Mr. KING. We appreciate your appearance, Mr. Hayden.
Mr. HAYDEN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. KING. Mr. McCracken.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. McCRACKEN III, NATIONAL SKEET SHOOTING ASSOCIATION, AMATEUR TRAPSHOOTING ASSOCIATION, TEXAS SKEET SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION, ARKANSAS STATE SKEET SHOOTING ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SKEET ASSOCIATION, DALLAS GUN CLUB; ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. BETTY ANN FOXWORTHY, EDITOR, TRAP & FIELD MAGAZINE

Mr. MCCRACKEN. With the Chair's permission, sir, I would like to have with me at this moment and introduce to you Mrs. Betty Ann Foxworthy of Indianapolis, Ind., who is the editor of the monthly official periodical of the Amateur Trapshooting Association, one of those here recognized.

Mr. KING. It is a pleasure to welcome your guest.

Mr. MCCRACKEN. May I express to you my appreciation for the privilege of being heard in connection with H.R. 6628.

I reside at 4401 Highland Drive, Dallas, Tex., and am a full-time practicing partner in the law firm of McCulloch, Ray, Trotti & Hemphill of that city.

A. ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED AND THEIR DESCRIPTIONS

I am here principally in representation of the National Skeet Shooting Association and the Amateur Trapshooting Association by designation of their presidents.

These organizations have approximately 45,000 members at this time, in all 50 States, Canada, and in our armed services in Europe and Asia. They are the parent organizations of the skeet and trapshooting world. They have affiliated with them approximately 550 NSSA clubs and 680 ATA clubs in all 50 States, Canada, and overseas, with a combined membership of approximately 150,000.

A directory of the NSSA clubs is attached to the original of this statement for inspection by the committee.

I am also officially designated to represent the Texas Skeet Shooters Association, made up of approximately 1,000 members, with 37 affiliated gun clubs; the Arkansas State Skeet Shooting Association, made up of approximately 300 members; the California Skeet Association, made up of approximately 1,200 members; and I am also here in representation of my local club, the Dallas Gun Club, of approximately 450 members.

These parent organizations sponsored and recorded 1,700 registered skeet shoots and 2,700 registered trap shoots in the year 1964, and I am happy to add that the registered tournaments set so far this year gives expectation that the number of tournaments in 1965 will be nearly twice that of 1964.

The majority of the serious tournament shooters travel as far as 3,000 miles across the United States for major tournaments, and, if my personal experience as a competitive shooter is any indication of the facts, I would judge that from one-half to three-fourths of the mem

51-635 0-65-pt. 2--13

bership of the organizations shoot in tournaments in States surrounding their home States.

From these impressions, the committee should glean the fact that there is considerable travel by inestimable thousands of member shooters throughout the States during the course of a year, wherein their highly prized tournament guns in four gages are carried either by automobile, train, or airplane, both public and private.

These facts should give you gentlemen some conception of the activity of the shooting public and the popularity of the shooting sports. The NSSA publishes a monthly magazine, "The Skeet Shooting Review," which averages approximately 50 pages in length. This magazine, of course, contains news of tournament activities, such as the publishing of registered scores in past tournaments and a calendar of future events.

In addition, the magazine carries a very small classified advertising page, and several of these are attached to this statement for perusal by the committee. If the committee will examine, you will see that there are here advertised for sale various makes and gages of tournament shotguns, as well as field guns and other equipment necessarily used by skeet and field shooters.

It is extremely useful and necessary for skeet shooters to have this source of purchase of firearms of a very highly specialized kind and nature. Tournament shotguns are not easily obtained or modified, and as it frequently occurs, a shooter will be on the lookout for a particular make and gage of tournament gun, and one of his best sources is the classified directory in "The Skeet Shooting Review" and similar magazines.

Önce he locates such a gun, perhaps three or four States distant, he will contact that advertiser by mail, perhaps desiring a more specific description, and if acceptable, that gun will be shipped to him by parcel post or express for his use to see if it fits, and so forth. If the gun is acceptable to the prospective purchaser, the money will be paid to the seller.

B. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SECTIONS OF THE BILL

Gentlemen of the committee, aside from its violation of article I, section 1, of the Constitution, as well as the violation of article II of the Bill of Rights, the bill here before you for consideration, in section 2 (a) and (g), will positively prohibit just such a method of acquisition of firearms by mail or express as I have here described.

To do so is an infringement of the right of law-abiding private citizens to acquire and own guns. This hardship is not required to suppress crime.

At this point, attention should be focused on arguments which have been made by various law-enforcing officials and proponents of this bill, that the second amendment does not give a guarantee to the American people of the right to acquire, own, and bear arms.

This seems to me preposterous. First of all, the amendment itself says "the right of the people," and it is respectfully submitted that this means exactly what it says, and not militia, National Guard, Texas Rangers, or Washington, D.C., Police Department.

The famous Miller case from the Supreme Court in 1939 does not stand for the proposition that is attributed to it. In fact, the Court in that opinion believes there was no such organization known as militia at the time of the writing of the second amendment, but, on the contrary, the framers of the Constitution had in mind that everybody capable of defending their country constituted the militia.

In this connection, mention might be made of a memorandum to the Secretary of the Treasury from his General Counsel, this having been furnished to me with the other memorandums and statements heretofore made.

I believe this memorandum is dated May 17, 1965, and written by the Acting General Counsel, and purports to deal with constitutionality of the regulation and control of firearms.

A careful examination of this memorandum to the Secretary of the Treasury would reveal that nowhere in that memorandum is mention made of the second amendment, but on the contrary it deals only with regulatory authority by virtue of the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Of course, that regulatory authority does exist in Congress, but it is limited and subject to limitation by the proscriptions of the Constitution, one of which is the second amendment.

In this connection, my personal view of the total effect of H.R. 6628 is that it is not a regulatory measure, but carries the badges of prohibition.

It might be well to mention here that the section 2 (a) and (g) will virtually shut down the antique arms business, but it is pleasing to note that the sponsors of this bill have proposed an amendment eliminating antique guns from coverage.

Further, section 2(g) will prohibit a hunter or tournament shooter from shipping his guns ahead to his outfitter or club at a destination out of his home State.

I feel this restriction is positively unreasonable, and is an infringement of the right to bear arms.

In addition, it should be pointed out that section 2(b) (2) of the proposed act is in further direct violation of article II of the Bill of Rights, in that it prohibits certain of our citizens, those under 21, from purchasing handguns anywhere or under any condition whatsoever, and further prohibits our citizens under 18 years of age from purchasing their first shotgun or .22-caliber rifle, and, I submit to vou, flares directly into the face of the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Reasonable regulation of acquisition by minors could very well have some good effect, and, in this regard, what would be more effective than parental consent to acquisition? However, this answer is for State legislatures.

Passing for a moment to other sections of the bill, the effect of which should be pointedly explained to this committee and to the House of Representatives, is the absolutely outrageous proscription set forth in section 2(b) (3), wherein it is prohibited that a citizen of our country in another State buy a handgun from a licensed dealer,

irrespective of age or any necessity, even a tournament pistol shooter at an out-of-State shoot.

Again it is submitted that this flies directly into the face of the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Digressing for one moment, I suggest that there has not been placed before this committee any testimony from any competent police or law-enforcing official which would suggest that law-enforcing organizations are not extremely dependent upon a well-armed law-abiding citizenry, for the simple reason that our police departments can never be large enough to protect all citizens under all conditions from the various forces of evil and violence.

The city of New York and your own city are examples.

Let us assume that you as a U.S. Congressman are traveling in one of our States, and have your life and the safety of your wife or family threatened. Of course, you will advise the police, but in following your God-given heritage and commonsense, I suggest you would also go immediately to a gun dealer and purchase the best means of protection of yourself and your family.

If this bill be passed, you will be prohibited from doing so.

Gentlemen, it would seem to me that the conclusion is inescapable, that if this bill is passed, it will have the effect of partial disarmament of our citizenry.

I wish time permitted further exploration of this point.

To pass to other sections of the bill, it would seem that the sections dealing with definitions and license fees could have no other effect than to cast undue burden and hardship on our shooting world.

For example, there are perhaps a million individuals in this country who conduct a "custom hand-loading service" for other hunters whereby they carefully hand load once-fired rifle cartridges on a cooperative plan for distribution to their members.

However, it is again pleasing to note that the administration has suggested an amendment to H.R. 6628 which would eliminate rifle, shotgun, and pistol ammunition. However, this elimination must be made clear throughout the entire act, particularly in the license fee provisions.

There are literally thousands of individuals throughout our country who carry on a part-time business of custom stocking and custom rebarreling, a great deal of it as out-of-State business, and in a great many cases by retired gunsmiths. These definitions and license fee requirements would be disastrous to these operations, and to the source of ammunition and gun work here described.

This is not to mention prohibitive increases in license fees for a firearms and ammunition dealer.

Each of you is familiar with the small country stores throughout the United States that during the hunting seasons keep on hand small supplies of guns and ammunition for the 20 million people in the hunting fraternity. For them to have to pay such license fees will simply cause them to cease such sales and business.

Again, it is pleasing to note that the administration has offered to reduce the proposed increases in license fees, and eliminate ammunition, but I submit that they are still prohibitive for these small operations, and strike at dealers in pistols.

A great many of the skeet and trapshooters in the United States purchase and use CIL.-Canadian Industries Ltd.-shot shells, and a good number of gun clubs order their ammunition from Canada.

The definition of "importer" would, even by the amendments offered, require licensing of them. This is prohibitive due to the very small margin of profit in the sale of ammunition, and the definition of "dealer" means any person engaged in the business of selling firearms or ammunition at wholesale or retail, and that raises in my mind the question as to what "engaged in the business" means.

Clarification of this question is placed in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, and I submit he is not qualified, nor is he a Member of Congress.

I hope I have pointed out to you thoughtful and responsible gentlemen some of the harmful and dangerous aspects of this proposed legislation, not to mention the unconstitutionality of the various provisions discussed.

I should like here to submit to the committee what is felt to be a most serious aspect of the bill. Throughout the several provisions of the proposed bill, there is delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his deputy, the right to make substantive law regarding the transportation and shipment of firearms and the securing of licenses,

et cetera.

He might, under section 2(a)(1), prohibit guns as baggage for flying sportsmen such as hunters and tournament shooters, or he very well could determine "lawful purpose" under section 2(a) (1) of the bill to exclude any of the matters that he personally felt not necessary or beneficial to society. He could, under section 3(g), require dealers to register guns sold.

You gentlemen should be cognizant of the history concerning the dangers of gun registration without my having to discuss the matter further, but I would invite questions concerning the disasters of registration.

Should such be so made by any Secretary or delegate, it is submitted it would be a usurpation of the legislative authority vested in Congress by article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

Such power of authority as is here sought to be delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury has been stricken down by our Supreme Court on a great many previous occasions, and reference should here be made to the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case, the Schechter Poultry Corporation case, and many others which I would be glad to furnish to the committee or its counsel.

We free citizens of the United States are entitled to have our laws restricting our liberty be enacted by Congress, and by Congress only, and not by the whim and opinion of an individual in office.

The committee has been kind enough to furnish to me copies of the statements from the Treasury Department and others in support of H.R. 6628. These statements have taken issue with the argument that I have here propounded, that the Secretary can act in a capricious and arbitrary way. They have stated that the Secretary has never acted in this fashion.