Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. Mr. HERLONG. There is provided in here, however, a cooling off or waiting period in order for them to check and notify the police that a local man has made application for a license or for a gun and they could follow it down in that manner. Mr. SAYLOR. This, Mr. Herlong, is substantially what Congress has already passed for the District of Columbia with regard to handguns and I know of nobody who would object to that sort of rule and regulation, but if you want to expand Mr. HERLONG. That would have kept this man from buying a gun if he had to be delayed before getting a gun, would it not? Mr. SAYLOR. What is that? Mr. HERLONG. That would have kept this kidnaper from buying a gun if a law like that had been in force that would have kept him from buying a gun on the spot if they had to delay it until they could notify the police that they had made application. Mr. SAYLOR. That is right, it would have kept him from buying that gun, but the type of criminal that we know who is accustomed to using guns doesn't usually go into the usual commercial fields. Mr. HERLONG. The crime that was committed in that instance was the kidnaping, was it not? Mr. SAYLOR. That the crime was the kidnaping. Mr. HERLONG. And that had already been committed before the gun was purchased. Mr. SAYLOR. That is right. The crime was kidnaping and he committed the kidnaping before he bought the gun. Mr. HERLONG. Thank you very much. Mr. WATTS. Mr. Betts. Mr. BETTS. Did you say, Mr. Saylor, that the District of Columbia has regulations that they enforce without any basis of statutory authority? Mr. SAYLOR. They do. Mr. BETTS. Did you discuss this with them? Who promulgated the regulation? Mr. SAYLOR. The police department of the city of Washington has promulgated these rules and regulations. Mr. BETTS. Not the Commissioners? Mr. SAYLOR. The Commissioners themselves, I am afraid, have not done it. I sent a letter to Mr. Tobriner and he said he would look into it. That's the last I have heard from him. Mr. BETTS. If you get an answer I would like to see it. I would like to know if they are operating without any statute or background. That is what you are saying, isn't it? Mr. SAYLOR. That is right. I have in another file and I will make available to you the correspondence between the Corporation Counsel, Chief of Police, and myself on this matter. Mr. BETTS. I think, Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, I think that ought to be part of the record. Mr. ULLMAN (presiding). Is there any objection? Mr. SAYLOR. I do. Mr. ULLMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The information referred to follows:) firearms, is acting as an agent for the firearms dealer and is therefore bound by the provisions of law as if they were in fact dealers. This is another extralegal opinion that is open to considerable doubt. It is beyond comprehension that the law can be so distorted and twisted to provide authorities with an instrument to do what they feel necessary, irrespective as to whether there is any basis in law for such action. In the instant case, the shotgun referred to above does not fall in the classification of dangerous weapons under articles by definition. Secondly, the shotgun has been in my possession and owned by me for a period of years and was not purchased from a dealer in the District. It has been used for sporting purposes only and no laws have been violated of any type in its usage. Thus, I now find myself constrained in the shipment of a personal possession due to the whim and caprice of the police and other administrative officials. Not having the legal right to regulate the flow of all firearms in and out of the District, they have by simple administrative fiat usurped this right. If it is determined that seizing all firearms entering or leaving the District is proper policy then the passage of appropriate laws would be in order. This is a determination for the legislative, however, and not for the police, who are supposed to enforce the law and not dream up laws to enforce what might meet their convenience. Also by what authority can the REA Express Co. acquiesce to a notification by the police department that the carrying of any and all firearms whether within the confines of the legal statutes or not must be subject to these restrictions? It is quite obvious that the administrators have decided that they will not be restricted by the articles defined by law; that they will not be restricted by the circumstances of acquisition defined by law; and, that they will not be restricted as to the licensed handler as described by law. I therefore respectfully request that the shotgun described previously be sent to this office with dispatch, inasmuch as it is now being held illegally. If your company refuses to comply with this request, I shall have no other recourse except to proceed against you in the Federal courts, in order to obtain once again property to which I have legal title and which has been withheld from me by an illegal act. Sincerely, JOHN P. SAYLOR, REA EXPRESS, New York, N.Y., April 12, 1965. Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, DEAR CONGRESSMAN SAYLOR: This will acknowledge your letter of April 9 about delivery of your shotgun. Immediately upon receipt of your letter we telephoned Washington and learned the shipment was on the truck for delivery and I understand it was actually delivered to your assistant, Mr. Harry Fox, at about 12:30 p.m. today. I am certain, of course, that you understand and appreciate that our local people in Washington acted entirely in good faith and had no thought whatsoever of causing you any inconvenience. The movement of firearms is something of a problem for the reasons with which you are entirely familiar and this particular incident affords me an opportunity to delve deeply into our practices and observances of various restrictions. This we shall do. Meanwhile, I apologize for any inconvenience you may have suffered. WILLIAM B. JOHNSON, President. WASHINGTON, D.C., April 12, 1965. Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR MR. SAYLOR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 9, 1965, together with copy of your letter to the Railway Express Agency relative to the procedures being followed by the Metropolitan Police Department with respect to controlling firearms in the District of Columbia. WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 1965. Hon. J. P. SAYLOR, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: With reference to your shipment, according to regulations of the police department, it will be necessary for you to personally fill out required registration form, at which time the gun will be delivered to you at our office, Second and H Streets NE. Yours truly, D. W. LIVELY, Superintendent. Ilion, N.Y., April 2, 1965. Mr. JOHN P. SAYLOR, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We have received a notice today from the REA Express, Second and H Streets NE., Washington, D.C. (phone No. NA 8-1200) that your model Sportsman-58 shipped March 8, 1965, on receipt No. 74-38-04 is on hand, and wish advise on disposal. Will you kindly make arrangements with REA Express to receive this shipment as they claim no response and this is their second notice of on hand. Your immediate attention in making arangements with REA Express will be appreciated. Very truly yours, E. A. VAN ALSTINE, Traffic. Mr. D. W. LIVELY, Superintendent, Railway Express Agency, DEAR MR. LIVELY: On February 2, 1965, I transmitted via Railway Express a Remington Sportsman-58 autoload shotgun to the Remington Arms Co., Inc., in Ilion, N.Y., for purposes of a general reconditioning. There was no requirement at the time of such shipment that I complete any forms or comply with any regulations. I received from the REA Express receipt No. 44-63-72 at the time I surrendered the shotgun to the REA Express for delivery. On March 17, I received notification that the subject shotgun had been returned by the Remington Arms Co. and had been placed in bin No. 4 at your office, Second and H Streets NE. On March 30, 1965, I received a letter from your office stating that "according to regulations of the police department" it would be necessary for me to fill out a required registration form in person before my shotgun could be delivered into my possession. An examination of the District Code reveals the law relative to weapons, title 22-3201 through 3217, as having no application to the instant case. In the first place code 22-3201 describes the weapons with which the law is concerned as pistols, sawedoff shotguns, and machineguns. These weapons are referred to again as dangerous articles in code 22-3217. In no instance is any reference made to sporting arms and ammunition which the subject shotgun clearly is. In addition thereto, code 22-3208 dealing with the transfer of firearms discusses only the conditions of sale regarding pistols, machineguns, and sawedoff shotguns. The subject shotgun does not qualify under the weapons listed and it was not purchased in the District. In the further inquiry section 9 of the policy regulations has been quoted as regulating firearms such as the sporting shotgun herein discussed. In a perusal of article 9, however, only section 4 relates to firearms and this is a prohibition regarding the sale or transfer of such articles to children under the age of 18 years. Article 1, section 9, of the police regulations does not refer to licensed dealers in dangerous or deadly weapons and provides that a thorough record be kept by the licensee as to the sale of such weapons. In short: 1. There is no law in the District of Columbia that permits the REA Express to hold the subject shotgun, which is my property. 2. There is no law which would permit the policy authorities to impose any such restrictions upon the REA or upon me. We are further informed that the office of the U.S. attorney has construed the subject regulations to mean that the REA Express, when involved in shipment of firearms, is acting as an agent for the firearms dealer and is therefore bound by the provisions of law as if they were in fact dealers. This is another extralegal opinion that is open to considerable doubt. It is beyond comprehension that the law can be so distorted and twisted to provide authorities with an instrument to do what they feel necessary, irrespective as to whether there is any basis in law for such action. In the instant case, the shotgun referred to above does not fall in the classification of dangerous weapons under articles by definition. Secondly, the shotgun has been in my possession and owned by me for a period of years and was not purchased from a dealer in the District. It has been used for sporting purposes only and no laws have been violated of any type in its usage. Thus, I now find myself constrained in the shipment of a personal possession due to the whim and caprice of the police and other administrative officials. Not having the legal right to regulate the flow of all firearms in and out of the District, they have by simple administrative fiat usurped this right. If it is determined that seizing all firearms entering or leaving the District is proper policy then the passage of appropriate laws would be in order. This is a determination for the legislative, however, and not for the police, who are supposed to enforce the law and not dream up laws to enforce what might meet their convenience. Also by what authority can the REA Express Co. acquiesce to a notification by the police department that the carrying of any and all firearms whether within the confines of the legal statutes or not must be subject to these restrictions? It is quite obvious that the administrators have decided that they will not be restricted by the articles defined by law; that they will not be restricted by the circumstances of acquisition defined by law; and, that they will not be restricted as to the licensed handler as described by law. I therefore respectfully request that the shotgun described previously be sent to this office with dispatch, inasmuch as it is now being held illegally. If your company refuses to comply with this request, I shall have no other recourse except to proceed against you in the Federal courts, in order to obtain once again property to which I have legal title and which has been withheld from me by an illegal act. Sincerely, JOHN P. SAYLOR, REA EXPRESS, New York, N.Y., April 12, 1965. Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, DEAR CONGRESSMAN SAYLOR: This will acknowledge your letter of April 9 about delivery of your shotgun. Immediately upon receipt of your letter we telephoned Washington and learned the shipment was on the truck for delivery and I understand it was actually delivered to your assistant, Mr. Harry Fox, at about 12:30 p.m. today. I am certain, of course, that you understand and appreciate that our local people in Washington acted entirely in good faith and had no thought whatsoever of causing you any inconvenience. The movement of firearms is something of a problem for the reasons with which you are entirely familiar and this particular incident affords me an opportunity to delve deeply into our practices and observances of various restrictions. This we shall do. Meanwhile, I apologize for any inconvenience you may have suffered. WILLIAM B. JOHNSON, President. WASHINGTON, D.C., April 12, 1965. Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SAYLOR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 9, 1965, together with copy of your letter to the Railway Express Agency relative to the procedures being followed by the Metropolitan Police Department with respect to controlling firearms in the District of Columbia. You may be assured that I will look into this matter in detail and provide you with a more definitive reply in the near future. Sincerely yours, WALTER W. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, D.C. Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, April 29, 1965. U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR CONGRESSMAN SAYLOR: Your letter of April 9, 1965, commenting on the problems you experienced with the Railway Express Agency was referred to the special investigations squad of the detective division for consideration. A hearing was scheduled in the U.S. attorney's office on April 22, 1965, attended by members of that office, the Railway Express Agency, and Metropolitan Police Department for the purpose of reviewing the legality of the procedures relating to the transfer of weapons to individuals in the District of Columbia by the Railway Express Agency. The present arrangement in effect since 1962 is as follows: All pistols delivered by the Railway Express Agency are subject to the provisions of the District of Columbia Code, title 22, section 3208, and therefore require advance notice to the police prior to delivery. The Railway Express Agency, while not a licensed dealer required by law to report sales of shotguns and rifles to the police, will make these reports voluntarily as a matter of cooperation with the Department. All present agreed that this arrangement was proper and should continue. It was suggested and the Railway Express Agency representatives agreed to revise the wording on a stamp placed on the notices mailed to persons to whom weapons are sent. The wording of the stamp will be revised so as to indicate that the procedures are not a requirement of the Metropolitan Police Department but a provision of law in the case of pistols and, in the case of shotguns and rifles, a matter of cooperation with the Metropolitan Police Department. Trusting that the information furnished herein will clarify the procedures in effect with reference to deliveries of firearms by Railway Express Agency and assuring you of our continuing cooperation, I am, Sincerely yours, JOHN B. LAYTON, Chief of Police. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR MR. SAYLOR: Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1965, and the copy of your letter of April 8, 1965, to the superintendent of the Railway Express Agency. I understand that, as a result of your experience, a conference has been scheduled at the office of the U.S. attorney, to be attended by officials of the Metropolitan Police Department and the local office of Railway Express Agency, for the purpose of reviewing gun registration procedures. I am confident that, at that meeting, the provisions of existing law will be fully explained to the concerned parties. Sincerely yours, CHESTER H. GRAY, Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. Mr. BROYHILL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BETTS. I am through. Mr. ULLMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. |