they find that the bulk of the criminal acts committed in the State are with weapons purchased outside the State in nearby surrounding States which have less stringent controls. Obviously the States and municipalities cannot stop every traveler at the State line or the city line and make a search for concealable weapons. The effective way to deal with this problem, which the States cannot deal with, is to stop these federally licensed dealers from selling the concealable weapons to residents of other States and to require persons procuring weapons which can be concealed on the person to purchase them from dealers located in the State where they reside. I urge that you aid the law enforcement officers in metropolitan areas who are trying to cope with the crime problem by adopting these amendments to the Federal Firearms Act. The fourth problem area, and one which can only be dealt with at the Federal level, concerns the importation of surplus military weapons and other firearms not particularly suitable for lawful sporting purposes. There is a serious and sometimes destructive effect on law enforcement because of this staggering flow of imported weapons which, according to available records-as cited by Senator Dodd in his opening statement at the Senate hearings on S. 1592-during 1963 and 1964 amounted to 2,167,629 firearms brought in, of which 847,633 were pistols and revolvers, and 1,319,996 were rifles and shotguns, I might point out the distressing fact that the assassination of the President of the United States was perpetrated by a man armed with a foreign make and imported Carcano rifle, which cost the importer $1.12 and, I might add, was shipped about 1,000 miles from the city in which it was used. The President has recommended that the Congress enact legislation to halt this senseless flow of surplus military weapons into the United States, and the provisions contained in the administration's bill are designed to implement that recommendation. It has been pointed out to me that the weapon which was used against the President and the weapons used in the Champion abduction the other day were both bought under assumed names, with no requirement for identification. There is widespread public support for this provision, and I note that the National Rifle Association of America in the statement issued on April 3, 1965, at the conclusion of its annual meeting, declared, and I quote: The National Rifle Association will support properly drawn legislation to curb the flood of castoff military firearms that have been dumped in America as a result of the adoption of more modern weapons by most countries since World War II. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the surplus military weapons, we are also seriously concerned with the influx of relatively inexpensive pistols and revolvers which have plagued the law-enforcement officers of our metropolitan areas. Many of these imports are of poor quality and are as dangerous to the user as they may be to the person who is often threatened or assaulted with them. In this regard, I would like to quote from a statement of Mr. Orth, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, made before a Senate subcommittee on May 2, 1963. For the most part, this traffic in firearms involves the relatively inexpensive imported pistols and revolvers that are advertised in many cheap pulp magazines throughout the country. As a matter of information for the committee, the National Rifle Association has conducted product-evaluation studies of many of these handguns and has found them to be largely worthless for sporting purposes. As a matter of policy, we do not accept their advertising in the American Rifleman, the official journal of the association. I would like to make it clear that the provisions of this bill relating to the importation of firearms is intended to exclude surplus military firearms, and firearms which are not suitable for lawful sporting purposes. The bill would not, and I emphasize "would not," preclude the importation of good quality sporting-type firearms. The amendments to the Federal Firearms Act contained in the administration's bill, relating to the importation of firearms, are urgently needed, and I strongly support the President's recommendation that they be adopted. The fifth major problem area with which the bill deals concerns the interstate shipment and disposition of highly destructive large-caliber weapons, such as bazookas and antitank guns, and destructive devices such as grenades, bombs, missiles, and rockets. The lack of controls over the traffic in these highly destructive weapons is a matter of greatest concern to me, and should be of concern to every responsible citizen of the United States. It may be of interest that the Secretary of the Army, speaking for the Department of Defense, expressed the view to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that: Because of the potential dangerous threat these weapons pose, effective controls are needed. I would also like to note that the NRA has recognized the need for action in this area and that in their April 3, 1965, statement at the annual meeting, the National Rifle Association declared: That it would support properly drawn legislation to outlaw dangerous devices such as bazookas, bombs, antitank guns, and other military-type weapons that have found their way into trade channels across America. I have here the Herblock cartoon which appeared in the Washington Post on December 29, 1964, entitled "You Don't Even Need To Limit Yourself to a Few People," which so aptly illustrate the subject which I am discussing, and I would like the members of the committee to see it, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have it inserted in the hearing record. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we need to put it in the record. The CHAIRMAN. You may let us see it. Mr. COHEN. I have also an advertisement of an antitank gun which you might be interested in, Mr. Chairman: Ideal for long-range shots at deer and bear or cars and trucks or even a tank, if you happen to see one. The administration's bill would place strict controls over the importation, interstate shipment, and disposition by federally licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers of these highly destructive weapons. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the administration's bill to amend the National Firearms Act proposes additional controls on these highly destructive weapons under the exercise of the Federal taxing power. These additional controls under the taxing power are particularly necessary in order to reach the weapons of this character already in the possession of private individuals and to control the transfer of ownership or possession of these weapons between such individuals. The same type of Federal controls would be exercised, under the National Firearms Act, over transfer and possession of these highly destructive weapons as is exercised under existing law with regard to gangstertype weapons, such as submachineguns and sawed-off shotguns. Mr. Chairman, I come now to the sixth major area of amendments to the Federal Firearms Act contained in the administration's bill. A major fault in the existing Federal Firearms Act which the bill proposes to correct is that relating to annual fees charged for licenses. Under the bill the license fees would be increased to a figure which would make it very unlikely that any person not actually engaged in business as an importer, manufacturer, or dealer would attempt to obtain a Federal Firearms Act license. The increased license fees would be such as to not only cover the cost of processing an application and issuing the license, but would defray the cost of conducting an appropriate check of the qualifications of the applicant to determine whether or not he would be likely to conduct his operations in compliance with the act. An example of the problem with which we are confronted is illustrated by an advertisement which appeared in the March 1, 1965, issue of the Shotgun News, Columbus, Nebr. This advertisement stated under the heading "Public Service Information" as follows: For just $1 you can obtain a Federal dealers license, then you can ship or receive handguns by mail instead of the high price express. If you buy one handgun every 3 years it will pay you to have a license. You do not have to have local license. Write to the same office that you send your income tax payment to ask for application for Federal firearms license. Remember, just $1 per year. We asked the dealer who placed this advertisement to discontinue its publication, and he has voluntarily complied, but I cite this case to illustrate our problem. Our problem is compounded by the fact that existing law provides that upon payment of the prescribed fee the Secretary shall issue a license to the applicant which shall entitle the licensee to transport, ship, or receive firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. There are no stated conditions to the issuing of the license except the provisions for the payment of the prescribed fee, and no discretion is granted under the language of the law. As an example of our problem, I would like to relate the essential facts of an actual case pending before us at the present time. A young man, age 29, applied for a license as a dealer under the Federal Firearms Act. He was not under indictment nor had he been convicted of a felony. A check of police records, however, disclosed two arrests one of which, involving assault with intent to kill, had been nol prossed in 1955. Investigation revealed that the assault charge had followed a maniacal attack on his parents. The applicant, then almost 17 years of age, had tied his mother to a chair, gagged her and stabbed her repeatedly in the back with an ice pick. When his father arrived home, the applicant struck him on the head with a 51-635-65-pt. 1--4 two-bladed ax. Both parents recovered. The applicant spent 22 years in a State hospital. A doctor on the hospital staff stated that in his professional opinion the applicant should not be granted a license which would make it easy to obtain any sort of weapon. Yet we, by virtue of the present wording of the law, are apparently without any alternative but to issue him a license to deal in firearms. We think we are justified in restraining ourselves from issuing this license and that this fellow is not likely to comport himself in an orderly manner. I would say that before we would issue such a license we would have to be forced by a court to issue it; but it does place us in an embarrassing position in that the act does not give us sufficient discretion on its face. We have, under existing law, refused to issue licenses to felons, persons under indictment for a felony, and fugitives from justice. We have done this on the ground that the issuance of a license to such persons would serve no purpose, since by reason of section 2 of the act it would be unlawful for them to ship and receive in interstate commerce. Ordinarily there is no other basis for denying a license even though it may seem obvious that the applicant is not a proper person to be dealing in firearms. Certainly the customary practice is to provide standards for the issuance of licenses or permits or at least to grant some discretion to the person who has the responsibility for acting on the application. A proper and reasonable standard for the issuance of a license is the standard as to whether the applicant would be likely to conduct his operations in compliance with law. This standard, which we have adopted in the bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act has repeatedly been approved by this committee without industry objection in the liquor and tobacco tax area. In fact we have now in effect over 25,000 of these permits. This standard not only has been recognized by the courts as reasonable, but in effect it is a standard suggested by the Supreme Court many years ago in a leading case on this subject (Ma-King Co. v. Blair, 271 U.S. 479 (1926)). As previously mentioned, some of the Federal Firearms Act licensees operate out of answering services and mail drops; some conduct the most questionable kind of operations, often in disregard of the public interest. Yet these people hold licenses issued by the Federal Government. I do not feel that the Internal Revenue Service should be placed in the position of being forced to issue licenses to such persons. I therefore strongly recommend that you impose some meaningful conditions which applicants must comply with so that this Federal licensing system will afford realistic controls. I feel that responsible firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers should support these provisions since the amendments contained in the administration's bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act will assure that the firearms traffic will be in the hands of responsible business people and that they will not be confronted with the unfair competition of fringe operators who cannot or will not comply with reasonable standards. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed six major areas with which the bill deals. As I previously stated, the bill is a general revision of the 27year-old Federal Firearms Act designed to bring that act up to date and to make it an effective instrument in the war against crime and lawlessness. Time will not permit me to discuss each and every detailed provision of the bill. However, when Secretary Dillon submitted the bill to the Congress he also submitted a section-by-section analysis of the bill which, if it has not already been inserted in the hearing record, I would like to have inserted in the record as an appendix to my statement. The CHAIRMAN. It has been inserted in the record. We feel that there are problems relating to the interstate and foreign traffic in firearms which must be dealt with at the Federal level. However, there are, as you know, some who would not even agree that there are any serious problems in the firearms control area, there are others who have a financial interest in the firearms traffic, and there are well-meaning sportsmen and law-abiding gun owners who have a fear of personal inconvenience (in most cases greatly exaggerated), who oppose any bill designed to realistically and effectively deal with the firearms problem. However, the sportsman and law-abiding gun owner need not fear the passage of this bill. The inadequate firearms controls which we have today demonstrate the power of the opposition to effective controls. The opponents are organized. They make their own views known to elected public officials. They write letters to the editors. Their influence has far exceeded their proportionate number. However, I am confident that the great majority of Americans favor the enactment of more effective firearms control legislation. There have been two Gallup polls in the last several years which show that about 75 percent of the public at large supports this type of legislation. One of the difficulties which has tended to hinder enactment of firearms control legislation is the vast amount of misinformation which the public receives concerning the nature and effect of the proposed legislation. For example, in a recent article which appeared on the front page of one of the country's leading newspapers it was stated, regarding the Senate counterpart to H.R. 6628 and H.R. 6783, and I quote: The gun bill that is the subject of so much concern is legislation proposed by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat, of Connecticut to require the registration of firearms. As the chairman and the members of this committee know, the administration's bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act would not require the registration of firearms. Widespread confusion as to the purpose and effect of the bill has also arisen from statements contained in a letter sent by a national organization to its membership urging them to write to their Congressmen and Senators and to the President of the United States concerning S. 1592, the Senate bill identical with H.R. 6628 and H.R. 6783, and giving specific instructions on how to write the letters. This letter did not furnish an objective appraisal of the provisions of the bill, nor did it point out that the bill is an integral part of the President's program to combat the increasing incidence of crime in America. The general impression conveyed was that, if enacted, it |