or lack thereof, purpose of purchase, and so forth? This would be demeaning in the extreme. I expect the sponsors of the bill intend no such procedure-but where in H.R. 6628 is the purchaser protected?

(4) Require registration of firearms. We do not object to present law and regulations requiring dealers to maintain detailed records of firearms transactions-including name, address, firearm description, and serial number-but we do object to registration as such. We believe that section 3(g) of H.R. 6628 could be construed to promote total firearms registration.

(5) Require prior approval or licensing by police or other authority of firearms purchase by citizens. There is no reason whatsoever to subject the law-abiding citizen to such provisions.

(6) Make it impractical to obtain necessary or desirable repairs, reworking, and modification of firearms. We feel that H.R. 6628 is not satisfactory in this area.

Section 2(a)(3) of H.R. 6628 is vague-what will the Secretary allow as "authorized service"?

What conditions will the Secretary further impose under the regulatory authority granted by this section?

A

We also call attention to section 1(9) of H.R. 6628 which seems to require a dealer's license of "any person engaged in the business of *** making or fitting special *** stocks***to firearms." number of people in this country engage in the part-time home workshop business of providing custom-built stocks for rifles and shotguns. H.R. 6628 would almost certainly put them out of operation, and substantially raise the price of such service-while satisfying no public need whatsoever.

(7) Make it unduly burdensome for a person to transport a firearm from one State to another for lawful purposes. We recognize that sections 2(a) (1) and 2(a) (2) of H.R. 6628 provide no real new control over the individual who takes his firearms with him across State lines.

These sections do, however, authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to set conditions under which the same individual might have his firearm transported for him by others. Does this mean that, if a friend and I plan a hunting trip to Wyoming involving his driving a personal car to our final destination while I travel by air, a great deal of redtape would be involved in securing permission for my friend to take my gun in his car?

There is no question but what the situation affecting personal transport of firearms is already confused. It would seem that no one ought today to attempt an auto trip from Washington to Maine with a gun in his possession without first spending months of research on State and local firearms laws en route.

Otherwise, he could conceivably spend months in jail. For this reason, it would be a distinct service to the law-abiding gun owner for this committee to take appropriate action making it possible for an individual to transport personal firearms interstate for lawful purposes.

Mr. Chairman, under the philosophies expressed here, the Izaak Walton League of America cannot support H.R. 6628, even with the administration's proposed amendments thereto. We feel that it is too

broad.

We feel that in the effort to restrict criminal operations involving firearms, it would impose unnecesary and undesirable burdens on honest citizens. We feel that it would grant to the Secretary of the Treasury undefined authority to implement further regulations-but we also wish to be recorded as recognizing that it is necessary and desirable for the Congress to grant general discretionary operating authority to officers of the executive branch, so long as adequate limitations on that authority are written into the law and into the legislative record.

The Izaak Walton League of America can support H.R. 3322, H.R. 7472, and related bills. In some respects we can go beyond those bills to endorse various provisions of H.R. 6628.

We certainly endorse the expressed purposes of all these bills to reduce firearms crimes in the United States. In retrospect, it seems to us that the impasse which exists in reaching that goal through firearms control is due in part to the fact that legislative proposals are often drawn by persons who are primarily familiar with gun lawbreakers rather than with the activities of law-abiding gun owners.

Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, Senator Thomas J. Dodd has spearheaded an exhaustive study of the firearms misuse problem facing the Nation. Out of his work came a broadly supported bill, S. 14 H.R. 3322 and others in the House.

In January of this year, Senator Dodd wrote a member of the league's executive board, saying in part:

Almost 4 years of investigation, study, and meetings have gone into development of S. 14. It was designed to meet a specific problem and yet not cause undue difficulty for the honest citizen who desires to own a firearm.

I feel this bill does just that. However, as a result of the Kennedy assassination, there have been proposals submitted to Congress that far exceed the adequate controls contained in S. 14. For example, some bills call for registration of all firearms or the actual elimination of the mail-order sale of guns. I feel the stringent natures of these proposals are uncalled for.

Apparently, the administration does not share our own agreement with that analysis. We hope this committee will take a searching look at the reasons for this disagreement, for we believe that Senator Dodd's January assessment of the situation was quite correct.

Mr. Chairman, we fully recognize that a problem does exist. The Senate hearings have made that clear. The Izaak Walton League respectfully suggests that this committee consider a four-bill solution to the problem:

(1) A bill along the lines of H.R. 5642, making it a Federal crime to use or carry any firearm which has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the commission of various crimes-and setting mandatory penalties.

(2) A bill along the lines of H.R. 3322, H.R. 3395, et cetera, to set reasonable controls over movement of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce. Perhaps this bill could be broadened to cover the bulk import problem of cheap quality handguns and so forth if in fact new legislation in this area is necessary.

We believe it is desirable that such a bill also include language reaffirming the second amendment to the Constitution.

(3) A bill along the lines of H.R. 6629, but including appropriate further provisions taken from H.R. 6628, to place strict controls on war and gangster weapons.

(4) A bill setting Federal criteria under which an individual may transport personal firearms across State lines, so long as he complies with State and local laws and regulations effective in areas wherein he actually makes use of such firearms.

What we are getting at here is the need for nationwide standards under which a person traveling interstate could transport his firearm through and I emphasize "through" any State or locality without being arrested for violation of State or local controls. Such controls are not drawn in the first place with the intention of harassing lawabiding tourists and travelers, but could in fact have that effect.

We believe that such a legislative package would receive broad public support.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this vitally important subject.

(The information referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION No. 15

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Whereas the citizen's primary right to keep and bear arms is clearly set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America; and

Whereas any general requirement for the registration of firearms, for approval prior to purchase of firearms, or for other type of firearms control, by police or other public agency, would constitute infringement of that right and a step toward its eventual dissolution; and

Whereas misuse of firearms is the fault of the user and not of the firearms themselves; and

Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is occasionally abused, particularly by the insane, by the misguided and the irresponsible, and by the criminal element of our society; and

Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is also a privilege: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Izaak Walton League of America in convention assembled this 27th day of June 1964 at Davenport, Iowa, That it strongly opposes any effort to require the general registration or other control of firearms by the police or other public agency; and be it further

Resolved, That the league supports efforts to prevent gun sales to the irresponsible and the insane, and to convicted criminals, so long as any control mechanism is subject to appeal to the courts; and be it further

Resolved, That as the primary and most logical effort to control the misuse of firearms, the States and their political subdivisions should adopt and strictly enforce laws establishing severe penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of any crime, or for flagrant misuse of firearms in any way.

The CHAIRMAN. Again we thank you, Mr. Dennis, for coming to the committee. We appreciate your doing so. Any questions? Thank you, sir.

Mr. DENNIS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edwards? Mr. Edwards, if you will please identify yourself for our record by giving us your name, address, and capacity in which you appear we will be glad to recognize you, sir. STATEMENT OF JAMES E. EDWARDS, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, FLORIDA SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is James E. Edwards, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 2822 East Commercial Boulevard. I am legislative chairman of the Florida Sports

men's Association and have been a member of the Florida bar for

26 years.

I have had 12 years of public service, local and Federal, including four and a half years of law enforcement.

I am filing a brief, and would like to have permission to have it incorporated in the record, in which are given instances in which the private citizen rather than the police officer has specifically prohibited crime, including an instance I have here from the State of New York.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that material will be included following your statement.

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Herlong.

Mr. HERLONG. In this connection, Mr. Edwards, is this all the information you gave me in my office yesterday?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HERLONG. Thank you very much. I brought this along. I didn't know whether he was going to put it in the record or not.

Mr. EDWARDS. We agree with the general goal of reducing crime, but do not favor the administration proposals. We feel they will not reduce crime, but breed crime by disarming the law-abiding citizen. Instead, we believe that Federal laws should be based on these principles:

1. Limited, moderate, constitutional government.

2. Our biggest crime war is against a monstrous foe which now controls 1 billion people. We must win this war, and small arms have always been important, especially today in guerrilla warfare. It is not reasonable to spend billions to fight a war in Vietnam, and then turn around and shackle able-bodied citizens in their arms training from an early age.

3. The armed citizen can discourage crime, apprehend hoodlums, and cover millions of places which the police can never reach until after the crime is committed and the criminal has fled.

4. I would like to insert my prepared statement. We must encourage inventions and improvements in small arms and heavy weapons to keep up in the arms race for national defense. The American inventor must be free to invent.

Specifically, we are suggesting Federal proposals which will give the Congress positive alternatives to support, and in some respects we tie into the two preceding speakers, those from Michigan and the Izaak Walton League, as follows:

1. A law to define, protect, and encourage the lawful use of firearms. 2. To promote civilian marksmanship by much large appropriations, point credit for military reserve training, and use of surplus real property, arms, and supplies.

3. Stronger control of subversion by State and Federal officials and better enforcement of present laws.

4. Extend civil rights protection to the second amendment.

5. Amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow tax deductions for gifts to organizations promoting the second amendment.

6. A congressional investigation of subversive influences in harsh, antigun schemes which would disarm America.

Regarding the Casey bill, I feel that this bill has merits, but it is too harsh. I have prepared and submitted to Representative Casey a brief on the subject, the four points are as follows:

1. Mandatory punishments are cruel and atrocious.

2. Added punishment while committing an assault is too broad. 3. Firearms transported from State to State are not automatically subject to Federal jurisdiction after they come to rest.

4. We need a congressional declaration of policy regarding the lawful use of firearms.

And I would like to have permission to send to the committee and incorporate in the record my specific analysis of this bill with a suggested counterdraft.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be included. (The information referred to follows:)

Re firearms laws/Federal.

Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS,

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA., August 19, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to the hearing before your committee on July 23, 1965, at which time it was arranged that I would furnish a memorandum regarding the Casey bills with a suggested revision.

Accordingly, I enclose a memorandum entitled "Additional Penalties for Use of Firearms in Federal Crimes," together with a suggested bill regarding added penalties in the United States and a suggested bill regarding added penalties in the District of Columbia.

I have already furnished a copy of this material to Representative Casey and discussed the matter with a member of his office staff.

I believe that the suggested revisions make the Casey bills more palatable by reducing their severity and eliminating certain constitutional objections, while providing for a useful congressional declaration of policy regarding the lawful use of firearms.

The Casey bills in their present form appear to violate the eighth amendment which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment."

As stated in 21 Am. Jur. 2d, section 611, it is difficult "to define with exactness the extent of the limitations imposed ***. A penalty that is greater than any previously prescribed, known, or inflicted must be deemed excessive, cruel, and unusual.' As stated in section 611, "Where the duration of a sentence imposed on one convicted of crime is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of the community, the punishment is prohibited."

Thus, if someone were to strike another with his fist while having a rifle strapped on his back, then he would be guilty of an assault while carrying a firearm. If the act occured in the District of Columbia, a mandatory sentence of 25 years would be required. This sentence shocks the conscience, and has no relation to the gravity of the offense.

Under H.R. 5642 if a person committed the same assault while having strapped to his back a rifle which 20 years before was manufactured in another State, again a mandatory sentence of 25 years would be required.

Therefore, the Casey bill in its present form is entirely too severe, and should be modified. If modified, it would be a desirable piece of legislation.

In addition to the enclosed revisions of the Casey bills, we are also working on additional bills for your consideration to protect the legitimate gun owner in transporting firearms from State to State under safe conditions exempt from the harassment of unduly restrictive State and local laws, as suggested by the Izaak Walton League, besides other bills to encourage the lawful use of firearms, to promote civilian marksmanship, stronger control of the type of subversion which caused the assassination of President Kennedy, civil rights protection for the lawful gun owner, amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow tax deductions for gifts to organizations promoting the second amendment, and a