RESOLUTION

Resolved, That the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission believes that all gun laws now existing within the Federal Government, and the several States be codified within the clear intent of the U.S. Constitution and that all enactments in consonance with this subject be carefully forged so as to protect the rightful heritage of the law-abiding American citizen to have and to hold firearms in lawful pursuits of gun sports, for his self-protection, and in the light of the armed citizen's importance in our national defense;

That we believe that an American citizen of voting age or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, of whatever age, should have the right to legally purchase without restriction, a handgun, rifle, air rifle, shotgun, or a like item, excepting fully automatic firearms; be it further

Resolved, That this commission thinks that legislation necessary for the curtailment of crime involving improper use of firearms should be designed to strongly punish such offenders but should not be formed so as to unnecessarily curtail proper ownership of the arms themselves.

Further, this commission is opposed to the enactment of Senate bill 1592, known as the Dodd bill, in its present form since its passage will work extreme hardship upon the use of firearms for hunting or other recreational purposes. Adopted by commission, April 23, 1965.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions of Mr. Sikes?

Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Mr. Sikes, I have a brief series of questions which represent my understanding of the bill by Senator Dodd. I am merely asking you these questions feeling that you have the answers.

I think I know the answers, but I feel at the same time they should be delineated in the record. Is it your understanding that you will not be able to purchase by mail a concealable arm of any kind and for all practical purposes from a store or business in another State?

Mr. SIKES. That is my interpretation of the proposed legislation, Mr. King.

Mr. KING. And is it further your understanding that there are bills that allow this commerce to go on with proper and adequate safeguards to insure that such purchases from other States by mail or any other conveyance will not get into improper hands?

Mr. SIKES. That is correct and I have no objection whatever to that type of legislation. The King bill (H.R. 7472) would accomplish this.

Mr. KING. And is it further your understanding that no citizen can send a gun to an individual in another State, even as a gift or loan, or to a friend or relative under the administration bill?

Mr. SIKES. Yes. I believe commerce across State lines, in weapons, would effectively be stopped.

Mr. KING. And it is further your opinion that that could be permitted with proper and adequate safeguards?

Mr. SIKES. Yes.

Mr. KING. And there are bills presently before this committee that would insure that commerce with adequate and proper safeguards? Mr. SIKES. That is correct.

Mr. KING. Sending a gun for service is questionable under the administration's bill.

Mr. SIKES. I doubt that it could be done legally.

Mr. KING. I have my doubts. To send it to a factory, or a gunsmith, or authorized service it is my understanding you would have to fill out such forms as the Treasury Department might require. There is no provision for sending a gun away for a ventilated rib, or

choke, or device of any kind and have it returned in the normal course of events as we now enjoy?

Mr. SIKES. As I stated, these proposals would be a bureaucrat's dream. I doubt that it would be possible legally to carry on the normal operations of shipping weapons or any part of weapons for repair under this legislation.

Mr. KING. And you are aware that a Member of the Congress, a present and sitting Member, just this year sent an old arm he is very fond of back to the factory that originally constructed the arm for repairs, had it delivered, with the local police refusing under present law to deliver the arm to him without his being required to go down. personally and go through the usual redtape in order to get his own gun back.

Mr. SIKES. It happened to me. I don't know to how many other people.

Mr. KING. I didn't know that. I understand Representative Saylor, of Pennsylvania, had the same problem and now I am surprised to learn that you likewise had this problem. If you wished to send a gun or guns in advance to your destination, and I think you have mentioned a little of this in your statement, Mr. Sikes, for hunting, a trap or skeet shoot, rifle or pistol match, you would have a fill out whatever forms might be required before you could do this?

Mr. SIKES. That is correct. It would be such a nuisance that it would have the effect of almost stopping the transportation for sport, shooting matches, or other legitimate purposes of weapons across State lines; or even for personal protection.

Mr. KING. It is further a matter of your own personal knowledge, Mr. Sikes, that some of these shooters require as much as 200 or 300 pounds of ammunition in going to such shoots, tournament shooters, and so forth, and this weight would just about preclude their using aircraft to travel back and forth across the country.

Mr. SIKES. That is correct.

Mr. KING. A smalltown store where you, and I too, used to pick up a box or two of ammunition probably won't stock it any more for the reason that the license fee provided for in the administration bill would just about make impossible the carrying of such products by the average, out-in-the-country small town store. Is that right?

Mr. SIKES. I live in a small town, and I purchase my ammunition and sometimes my weapons in the local hardware stores. I don't think that they would find it possible to continue to stock weapons and ammunition under the terms of this bill. I think it would be too costly for them to handle these items.

Mr. KING. With ever so many of the establishments that both you and I are aware of, their total annual profit would in most instances be far less than the license fee that is provided in the administration's

bill.

Mr. SIKES. That is correct.

Mr. KING. Is it also your opinion, Mr. Sikes, that with the hundreds of small town and city gunsmiths-they are in virtually every neighborhood in many of our communities-the great proportion of these would perhaps give up the activity of their expert gunsmithing solely for the reason that the tax would just make it unprofitable to do business as has been customarily done throughout generations?

Mr. SIKES. It not only would be unprofitable, but the average gunsmith would find it so difficult to fill out the forms that are necessary that, even if it were profitable, he would shy away from the problem and the responsibility of form filing that is required under this. I think the legislation would put most of them out of business.

Mr. KING. Isn't it also your opinion, based on your great knowledge and experience, that ever so many of these expert gunsmiths do it as a sort of sideline?

Mr. SIKES. Yes, that frequently is the case.

Mr. KING. Just for friends, members of clubs, members of organizations that shoot. They too would be discouraged from carrying on in this business?

Mr. SIKES. The man who does most of my gunsmithing in my home area does it as a sideline because he loves weapons. I know that he would not put up with the redtape and form filling and the costs that would be necessary under this bill in order to carry on his operation. Yet he is one of the best gunsmiths I ever saw.

Mr. KING. We have thousands of shooting clubs in the country. The only reason that they are prosperous, in my opinion, and I think in yours, is the fact that they have associated with their clubs expert loaders and reloaders of the ammunition that is used by shooters. A great number of our shooters would find it impossible to go to the shops or stores and buy factory-made ammunition. The club members are only able to enjoy this recreation for the reason that the clubs have acquired or have among their members men that like doing reloading and do it at cost. Those members are responsible for the thriving of the thousands of gun clubs in the United States. The gunsmiths would also be out of business for the reason they would not be able to pay the manufacturer's tax provided for in the administrator's bill?

Mr. SIKES. Yes, I think that undoubtedly is true, Mr. King, and let me say again I think this legislation is a bureaucrat's dream. We don't know what regulations or prohibitions might be concocted and read into this legislation once it were placed on the statute books. This is only the beginning.

Mr. KING. You and I are aware of the methods that the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit in the past have resorted to in the matter of regulations. Would you care to state, in the few instances you are aware of, and I think you are aware of the same ones I am, your opinion of the efficiency and the competence, and the openmindedness of the people who heretofore have assisted in the promulgating of the rules and regulations governing firearms under the national act?

Mr. SIKES. In my personal experience I have found them willing to discuss helpfully the drafting or modification of firearms legislation which I felt would be helpful to the industry and to the public. I realize that industry experience on regulatory problems has not been satisfactory in a number of instances.

Mr. KING. But you are sympathetic to those witnesses who have indicated an apprehension or fear of the regulatory provisions mentioned repeatedly in the administration's bill?

Mr. SIKES. I think I made that very clear in my statement to the committee. Regulatory problems would become a major matter under the administration bills.

Mr. KING. And you feel that apprehensions and fears are perhaps justified on the basis of past experience with regulations promulgated by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit.

Mr. SIKES. There have been instances where regulations which previously have been issued have been extremely difficult for the industry to live with. In the future, if these bills were enacted, the situation could become infinitely worse.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Sikes.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? If not, Mr. Sikes, again we thank you, sir, for coming to the committee.

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing here.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the record immediately following the testimony of the Attorney General a partial listing of the Federal statutes which provide a mandatory minimum punishment.

During his testimony before this committee this question was brought up and I think that the mandatory minimum punishment provisions that are in the law today are very pertinent to this subject

matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will appear in the record at that point.

(The above-mentioned material is on p. 111.)

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the same unanimous consent to have inserted in the record a brief on the present gun laws in the District of Columbia and what action has been taken by the Committee on the District of Columbia in considering legislation to enact a more rigid gun law.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that material will follow immediately the material Mr. Burke has inserted.

(The above-mentioned material is on p. 112.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hicks, will you identify yourself for our record by giving us your name, address, and capacity in which you appear?

STATEMENT OF W. B. HICKS, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

LIBERTY LOBBY

Mr. HICKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am W. B. Hicks, executive secretary of the Liberty Lobby. We have asked to testify on the firearms control bills on behalf of the more than 150,000 families who subscribe to our legislative reports.

We take a deep interest in these proposals because of our concern about the rising tide of criminal subversion of our society and our equal concern-our corresponding concern-for the preservation of individual freedom-the two considerations most involved here; and also because we have observed with some alarm the oversimplified approach taken by some other witnesses in their eagerness to promote their particular viewpoints.

It is our observation that of the various bills so far introduced on this subject, none are either all black or all white. Most of them contain a good deal of commonsense and constitutional approach to

problems of legitimate congressional interest. On the other hand, most of them also contain much that is neither commonsense nor constitutional.

Any law which proposes to correct an evil or solve a problem should meet the following requirements:

1. Does the law recognize the cause of the problem, or does it deal only with the symptoms? There may be good reasons why the causes cannot be treated by law, of course, but if they can be, then it follows that they should be, because the treatment of symptoms alone can often make the problem worse.

2. Is the law in accordance with both the Constitution, and the tradition of a free society-in other words, will it be enforcible and freely accepted by free Americans?

The prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the United States offers us a case history of a law that failed to measure up to these standards. To legislate on the sale of alcohol did not affect the causes of alcoholic consumption, which could not be touched by such a law. All that could be accomplished was the covering up of trade in alcohol.

Prohibition failed to gain the willing support of society, and its violation became not only widespread, but socially acceptable-opening the way for a massive criminal conspiracy to gain a foothold in America-a conspiracy that was founded on the millions of dollars. spent by the public on illegal alcohol.

That the law was a constitutional amendment, adopted by the political process, only points up more graphically the fact that the Constitution was not meant to solve all the problems; that lawmaking is not the answer to every ill of society; and it illustrates the dangers of ignoring the traditions of freedom and individual responsibility, which are based on the natural urges of the people to lead their own lives, free of government domination.

Good law must be applicable and enforcible.

Liberty Lobby has made an effort to apply those standards to the proposals before this committee. The problem with which these bills are supposed to deal is crime.

We find that two of the provisions of these bills are worthwhile proposals which really have little to do with crime. We refer to the proposed exclusion from import of foreign surplus military weapons, which were originally produced under subsidies, and which therefore constitute unfair competition with American industry and labor. We are opposed to such "dumping," which can only harm us by damaging a vital defense industry. Also, we do not see what connection there might be between our rising crime rate and the trade in heavy weapons of war, but we are in favor of legislation that would control such weapons to prevent their use by subversive paramilitary forces. We only feel that if the Government is concerned with paramilitary insurgency, it should honestly say so, and explain the reasons why, rather than legislate on the subject under disguise.

Either of the two measures just mentioned could stand on their own as separate legislation, and since this is true, they should be separated from the crime control bills, if only to simplify the subject matter

under consideration.

The remaining portions of these bills represent an attempt to deal with crime. Unfortunately, these proposals are based on the assumption that increased firearms sales are a basic cause of crime, when it

51-635-65-pt. 2--17