose a threat both to the dealer and to legitimate sportsmen who wish to purchase from him. The dealer is faced with a possible charge of violating the act if he is unwittingly deceived as to the purchaser's age or eligibility to possess a firearm under the applicable State and local laws. Under such circumstances, it can be expected that a sportsman wishing to purchase a firearm will be required by the dealer to prove his age and the fact that he is not precluded by State or local law from purchasing the firearm in question. Without such proof the dealer risks violating the act. This situation can and should be remedied by limiting the dealer's liability to situations in which "he knows or has reasonable cause to believe" that the purchaser is under 18 or prohibited from purchasing the firearm by State or local law. In addition, section 2(b) requires the dealer to follow procedures prescribed by the Secretary for ascertaining the "identity and place of residence" of the purchaser. "Identity" can include either fingerprints or photographs, or both. While the Secretary may need some latitude in promulgating some kinds of regulations, the bill should provide safeguards to insure that unduly burdensome identification procedures are not imposed. Without such safeguards in the bill, we believe that section 2(b) authorizes regulations which could be so highly objectionable to sportsmen as to outweigh any value such procedures might have for purposes of crime prevention. Ammunition: We are pleased to note that the Treasury Department has proposed amending H.R. 6628 to exclude firearms ammunition from the coverage of the act. As we testified before the Senate subcommittee, we believe the inclusion of ammunition in this legislation is unnecessary, would hurt many small businessmen and work a hardship on sportsmen. Firearms dealers' license fee: For similar reasons we have opposed the $100 license fee for firearms dealers. This proposal was far out of line with the actual earnings of most firearms dealers. The amendment proposed by the Treasury Department lowering the fee to $50 for pistols and revolvers, and $25 for long arms is a step in the right direction but still high in view of the economic evidence given the Senate subcommittee from an economic point of view, the imposition of a $25 or $50 fee would force many sporting goods and hardware stores to stop handling firearms. According to recent figures there are approximately 40,000 firearms dealers in the United States with average annual retail sales of about $4,500. Assuming a net profit after taxes of 3 percent, which is high for the average hardware or sporting goods store, average earnings on firearms sales amount to less than $140 per year. In view of these economic considerations, we believe that the $10 fee for a dealer's license is reasonable and should be enacted. Certainly, the $400,000 which would be generated by the $10 fee would be more than adequate for enforcing the law and checking the bona fides of the dealers, most of whom could be cleared by merely looking them up in Dun & Bradstreet. Regulatory provisions and legitimate gun ownership: In a number of cases H.R. 6628 delegates broad regulatory power to the Secretary of the Treasury. As previously stated, we recognize the need for the Secretary to have some latitude in issuing regulations and that the issuance of such rulings would be subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and the hearing requirement set forth in the amendment proposed by the Treasury Department. Nevertheless, the regulatory power delegated to the Secretary could be used in ways inconsistent with the legitimate interests of sportsmen. It is therefore important that the delegation of authority be as clear as possible and subject to conditions which will safeguard the legitimate interests of sportsmen. In addition to the regulatory provisions in sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the bill which we have already commented upon, there is another provision that should be clarified. Section 3(g) permits the Secretary to require the submission of reports by licensees concerning their records thereby providing a framework for national firearms registration. While we have been assured that this is not the intent of this bill, we do believe the Secretary should be specifically precluded from requiring the submission of reports with respect to every gun sold for purposes of maintaining a central firearms registry. Where it is necessary to delegate regulatory authority, we urge that such delegation be conditioned in two respects in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of sportsmen. First, it should be made clear that the regulatory authority is to be exercised in aid of State legislation both with respect to crime prevention and with respect to promotion by the States of the legitimate sporting use of firearms. Second, we believe the bill should specifically provide that the Secretary shall give full consideration to the legitimate interests of American sportsmen and sporting firearms dealers in issuing any regulations so as not to place unreasonable restrictions on the rights of legitimate gun owners. We are confident that this committee, the Congress and the Secretary have no desire to inhibit the proper use of sporting firearms. We believe that a provision such as that we have just proposed would provide the Secretary with the necessary flexibility and at the same time protect the interests of legitimate gun users. Findings and declaration: Finally, I would like to briefly comment upon the Treasury Department's proposed amendment to add to the bill a section containing proposed "findings." There are probably more grounds for disagreement on some of the premises contained in (or omitted from) these proposed "findings" than in the substantive provisions of the bill. We not only disagree with some of them, but as a practical matter we see no need for them in this bill at all. We believe all that is needed is a declaration of purpose which would first state the purpose in positive terms using the language contained on page 1 of Treasury's proposed amendments (A1) and then make clear what is not intended by this bill, using essentially the same language contained on pages 5 and 6 (part (b)) of the proposed amendments. I have prepared a draft, a declaration of purposes, along these lines which I would like to submit for the record. Mr. WATTS. Without objection it will be included. (The information referred to follows:) DECLARATION OF PURPOSES "SEC. 2(a) The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this bill is to provide Federal controls over interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, designed to make it feasible for the States to control more effectively the firearms traffic within their own borders under their own police power, and for other purposes. "(b) The Congress further hereby declares that it is not the purpose of this Act to place any undue or unnecessary restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this Act is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement, and effectuate the provisions of this Act." Mr. HADLEY. To summarize briefly, I have nine points here. (1) Federal legislation should be enacted which would complement State law by enabling State and local governments to effectively control the purchase and possession of concealable firearms by persons within their jurisdiction. (2) The legislation adopted should take into account the legitimate interests of the millions of law-abiding gun owners in being free from unreasonable and unnecessary limitations on the right to purchase, possess, and use sporting firearms for legitimate purposes. (3) No limitations on the rights of legitimate gun owners should be imposed without a clear demonstration that it will substantially aid in crime prevention. (4) Sporting rifles and shotguns should not be included in Federal gun control legislation. Federal regulation of the sale and use of sporting rifles and shotguns will not substantially aid in crime prevention efforts. (5) In lieu of the prohibition of interstate mail order sales and the regulation of over-the-counter sales intrastate proposed in H.R. 6628 including all firearms, we favor the approach taken in H.R. 7472 which regulates interstate sales of concealable weapons by use of an affidavit procedure. However, H.R. 7472 should be expanded to make the affidavit procedure applicable to sales of concealable weapons to nonresident purchasers. (6) Federal legislation regulating the interstate shipment and disposition of destructive devices such as bazookas, antitank guns, grenades, bombs, and missiles and rockets should be enacted. (7) The importation of cheap surplus military firearms and other used weapons not suitable for sporting purposes is one of the principal causes of this country's gun control problems and should be eliminated. (8) The fee for a dealer's license should be set at $10. (9) The regulatory powers delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury should be clearly defined in the bill. In promulgating regulations the Secretary should be required to give specific consideration to the legitimate interests of American sportsmen. May I again thank the chairman and members of this committee for their courtesy in permitting me to present the position of the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute. We wish to assure you of our willingness to cooperate with this committee and its staff in an effort to provide such Federal regulations as may be needed to permit effective firearms control at the State and local level consistent with State and local needs and interests. Mr. WATTS. Mr. Hadley, I would like to thank you for this very fine and excellent statement. Are there any questions? Mr. BURKE. I would just like to compliment Mr. Hadley on his statement which covers the subject very well, and particularly his statement on page 2 referring to providing stiff mandatory sentences for persons who use firearms in the commission of crimes. I think that this is the very nub of this whole bill, this whole proposal, and you are to be commended for your statement. Mr. WATTS. Thank you. Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. WATTS. Mr. Battin. Mr. BATTIN. I too would like to thank Mr. Hadley for his appearance and a great many of the things that he said, particularly as to the delegation of authority to the Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations, which leaves open a big door which could make it difficult, if not impossible, for the present unrestricted use of sporting weapons in the United States. I am a little concerned about surplus military weapons and I have made a point of this with other witnesses of which you are aware. On page 3 of your statement you say, and I quote in part here, that the -country has been flooded with millions of cheap surplus military firearms and other weapons which have been widely distributed. Are you talking about surplus military rifles and so forth, Mr. Hadley? Mr. HADLEY. It includes all of these cheap guns, military surplus in many cases. There may be others, but primarily military surplus I believe. Mr. BATTIN. On June 4 of this year you testified before the Senate committee and again in dealing with the military surplus you said, and I quote: As early as 1958 the sporting arms industry sought to obtain a ban or restriction on trade and national defense grounds. Later in your same testimony-as a matter of fact, that appeared on page 501-on page 504 of the same hearings you said and I quote: During the extensive hearings held by this subcommittee which led to the introduction of S. 1975 there was no showing that shoulder arms constituted a significant factor in the country's crime problem. I am curious as to how you justify these two statements when we are talking about a bill to prevent crime. In one you are talking about restriction on trade and national defense grounds, and then in your same testimony you say this has not been a factor in the crime rate. I don't understand you. Mr. HADLEY. I don't think those are necessarily industry. They came in and they have them in warehouses and apparently, logically perhaps, the only way for them to distribute them was by mail. Well, all right, you have a tremendous number and the price is cheap. Therefore, you advertise them in a manner which in the opinion of our people was somewhat sensational and appealed to some of those who might be able to buy guns at these low prices who might not otherwise, and we think that there is a cause and that that has magnified, let's say, events which have resulted in what we all feel perhaps is a need for some kind of legislation. Mr. BATTIN. Some figures that I obtained from the Bureau of Census dealing with importation of merchandise and consumption of commodity and country of origin indicated as to military rifles under $5 in 1963 there were 156,064 imported into the United States and in 1964 there were 93,859. This goes on up to over $50 where actually the numbers of imports have substantially decreased. Isn't it true that some of the manufacturers that belong to the institute that you represent make inexpensive rifles? Mr. HADLEY. Oh, yes. I would say that each company makes a varying price level product. Certainly some of them are cheap, but some of them, these military rifles that have come in at $5.50, sold for $11, now some of them for higher prices. Those are lower, just speaking generally, than the prices of local comparable products except they are secondhand ones. Of course there is a secondhand market in local guns which would more nearly compare to the prices of the imported ones. Mr. BATTIN. You wouldn't be suggesting, again because of the price, that it would be a good idea to eliminate the purchase of cheaper center fire weapons, either U.S. made or foreign made? Mr. HADLEY. I don't understand. Eliminate them in what manner? Mr. BATTIN. In your testimony before the Senate committee you say: As early as 1958 the sporting arms industry sought to obtain a ban or restriction on the grounds of trade and national defense. Certainly there is a competitive price between, say, an imported military rifle of good quality and a cheaper rifle made in this country. You wouldn't want to eliminate both of these items as far as the purchaser is concerned? Mr. HADLEY. No, I wouldn't think so. Mr. BATTIN. As a matter of fact, hasn't the position of some of the manufacturers you represent changed somewhat? Winchester belongs to your organization, does it not? Mr. BATTIN. Isn't is true that very recently they have opened a factory in Japan and are presently importing weapons from Japan into the United States? Mr. HADLEY. Those are newly made ones presumably. This is a manufacturing plant, is it? Mr. BATTIN. Yes. Mr. HADLEY. That is, I don't know what you had in mind other than it is true that a couple of our companies import guns. These are new guns, however, as far as I am informed, and are not surplus military weapons, that it, it is a different proposition. In the same way a company that is not a member of our institute, Browning Arms Co. has for years imported automatic shotguns from Belgium. That is a part of the business scene that we have here and certainly we have no objection to that. |