"Mr. Chairman, I am happy to appear before your committee in association with my colleague, the Attorney General, and other representatives of the administration in support of S. 1592 to amend the Federal Firearms Act, because I feel that enactment of this piece of legislation is of great importance to the welfare of this country and its citizens. "S. 1592 is designed to implement the recommendations which the President set forth with respect to firearms control in his message to the Congress of March 8, 1965, relating to law enforcement and the adminstration of justice. "The President, in that message, described crime as 'a malignant enemy in America's midst' of such extent and seriousness that the problem is now one ‘of great national concern.' The President also stated, and I quote from his message, "The time has come now, to check that growth, to contain its spread, and to reduce its toll of lives and property.' "As an integral part of the war against the spread of lawlessness, the President urged the enactment of more effective firearms control legislation, and cited as a significant factor in the rise of violent crime in the United States 'the ease with which any person can acquire firearms.' "The President recognized the necessity for State and local action, as well as Federal action, in this area and he urged 'the Governors of our States and mayors and other local public officials to review their existing legislation in this critical field with a view to keeping lethal weapons out of the wrong hands.' However, the President also clearly recognized in his message that effective State and local regulation of firearms is not feasible unless we strengthen at the Federal level controls over the importation of firearms and over the interstate shipment of firearms. The President advised that he was proposing draft legislation to accomplish these aims, and stated, and I quote, 'I recommend this legislation to the Congress as a sensible use of Federal authority to assist local authorities in coping with an undeniable menace to law and order and to the lives of innocent people.' "Anyone who reads the papers today or hears the news on radio and television cannot help but be appalled at the extent of crime and lawlessness in this country and at the extent of the loss of lives through the use of weapons in the hands not only of criminals but also juveniles, the mentally sick and other irresponsible people. Every day the lives of decent American citizens, our greatest national asset, are being snuffed out through the misuse and abuse of firearms by persons who should not have access to them. "What the bill does is to institute Federal controls in areas where the Federal Government can and should operate, and where the State governments cannot, the areas of interstate and foreign commerce. Under our Federal constitutional system, the responsibility for maintaining public health and safely is left to the State governments under their police powers. Basically, it is the province of the State governments to determine the conditions under which their citizens may acquire and use firearms. I certainly hope that in those States where there is not now adequate regulation of the acquisition of firearms, steps will soon be taken to institute controls complementing the steps taken in this bill in order to deal effectively with this serious menace. "Since a bureau of my Department is responsible for the administration of the Firearms Act, I am particularly anxious that the changes proposed in the bill with respect to the issuance of licenses to manufacture, import, and deal in firearms be adopted. Under existing law, anyone other than a felon can, upon the mere allegation that he is a dealer and payment of a fee of $1, demand and obtain a license. Some 50,000 or 60,000 people have done this, some of them merely to put themselves in a position to obtain personal guns at wholesale. The situation is wide open for the obtaining of licenses by irresponsible elements, thus facilitating the acquisition of these weapons by criminals and other undesirables. The bill before you, by increasing license fees and imposing standards for obtaining licenses, will go a long way toward rectifying this situation. "One misconception about this bill which has been widely publicized is that it will make it possible for the Federal Government to institute such regulations and restrictions as will create great difficulties for law-abiding citizens in acquiring, owning, or using firearms for sporting purposes. This is absolutely not so. Sportsmen will continue to be able to obtain rifles and shotguns from licensed dealers and manufacturers subject only to the requirements of their respective State laws. Indeed, they can travel to another State and purchase a rifle or shotgun from a licensed dealer there and bring it home with them without inter ference. Only two minor inconvenciences may occur for the sportsmen of this country. They will not be able to travel to another State and purchase a pistol or concealable weapon, and they will not be able to obtain a direct shipment from another State of any type of firearm. On this latter point, the inconvenience is more apparent than real because the large mail-order houses have outlets in most of the States and the bill will permit mail-order shipments to individual citizens from these outlets. "These minor inconveniences have been found to be necessary in order to make it possible for the States to regulate effectively the acquisition and possession of firearms. Obviously, State authorities cannot control the acquisition and possession of firearms if they have no way of knowing or ascertaining what firearms are coming into their States through the mails or, in the case of concealable weapons, by personally being carried across State lines. "Today, the people of the United States are living under the most ideal conditions which have ever existed for any peoples anywhere on earth. Yet much of this is threatened by the spreading cancer of crime and juvenile delinquency. It is absolutely essential that steps such as those proposed in this bill be taken to bring under control one of the main elements in the spread of this cancer, the indiscriminate acquisition of weapons of destruction. In concluding my statement, may I say that the Department's experience with the existing Federal Firearms Act has resulted in a feeling of frustration since the controls provided by it are so obviously inadequate in the ways that I have indicated. In drafting S. 1592 we have had in mind these inadequacies and now have, we believe, a bill, which, when enacted, will provide effective controls without jeopardizing or interfering with the freedom of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for legitimate purposes. I strongly support the enactment of S. 1592." For a number of years, the Section of Criminal Law has considered that the loose and ineffective controls on the sale of firearms, particularly handguns, has been a contributing factor to the increasing crime rate. At the midyear meeting of the American Bar Association in February 1964 the Section recommended to the house of delegates that action should be taken by the association "to draft a uniform State firearms statute and appropriate Federal legislation." During the annual meeting in August 1964 the Section presented a program on the subject, "The What, When and Why of Gun Legislation." Distinguished speakers, including a law-enforcement officer, a judge, a private citizen, and representatives of the National Rifle Association expored the subject in depth and detail. Although no formal action of the Section followed this panel program, it was clear that the sentiment of the large majority of the members attending the session favored more effective firearms controls. In summary, in determining whether the American Bar Association should support the enactment of S. 1592, or similar Federal legislation, the following specific questions and answers should be considered: First: Does the relatively free interstate traffic in firearms contribute materially to the increasing crime rate in the United States? Answer. The available evidence indicates clearly that a considerable number of crimes are committed by persons who have been able to acquire firearms easily, particularly handguns. Second: Is it within the constitutional power of the Federal Government to establish controls on the interstate movement of firearms? Answer. No lengthy legal brief is necessary to show that the Federal Government under the commerce clause is empowered to establish reasonable controls upon the interstate movement of firearms. Third: If the States and local governments enacted stringent controls on the purchase, possession, and use of firearms, would it be necessary or desirable for the Federal Government to legislate in this area? Answer. Although stringent State and local control of firearms would assist materially in reducing the possession and use of firearms for unlawful purposes, State and local controls cannot be effective unless the Federal Government prevents the relatively free and unimpeded flow of firearms into the several States through the channels of interstate commerce. Fourth: Are the controls contained in S. 1592 reasonable? Answer. Few persons will interpose reasonable objections to the purpose or to the major provisions of S. 1592. Reasonable men might differ as to the necessity for certain of the specific provisions. For example, it can be argued that the provisions which preclude a licensed retail dealer from selling rifles and shotguns to persons under the age of 18, or from selling handguns to persons under the age of 21, are an unwarranted usurpation of the power of the States and local governments to decide who may possess and use firearms. However, almost everyone would agree that these restrictions are reasonable if firearms are to be kept out of the hands of irresponsible juveniles. Further, it is clear that the control of such sales, even though local in nature, can best be established by Federal insistence, through licensing procedures, that dealers adhere to fixed standards in all of the States. Otherwise, it would be difficult to prevent a juvenile from purchasing a firearm in a State where the sale is permitted, and carrying it to a State where such a sale is prohibited. The Council of the Section of Criminal Law is of the opinion that S. 1592 represents a reasonable and desirable step forward in law enforcement. Although this legislation will cause minor inconvenience to the law-abiding citizen who desires to buy a gun, it will not prevent him from acquiring one. This minor inconvenience is the price that must be paid if the Federal Government is to do its part to assist the States in maintaining effective control over firearms. For the above reasons, the Section of Criminal Law, acting through its council in accordance with section 6, article VI, of its bylaws, recommends that the American Bar Association support the enactment of S. 1592, or similar Federal legislation. STATEMENT CONCERNING FIREARMS LEGISLATION PRESENTED BY THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT We in the Arizona Game and Fish Department do not feel that restrictions imposed on the sale or possession of firearms will lessen the number of crimes of violence committed in this country. We recognize the need for strict enforcement of existing laws, particularly where firearms are used as tools in the perpetration of crimes of violence, but we are confident that restricting the sale, possession, or shipment of guns will hamper only the honest citizen who uses firearms for lawful purposes and will constitute nothing more than a minor annoyance to the criminal. It is difficult for us to believe that persons of the type who would use firearms for robbery, murder or other serious crimes would hesitate to steal a gun, buy it from an illegal trader or procure it in some other manner. The fact that he may be violating the law by obtaining a gun illegally would hardly bother the criminal who is willing to use that gun in the commission of a far greater crime. For the law-abiding citizen, however, such restrictions can and would impose serious handicaps. Many of the finest sporting firearms in existence are made by custom gunsmiths in various parts of the country, and must of necessity be shipped to the purchasers through the mails or other systems of interstate commerce. We are also apprehensive of any proposals which would grant broad regulatory powers to any particular Federal agency. We feel that such powers are contrary to our honorable and accepted principles of letting the people themselves, through their elected delegates, decide what restrictions shall be imposed upon them. Hon. LEO H. IRWIN, STATE OF FLORIDA, GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION, Chief Counsel, House Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. Congress, DEAR SIR: The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission at a recent meeting reviewed legislation presently before Congress to amend the Federal Firearms Act, and adopted a resolution in opposition to the Dodd bill in its present form. A copy of this resolution and statement of opposition are herewith attached. It is the desire of this commission that this resolution be entered into the record when the measure is scheduled for hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee. Sincerely yours, O. E. FRYE, Jr., Director. On April 23, 1965, the following resolution was adopted by the game and fresh water fish commission: "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." We are further opposed to any National or State legislation which would by the severity of restriction, result in the curtailment of recreational shooting and thereby reduce the amounts of moneys available to the States under the PittmanRobertson Act. Any such curtailment of these funds would work a severe hardship on the programs of wildlife management and restoration in Florida, since these programs are based substantially upon Federal aid funds. We are of the opinion that a reduction of these funds would result in the elimination of many wildlife management programs throughout the Nation and that great damage to wildlife conservation would occur. While we are opposed to the Dodd bill (H.R. 6628, H.R. 6783 and S. 1592) in its present form, we favor the King-Hickenlooper (H.R. 7472) and Casey (H.R. 5642) bills as constituting logical and worthwhile approaches to the problem. We do not feel that either of the latter would work any undue hardship upon the recreational use of firearms. STATEMENT OF JOHN R. WOODWORTH, DIRECTOR, IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT This office is opposed to Senate bill 1592 or similar legislation on firearms control for the following reasons: (1) Firearms registration authority to be granted under terms of the bill would conflict with the second amendment to the Constitution and be an infringement of the American citizens' right to keep and bear arms. In behalf of the many Idaho sportsmen who have contacted this office, I am opposed to any erosion of this constitutional right. (2) Any unnecessary restrictions on the free use of firearms would have a corresponding effect of reducing the participation of American citizens in the traditionally American sport of hunting. Hunting is not only very important to the economic welfare of Idaho, but it is also very apparent that Idaho citizens demand that the American tradition of freedom in hunting be maintained. On the basis of many contacts with people throughout Idaho, I am unalterably opposed to the controls suggested in S. 1592 by Senator T. J. Dodd. (3) No matter how well intended legislation might be toward restricting the misuse of firearms or their use in the commission of crimes, it is my considered opinion that the passage of such legislation would not have the desired effect. The persons who are involved in the commission of crimes cannot be expected to conform to any law. One who is contemplating murder certainly wouldn't hesitate to violate a mere firearms control law. In other words, firearms laws attempt to legislate the morals of people. but the effect is that only the law-abiding citizens are restricted. It is my firm opinion that people kill people. Inanimate objects such as firearms are only instruments in the hands of people. Free and unrestricted use of firearms in the pursuit of the pleasurable sport of hunting, in my opinion, far out shadows the need for restrictive controls with their very doubtful benefits. (4) This office recommends that legislation such as House Resolutions 5641 and 5642 recently submitted by Congressman Bob Casey of Texas is sound. People who are involved with the commission of such crimes as murder, rape. and robbery should be confronted with a strong legislative code, strictly enforced. I would endorse this kind of legislation since it is specifically directed at the criminal. (5) In summary, I repeat that this office has been contacted many times by Idaho citizens since Senator Dodd's proposals were first made public. Not one of them was in favor of S. 1592. I have personally observed this same recommendation throughout the State at the numerous sportsmen's meetings and personal contacts that I have made. It is vividly clear to me that Idaho people judge this kind of legislation as unnecessary, unwarranted, and a detriment to their future welfare. In view of these facts, as director of the Idaho Fish and Game Department, I must express opposition to these proposals for firearms restriction and control. STATE OF KANSAS, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, FORESTRY, FISH, AND GAME COMMISSION, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: The Kansas Fish and Game Commission approved a resolution on July 12 opposing the so-called Dodd antigun legislation S. 1592. We wish to make it clear however that we are not opposed to all Federal control on handling of certain types of firearms, however, we do believe that H.R. 7472 and H.R. 5642 would be less detrimental to the hunting public and certainly would be less distasteful to sportsmen and gun hobbyists. We believe that S. 1592, unless it is amended considerably, would be one of the greatest deterrents to the growth and enjoyment of our hunting recreation. Naturally we think some control of certain types of firearms and explosives should be enacted and we certainly would support this type of legislation. We must, however, oppose all legislation that would materially interfere and hurt one of our major heritages and one of the major recreational aspects that we Americans cherish. Yours truly, GEORGE C. MOORE, Director. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: We understand that hearings are now being held by your committee on firearms bills, H.R. 6628 and H.R. 6723, which are identical to Senate bill 1592. We understand also that written statements for the record reflecting views on these bills are acceptable provided they reach your office by July 20. Accordingly we wish to advise that on April 27, 1965, the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission went on record as being unanimously and unalterably opposed to these bills since, if enacted, they will adversely affect over 300,000 sportsmen who use firearms for outdoor recreational purposes here in our State. We object to the proposed ban on mail-order sales of firearms which are used for hunting purposes; to the delegation of unspecified authority to the Secretary of Treasury to regulate the purchase, shipment, transportation, and sale of firearms and ammunition; to the prohibition against the sale of hunting rifles and shotguns to those under 18; and to the heavy licenses that will be imposed on dealers and manufacturers. If these restrictions are placed into effect it will adversely affect the great sport of hunting in Louisiana and the overall conservation program designed for the protection of wildlife populations which is being largely financed by the sportsmen in the State. If you will see that this letter and the attached copy of the commission's resolution is made a part of the transcript of the committee proceedings it will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, R. K. YANCEY, Assistant Director. |