of this case; however, they will refuse to follow it as a guide in other cases (U.S. News & World Report, July 5, 1965, p. 86). The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whittington, we are going to have to interrupt you and respond to this rollcall. If you will wait we will be back in about 20 or 30 minutes, to hear the rest of your statement. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will, sir. (Brief recess.) Mr. VANIK (presiding). Mr. Whittington, you may go right ahead. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Thank you, sir. I would like to amplify the statement I made earlier that H.R. 6628 and H.R. 6783 reach for a utopia which they cannot attain inasmuch as their success and enforcibility are based upon criminal cooperation, a cooperation they will not receive. The criminal element of our Nation would not have to depend on weapons from private sources, they could survive on those weapons stolen from "governmental installations" alone as in some years thefts of Government arms will run into the thousands. I cannot give you exact figures, but if you will subpena a report made on stolen weapons for the year 1959 to 1960 for the Department of Defense, you will be astounded at its total. Mr. Chairman, I was educated to be a lawyer not a sociologist: however, there is a question that has perplexed me for many years of dealing with firearms matters, and that is, What is the workings of a person's mind who will commit a crime of violence knowing that his or her life could be taken for having committed that crime? The only answer that I have been able to devise is one of a percentage basis. The popular vogue introduced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to quote or rate cities on the basis of number of crimes per 100,000 people. In a certain city in the midlands of the United States in the class between 750,000 to 1 million, these statistics were compiled on crimes of violence eliminating homicide by automobile accidents. For the year 1962, there were 18,031 crimes of violence committed within the city limits. There were many more in the suburbs and within the county. Of the 18,031 criminal cases which arose within the city limits, only 8,241 were solved by arrest-this percentage factor of crime clearance exceeds the national average. From these 8,241 cases solved by arrest, together with crimes committed within the county-there being no breakdown on indictments committed in the city proper-resulted in 2,720 felony indictments by the grand jury. There were only 217 jury trials of felony cases in the county. Another 1,869 defendants pleaded guilty. Such pleadings in most instances resulted in lighter sentences than juries might have assessed. The statistical results are that of the 18,031 crimes committed in that city, a mere 217 defendants felt the full weight of the law. For every 83 crimes committed, there was 1 jury trial. Include the pleas of guilty, the ratio of sentences meted out to crimes committed was about 1 to 9. Does this mean that the odds in favor of crime paying are more than 9 to 1? It does, and the criminal knows it. The situation is even worse than this. The small percentage of the criminals who are actually arrested, indicted, tried, sentenced, and delivered to the penitentiary will nearly all be released on parole after serving less than one-third of their sentence. Many of these, as the FBI uniform crime reports will show, will again turn to crime, one reason being the inadequacy of our supervision system. Considering all factors, it is a wonder that crime isn't more rampant than it is. Mr. VANIK. What is the city? You did not name the city. Mr. WHITTINGTON. The city has a bad enough name. Let's not drag it in. These are just cold statistics. Mr. VANIK. Very well. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Instead of pointing the finger at an inanimate object, a firearm, that cannot commit a crime without the motivating force of a human being, why not follow the course suggested by Congressman Casey in his two bills, H.R. 5641 and H.R. 5642, which would punish the individual for the criminal misuse of a firearm? Nothing would so effectively deter the criminal as certain, quick, and severe punishment. The old adage of "crime does not pay" is no longer a reality because with the system we have today, it does pay in excess of a billion dollars a year. Mr. Chairman, as exhibit No. 3, and made a part hereof, are copies of clippings of the syndicated column of D. E. Scott, of Wellington, Tex., a country newspaper editor, known as "Crossroads Report." At the beginning of my statement, I gave the quotation: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. Mr. Chairman, the foregoing was made by the now President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank you for the opportunity of having presented this and I certainly again thank you for the patience that you have displayed this morning in hearing all these statements. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Whittington, the committee is very grateful for your statement. I presume you want to insert at the close of your statement the exhibits that are attached? Mr. WHITTINGTON. They are made a part hereof. I won't go to the trouble to read them because you can read as well as I can. Mr. VANIK. Without objection they will be made a part of the record and made a part thereof. (The documents referred to follow :) EXHIBIT No. 1 TEXAS GROUP PROTESTS RULE ON FIREARMS (By Vernon Louviere, of the Daily News Washington Staff) WASHINGTON, August 28.-A group of Texas Congressmen fired some thundering verbal broadsides at the Internal Revenue Service Wednesday for seeking to toughen the National Firearms Act. Texas' two Senators and several House Members told an IRS hearing the proposed changes would only harass individual sportsmen and would have little effect on the gun collecting propensities of thugs and hoodlums. Senator Lyndon Johnson conceded some of the proposed regulation changes are sound, realistic, and desirable. However, he added: "I am distressed over the prospects of a Government regulatory agency moving into an area that has been historically free from Federal interference and restrictions." Johnson said Congress has repeatedly in the past refused to amend the act. Among the proposed changes is a provision that every person who buys a gun or ammunition must sign a register before making the purchase. "The Constitution clearly states that American citizens have the right to bear arms for lawful purposes," Johnson pointed out. "More than that, however, is the very human aspect of the problem since these proposed regulations would work an undue hardship on every sportsman, every dealer, and every manufacturer." Explaining that Texans are accustomed to using firearms, Senator Ralph Yarborough asserted: "This proposed law would require every farm boy to register his gun and have a receipt for every shell or cartridge bought if he wanted to hunt a buck, turkey, squirrel, dove, quail or rabbit, or shoot a rattlesnake or wildcat." Yarborough said the proposed changes would put "bureaucracy in every gun closet in America” and would end the ancient concept that "every man's home is his castle" because it would end that right to defend that home. Representative Walter Rogers, of Pampa, opposed the change on the ground the Internal Revenue Service is attempting to take over the lawmaking powers of Congress. He said the Service is trying to take away a "basic freedom of all Americans.” Rogers warned the Service that if it indulged in abuses of this type Congress would take away its rulemaking powers. Representatives Thomas, Fisher, Alger, and Dowdy also went on record in opposition to the changes. Also testifying against amending the act were John I. Moore, of San Angelo, vice president of the Texas Gun Collectors Association, George Whittington, of Amarillo, a prominent sportsman, and Frank Sorelle, of Spur, member of the executive board of the National Rifle Association. EXHIBIT No. 2 U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 4, 1956. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, GENTLEMEN: On page 52 of the May 1956 issue of the American Rifleman, you announce that, as the result of a decision rendered on March 27, 1956, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern Judicial District of California, a device identified as the "Chicago palm pistol" is not subject to registration and taxation under the National Firearms Act. The court decision to which you refer affects the classification status of the device mentioned only within the jurisdiction of said court, specifically the southern judicial district of California. Revenue Ruling 55-44 published on January 24, 1955, in Internal Revenue Bulletin No. 4 (Rev. Rul. 55-44, C.B. 1955-1129), takes precedence elsewhere. To avoid any misunderstanding which may result from your published article, it is suggested that you consider the propriety of clarifying this important point as a public service. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. DWIGHT E. Avis, Director, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. EXHIBIT No. 3 CROSSROADS REPORT DEAR EDITOR: My no-simp neighbor says now that medicare is about set up to take care of the elderly, it's nice that Congress is busy with a crimicare law to protect the predatory. This is called a firearms control law, and aims to make life less hazardous for the underprivileged robber and killer class, by keeping people from getting guns to defend themselves. It is sort of an equal rights law, so that a citizen in the crime business can enjoy the same right as a citizen in the filling station or other business; that is, the right to do business without getting shot at by his customers. CROSSROADS REPORT D. E. SCOTT, Wellington. DEAR EDITOR: It is said that shooting ducks, deer, and other nonaggressive creatures is really doing their species a favor, because it thins them out so there is more food for the survivors. The commonsense of this method of controlling overpopulation conditions is probably plain to all except the nonsurvivors. My sitting-duck neighbor says he reckons the proposed law against folks getting guns to protect themselves from marauding people-hunters must be aimed to keep the law-abiding citizen population from exploding past the food supply. D. E. SCOTT, Wellington. CROSSROADS REPORT DEAR EDITOR: News story in the papers the other day tells about a triggerhappy farmer in Louisiana who gunned down an underprivileged citizen who was merely trying to rob him. My equaliberal neighbor says this goes to show what terrible things can happen when the general public is allowed to own guns. He says the blood of that dead wealth-equality seeker is on the head of Congress, which has been stalling on its project to disarm all greedy individuals possessed of lives and property and selfishly wishing to keep same. D. E. SCOTT, Wellington. Mr. VANIK. There being no further witnesses, the committee is adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning. (Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m. the committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 27, 1965.) |