would be the death knell of private gun ownership in America as well as of all sporting activities involving firearms.

I certainly would not wish your committee, or the Congress, to premise its action on this bill on such misconceptions. The bill was not intended to impose any substantial additional burdens on the possession and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Clearly the bill would not "destroy our skeet and target clubs, hunting activities, target ranges, Olympic shooting team, the National Rifle matches, et cetera" as has been asserted in correspondence received as a result of the letter to which I referred.

Some of the bill's opponents would attack it on unfounded constitutional grounds alleging either that its provisions are beyond the congressional power to regulate interstate or foreign commerce or that they violate rights expressed in the Constitution's amendments. There is currently a widespread misconception as to the meaning of the second amendment and its significance in relation to Federal firearm controls.

This is certainly due in part to the fact that during the past decade certain gun publications and gun organizations have widely disseminated information concerning the second amendment which contains only the "last half" of the amendment which, in its entirety reads, and I quote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Not only do those who assert that the second amendment confers the right on the individual to keep and bear arms quote the language of the Constitution out of context, but they also ignore the judicial decisions which have construed the second amendment. The courts have held that, as it applies to Federal firearms legislation, the second amendment was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but rather as a prohibition upon Federal action which would interfere with the organization by the States of their militia.

I understand that a memorandum opinion which deals with the subject of Federal firearms control and the second amendment is being offered by the Attorney General for inclusion in the record of these hearings. This opinion was prepared with the provisions of the bill in mind, and it reaches the unequivocable conclusion that there is nothing in the meaning, scope, or application of the second amendment to impede the passage of the administration's bills.

The amendments to the Federal Firearms Act proposed in the administration's bill would be premised on the same constitutional authority under which the Federal Firearms Act was originally enacted. That, of course, is the power of the Congress under the Constitution to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, which is expressed in clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.

I do not think that there is any substantial question but that all of the proposed amendments are within the scope of the authority of the Congress under the commerce power. I also understand that the Attorney General is submitting for the record a memorandum opinion supporting this view.

We believe that the administration's bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act contains measures suited to the attainment of the President's expressed objectives in the field of firearms controls. There are areas,

however, in which the bill provisions, as originally written, may need some modification. Senate hearings on S. 1592 elicited certain objections which we recognize may have merit, particularly as to the bill's possible effect on antique firearms and big game guns, on sporting ammunition, and as to small dealers who sell only a few rifles and shotguns. We also feel there is something to be said for including a statutory guarantee of hearings with respect to the issuance of regulations, and believe that the bill would be improved by including an introductory statement of findings and declaration of purpose.

We are, therefore, proposing certain minor modifications to H.R. 6628 and H.R. 6783 which will include:

1. An introductory statement of findings and declaration.

2. Revision of the definition of "destructive devices" to exclude antique firearms and bona fide big game guns and, incidentally, to also exclude obsolete Army ordnance authorized by law to be distributed to patriotic organizations and public institutions.

3. Revision of the application of the definition of "firearm" to exclude bona fide antiques and replicas thereof from the operation of the act.

4. Removal of all ammunition, except ammunition for destructive devices, from the operation of the act.

5. Modification of dealers' license fees, with particular consideration given to those for dealers who trade only in rifles and shotguns.

6. Specific provisions for hearing procedures in the issuance of regulations, similar to those provided under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.

Amendatory language to effect these changes is being prepared and will be submitted for your consideration at an early date.

I have previously mentioned only incidentally the administration's bill which would amend the National Firearms Act (H.R. 6629 and H.R. 6782) by making certain highly destructive devices subject to the controls provided in that act. There is a generally recognized need for these controls, and so far as I am aware, there is no opposition deserving of consideration, to the objectives of this proposed legislation.

It has been called to our attention, however, that the language used in the bill in defining "destructive devices" for purposes of the National Firearms Act could have the effect of making large caliber hunting rifles and certain collectors items, such as antique muzzleloaders, subject to the control and taxing provisions of the act, a result which was not intended. There is also a minor omission in the bill concerning heavy military ordnance being manufactured for the Defense Department. The drafters had intended to include a specific exemption to cover this situation but it was inadvertently omitted in the final preparation of the bill.

We are drafting amendatory language which is designed to appropriately modify the national act bill be removing these possibly objectionable aspects without affecting the basic purpose of the bill. These proposed amendments will be submitted for your consideration at a very early date. Briefly they would:

1. Make it clear that the definition of "destructive device" does not include bona fide big game guns, antique firearms, and obsolete ord

nance authorized by law to be distributed to patriotic organizations and public institutions.

2. Provide for exemption, from provisions of the act, of persons who transact business only with (or on behalf of) the United States.

We feel that these changes should overcome the significant objections to the bill and the Treasury Department would have no objection to their adoption. If your deliberations disclose any other areas in which the bill could be improved, we will be pleased to render drafting assistance.

The administration's bills, which you are considering, are the result of many hours, I might say years, of careful study over a period of many months by well qualified persons in the Treasury, Justice, and other departments of the Government. Our people looked at the broad national picture and after much deliberation and consultation developed these bills, to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act and the National Firearms Act, as well suited to achieve effective firearms controls without unduly burdening legitimate private gun owners.

Persons who oppose effective firearms legislation such as that proposed by the administration endeavor to belittle its potential benefits by saying that such laws won't stop crime. The coin fine-sounding phrases, such as: "penalize the misuse of guns, not the legitimate use, and "punish the criminal, not the gun. "This negative approach ignores or denies what we believe to be an established fact-that there is a serious crime problem in the United States which is aggravated by the ease with which anyone can acquire firearms.

We have never claimed that these bills would blot out crime. We do claim, however, that, in helping State and local authorities to keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong persons, a step will have been taken toward containment of the increasing crime rate. These bills to amend the Federal, and National, Firearms Acts do not penalize legitimate use of guns nor "punish guns"; and any minor inconveniences which might accrue to some gunowners by reason of their enactment is a small price to pay for progress in the campaign against

crime.

While these bills, as you know, are only a part of the President's program to curb crime, they are a very important part and their enactment is urgently needed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.

Any questions of Secretary Barr and Mr. Cohen?

Mr. KING. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watts?

Mr. WATTS. You speak of some changes that you will propose which were developed as a result of hearings in the Senate. Don't you think those changes should be worked out so that the opposition to this bill might have a chance to examine them? It might remove some opposition.

When do you plan on having the exact language of those changes worked out?

Mr. COHEN. We have been working on these since the Senate hearings, sir. In fact, several of the manufacturers and manufacturers' representatives have been consulting with our people as to their problems. We are consulting right now with any interested public people who might have ideas along these lines. We would be glad to hear from any of them.

Mr. WATTS. Do you have any set time as to when you expect to have them ready so they can be examined?

Mr. COHEN. We think we might have them ready by some time next week, sir.

Mr. WATTS. By when?

Mr. COHEN. Some time next week.

Mr. WATTS. What areas will be covered, just what you named here? Mr. COHEN. These areas I have discussed, yes, sir.

Mr. WATTS. Let me ask you about people who have firearms now. Is there anything in the Federal bill, in this bill which is proposed, which requires them to do anything with respect to firearms they have now, say pistols, handguns, shotguns, or rifles?

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. The pistols, shotgun, rifle presently in private ownership is not affected whatever. The only controls

Mr. WATTS. Even though it may be

Mr. COHEN. A mail-order weapon.

Mr. WATTS (continuing). A mail-order rifle, a hand grenade, or anything?

Mr. COHEN. We stop there. If it is a mail-order rifle or mail-order pistol it is perfectly proper to be held by this person for the rest of his life or sold to anyone else within the legal provisions. How

ever

Mr. WATTS. How about the high-caliber rifle?

Mr. COHEN. The destructive rifle, bazooka, antitank gun, the bomb

Mr. WATTS. Those you have named. How about those?

Mr. COHEN. Those types of devices would be treated just like we presently treat the sawed-off shotgun or a machinegun, that is, any transaction in those arms must be registered.

Mr. WATTS. They would have to be registered?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir; and subject to a

Mr. WATTS. With whom?

Mr. COHEN. Treasury Department.

Mr. WATTS. If you owned a bomb, a bazooka, or a hand grenade, or what was the other one

Mr. COHEN. Antitank gun.

Mr. WATTS. Or a machinegun, I assume.

Mr. COHEN. A machinegun is presently covered.

Mr. WATTS. They would have to be registered?

Mr. COHEN. Only those.

Mr. WATTS. But only those?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. WATTS. Any other high-powered-caliber rifle, anything you might have which you presently have, would not have to be registered anywhere?

Mr. COHEN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WATTS. What about a person who has a handgun within the State and undertakes to sell it to someone else in the State? Is he subject only to the State law?

Mr. COHEN. That is right.

Mr. WATTS. There is nothing in this bill which affects transfer of rifles and shotguns and handguns between citizens except as to what the State law might require, so long as it does not go across the State line?

Mr. COHEN. That is right.

Mr. WATTS. An individual could not sell to somebody in another State or take across the State and sell a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle?

Mr. COHEN. He could take a shotgun or rifle.

Mr. WATTS. What kind of rifle?

Mr. COHEN. A hunting rifle, any type of hunting rifle.

Mr. WATTS. Could he take an Army rifle?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WATTS. A lot of people use Army rifles for big-game guns. They are so much cheaper.

Mr. COHEN. If he had an F-1, a Springfield, and so on. He could not take a sawed-off shotgun. There is no restriction on interstate transactions in rifles or shotguns, only in concealable weapons.

Mr. WATTS. I thought you said they could not sell across State lines except licensed dealers.

Mr. COHEN. The commercial transactions could not do that. The individual would not be restrained.

Mr. WATTS. How many would an individual have to sell before he became commercial?

Mr. COHEN. It is a question of whether he is in the active business of dealing in arms.

Mr. WATTS. In other words, a fellow who is not in an active business has no restriction on him?

Mr. COHEN. The single sale, the isolated sale, the one sale in a great while, would not make a business. It would have to be a regularized transaction.

Mr. WATTS. What do you call an isolated sale-once a month, once every 10 years?

Mr. COHEN. We would have to judge that on its facts. The normal transaction, where a man sells a gun once a year, once in several years, would not affect it.

Mr. WATTS. You are acquainted with the fact there are a number of gun collectors?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. WATTS. Some of them have large and valuable collections of guns.

Mr. COHEN. That is right.

Mr. WATTS. Sometimes they dispose of those. Maybe there is not a ready sale for them in the immediate community. What provision is made for that?

Mr. COHEN. We would intend to develop regulations which would state that he would have to intend to be dealing in the business of selling firearms, that is, he would not have to have a license to dispose of the gun collection piecemeal if he was disposing of it. He would have to have it if he bought and sold two guns a month or five guns a month. At some point he becomes a dealer.

Mr. WATTS. I am not referring to that. I refer to a fellow getting rid of an already-collected gun collection.

Mr. COHEN. A bona fide sale would in most instances not be a problem.

Mr. WATTS. You do intend to develop regulations which would allow a gun collector to dispose of his collection of guns without requiring him to become a dealer?