No opposition need be anticipated from these groups to legislation properly designed to accomplish this purpose. Conservationists and sportsmen generally, however, will disagree with legislation which they feel unnecessarily restricts them in the exercise of their sport.

As an officer of the Michigan United Conservation Club, I have frequently spoken in favor of S. 14 prior to the introduction of S. 1592. When speaking in favor of S. 14 I have frequently seen sportsmen's opposition and suffered rebuff because sportsmen generally can see no reason for restrictions on the rifle and shotgun believing as they do, as I do, that it is not an important weapon in the commission of crime by experienced felons, crime with an economic value such as burglary and such as holdups.

Our chief concern and our main reason for being here today is to help formulate sound legislation which will not interfere with the activities of the legitimate hunter and shooter; which will, in turn, not have a deleterious effect on our ability to manage our wildlife, forests, and our outdoor recreational facilities; and which will still be effective in stopping the misuse of firearms.

While hastily conceived legislation will inconvenience and discourage the hunter first and directly, I would like to emphasize in summary that the hunter has been a key provider in the outdoor recreation field. I want to mention this again. It is his money that makes a lot of our outdoor recreation programs possible.

Discourage the hunter and nearly all users of the outdoors will suffer eventually. Hunting licenses and arms taxes provide recreation for fisherman, boaters, hikers, campers, berrypickers, dog trainers, wildflower fanciers and countless others everything that you can think of that has to do with outdoor recreation.

Any legislation which dries up the funds provided by hunters can have far-reaching social and economic repercussions and the resolution to which I referred before passed by the integrated bar refers to this fact in the State of Michigan.

Speaking personally, I guess there is enough early American in me and the people who belong to the organizations that I represent, sportsmen with whom I feel I have a rapport, to make me resent unnecessary and capricious regimentation.

We all know that more and more people means more and more restrictions of some kind or more laws. But perhaps the unencumbered right to purchase and own a gun represents a symbol of heritage to some of us, the right to have more than one, the right to be proud of our firearms.

I would give up that right if anyone could convince me, and I am sure that I speak for the 20 million other hunting license buyers, that the tragedies attributed to lack of firearms control, that lack of control causes these tragedies.

Gentlemen, I am not convinced. I don't believe the other 20 million sportsmen are either.

Thank you.

(The information referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION 17

OPPOSITION TO ANTIFIREARMS LEGISLATION

Whereas proposals have been introduced in State legislatures and in the Congress which, if enacted, would impose greater restrictions on the purchase,

possession, and use of firearms ordinarily used in the pursuit of outdoor recreation by hunting or shooting; and

Whereas such restrictive legislation, if adopted, would seriously hamper the pursuit of outdoor recreation by hunting; and

Whereas such restrictive legislation would be inconsistent with the present and future programs of the States and of the United States in increasing and improving opportunities in the pursuit of outdoor recreation by hunting; and Whereas the cause of conservation would be seriously jeopardized if such restrictive legislative proposals were enacted into law, either by States or by the Congress; and

Whereas statistics and studies have proven that such proposed restrictions with respect to firearms ordinarily used in hunting would in no way affect or reduce the crimes committed by the use of such firearms but, to the contrary, would unnecessarily disarm peaceful and law-abiding citizens to their disadvantage; and

Whereas the right to keep and bear arms has been considered a natural and basic right of citizens throughout the long development of the common law, and is guaranteed in such documents as the English Bill of Rights of 1688, the American Bill of Rights, namely the second amendment to the Federal Constitution, and the constitutions of about 35 States, the preservation of which is important to citizens as the primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and of private property; and

Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is a personal one accorded to the individual and is not simply a collective right reserved to the militia as an organization: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the International Association of Game, Fish & Conservation Commissioners, That legislative proposals at all levels which require a license or permit to purchase or possess a firearm ordinarily used in outdoor recreation by hunting or shooting, or which leave the right to possess such a firearm dependent upon the whim or will of a public officer, or which require the registration of such a firearm, or which impose a confiscatory tax or unreasonable regulation on such firearms, or which totally prohibit the possession of such firearms-all such proposals should be vigorously opposed and rejected; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution should be sent to all State legislatures, to the Senate Committee on Commerce, to the House Ways and Means Committee, and to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

RESOLUTION

Whereas the State bar of Michigan is an integrated bar and speaks officially through its duly elected commissioners; and

Whereas the citizens of this State look to the bar for guidance on the import of legislation at any level; and

Whereas proposed amendments to the Dodd bill (S. 1975) now before Congress contemplate certain additional restrictions on the sale of firearms for hunting; and

Whereas Michigan is one of the leaders in the sale of hunting licenses, and the restrictions proposed would hamper persons engaged in this outdoor recreational sport and this adversely affect the best interests of the State; and

Whereas the State bar feels that the proposed amendments to the Dodd bill are not in the best interests of our citizens and are an invasion of their constitutional rights in that

1. The State bar believes that such legislation will not be a deterrent to crime but will constitute a useless annoyance to our citizens and an unnecessary restriction on the exercise of their basic legal rights.

2. The proposed legislation is in violation of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the right to bear arms is a basic right. We believe that the right granted under the second amendment is one granted to the individual and not the the militia as an organization, United States of America v. Jack Miller (83d Law Ed. 1206). It is the view of the State bar of Michigan that any law restricting rights granted under the second amendment is not a function of Congress but that any necessary regulation should be made by State statute under the police power which rests in the States and not in the Federal Government; and

Whereas the Dodd bill prior to November 22 was directed only to concealable firearms and directed to the misuse thereof; and

Whereas said bill as amended is directed to sporting firearms, all rifles and shotguns: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the State bar of Michigan oppose any amendments proposed to be made to S. 1975 since November 22, 1963; it is further

Resolved, That congressional representatives of this State be notified of this action.

Representatives Goemaere, Snyder, Constantini, Cater, Fitzgerald, Walton, Ensign, Slingerlend, Morrison, Ford, Spencer, Dingwell, Woodman, and Anderson offered the following concurrent resolution:

"HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 115

"A concurrent resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States regarding the antifirearms bill.

"Whereas the antifirearms bill currently before the Congress of the United States propose Federal control of firearms in the hands of civilians, and as currently written, constitute violation of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution that *** the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'; and

"Whereas admittedly, controls are necessary due to irresponsible or criminal elements in society illegally using firearms. That such controls should be the prerogative of State and local agencies of government, that such controls properly should not be a matter for Federal control are acknowledged and forthrightly stated by the Nation's foremost experts in government, including opinions publicly stated by men of the caliber of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover; and

"Whereas the consensus of expertise in this field is that State and local laws imposing harsh and certain punishment for crimes committed while armed, combined with effective law enforcement, and firmly supported by no-nonsense courts and juries, provide the most certain combination for adequate control; and

"Whereas as to statutes; laws should prohibit sale of firearms to felons, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, juveniles, and mental incompetents; laws should invoke strict penalties against the possession of firearms by criminals and irresponsible persons. Laws should permit responsible, law-abiding adults to own and use firearms for legal purposes; laws should not require law-abiding adult citizens to register shotguns and rifles; and laws should not grant authority to any jurisdiction, police or otherwise, at any government level, to prohibit the purchase or ownership of firearms by law-abiding and responsible citizens; and

"Whereas in Michigan, alone, more than one and a half million sportsmen would be adversely affected by legislation proposed and now before the Congressa figure that applies substantially to most of the other States of the Union: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the house of representative (the senate concurring). That the Michigan Legislature respectfully memorialize the Congress of the United States to defeat the currently proposed antifirearms legislation of S. 1592; and be it further

"Resolved, That copies of this memorial be transmitted to the President of the United States, to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each member of the Michigan delegation to the Congress of the United States.

"The concurrent resolution was referred to the committee on house policy. House adopted, senate concurred June 23, 1965."

RESOLUTION

Whereas, the membership in attendance at this annual meeting of the State of Michigan American Legion is well informed of the detail and provisions of the so-called Dodd bill being S. 1592; and

Whereas, the membership is likewise informed of the latest proposed amendments made by the U.S. Attorney General at the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives within the past 2 days; and

Whereas, said proposed amendments do not meet the basic objections of the Michigan members of the American Legion to this restrictive gun legislation in that the said bill

1. Will make it impossible for any individual, no matter how good a citizen he may be, to purchase any sporting gun via mail order;

2. Is unnecessarily restrictive of the citizen's right to keep and bear arms granted under the Constitution of the United States in support of which our members have offered their lives in two world wars; and

3. Will interfere with hunting and shooting sports in which so many of our members participate by

(a) Hampering the ordinary citizen in the acquisition of a low-cost firearm;

(b) Provide the Secretary of the Treasury with broad authority which could include registration of firearms and a police or other permit to purchase;

c) Requiring a permit to be issued by the Secretary of the Treasury to an individual carrying a firearm across a State line on a hunting trip or shipping same for repairs; and

Whereas we resent the attempt of Government to further involve us in administrative detail by making us file applications for permits and the like believing as we do that such proposed legislation will not curb crime and that the criminal will acquire his weapon be it knife, ice pick, or firearm and that only the law-abiding citizen will be disarmed; and

Whereas, we are convinced that the King-Hickenlooper bill (HR. 1965) will accomplish the professed desires to satisfactorily supplement existing firearms control laws: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the membership be recorded as

(a) Being unalterably opposed to S. 1592 assuming adoption of proposed amendments thereto; and

(b) Being in favor of the King-Hickenlooper bill; be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forthwith furnished all Michigan congressional representatives, the President of the United States, and the Honorable Wilbur M. Mills, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Whereas no organization has greater patriotism and allegiance to our Government than the Legion.

Submitted by Luke Labre, Escanaba Post No. 82.

Unanimously passed July 18, 1965.

Mr. KING. That completes your statement, Mr. Glassen?
Mr. GLASSEN. Yes, Congressman King.

Mr. KING. Mr. Battin.

Mr. BATTIN. The figure you gave sir, concerning the excise tax on page 2 of your statement I think was perhaps an underestimate of the actual dollars collected. I have before me a study prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.

They indicate for the year of 1960 on firearms, shells, pistols, and revolvers there was taken in by the Treasury $17,600,000. In 1964 it was $19,300,000 and estimated for 1965 by the staff was $20 million, and estimated by the Bureau of the Budget was $21 million.

As you know, the excise tax on firearms and shells, pistols and revolvers, was not repealed by the Congress at the time the repeal of excise taxes passed and became law. I think you were low in your estimate and I thought I should correct the record at that point.

Mr. GLASSEN. Thank you, Congressman Battin. The difference in our figures in part is occasioned by the fact that we did not include the excise tax on pistols, revolvers, and such ammunition because that is not under the P-R program.

Mr. BATTIN. As a matter of fact, I don't recall-maybe Mr. King could verify or set the record straight-that any of the groups who are interested in sporting activities, the NRA or the sporting groups of the various States, appealed to this committee during the consideration

of the excise tax for a repeal of the taxes I just referred to. I received no such communication.

Mr. KING. I have no knowledge of it. I think you are correct.
Gentlemen?

STATEMENT OF FRANK FOOTE

Mr. FOOTE. May I proceed, sir?

Mr. KING. Yes.

Mr. FOOTE. Congressman King, Congressman Battin, as suggested by counsel for this committee, we have coordinated our testimony to avoid overlapping and duplication to the greatest possible extent. We will proceed.

My name is Frank Foote. I am employed by the Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission and I am representing that commission today at its specific request. The commission is organized on a similar basis to many other State conservation agencies, in that wildlife conservation and management, State parks, State historical parks and related fields are under the purview of this agency.

We are also an enforcement agency, charged generally with violations in the above fields, but also with general enforcement powers in emergency situations.

An area of specific concern to our commissioners is the continued attempts from some quarters to restrict and harass the legitimate ownership, use, and enjoyment of firearms and ammunition.

I would add here, if I may, that it is a matter of some concern to us that those who support unpalatable restrictive firearms legislation seldom seem to find a good word to say for firearms per se and their little recognized role in crime prevention. That will be expanded on briefly during my testimony.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the commission for which I work is in no way composed of extremists or right wingers. These men, all of them, are middle of the road Democrats and Republicans. They believe, and wish, through me, to forcefully present, the position that the second amendment applies to all who have not, upon conviction of felonies, lost certain of their civil rights, or to the mentally disturbed, and not just to the National Guard as some have recently stated.

They believe that the personal ownership and reasonable enjoyment of firearms is important to our continuing as a free nation of freemen. This position does not preclude some reasonable regulation as may be required by conditions of modern urbanized American life.

However, the commission does most strongly oppose the compulsory registration of firearms or laws or regulations which could tend to a partial registration of firearms, particularly nonconcealable sporting rifles and shotguns.

In this connection, we believe that section 3(g) of H.R. 6628 has within it certain dangers tending toward involuntary registration in some jurisdictions, or is a precusor to registration but we recognize that H.R. 6628 is not a registration bill per se.

Again, this is not to say that the commission blindly opposes all efforts in this field. We do believe that present firearms laws and, indeed all laws relating to the criminal misuse of firearms should be more strongly enforced and that more stringent penalties for violations of this nature should be enacted and applied.