NOT CHANGED. Refer again to the Chicago ordinance above for the basis upon which such decisions are supposedly made. The appropriate wording is repeated here for convenience:

It shall be the duty of the commissioner of police to refuse such permit to any person having been convicted of any crime, and any minor. Otherwise, in case he shall be satisfied that the applicant is of good moral character, it shall be the duty of the commissioner of police to grant such permit upon payment of a fee of two dollars."

Contrast these experiences with a statement attributed to the Chicago Superintendent of Police in an article appearing on page 2, section 1 in the Chicago Tribune's issue of Feb. 6, 1965:

Question: "-Chicago by law discourages honest citizens from carrying weapons to protect themselves. Should there be a change, so people might have a chance against such criminals. . . .?

WILSON No, I don't favor any such move. I think our gun laws should be made more restrictive because as a conservative estimate there are 100,000 handguns (revolvers and pistols) in the possession of Chicago citizens who have no business having them. I Have no obJECTION TO A LAW-ABIDING CITI-. ZEN HAVING A GUN IN HIS HOUSE IF HE IS IN FACT A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. (emphasis ours) Mayor Daley's committee on organized crime legislation has drafted a bill to require licensing of guns in the hands of people, and to put restrictions on the type of people who would be permitted to have them, and I favor this."

EXAMPLE "C" - Applicant was a male Caucasian, about age 40, married, the father of two children, a continuous record of employment with one company for over 15 years, an officer of several years in one of the largest gun clubs in the state of Illinois, and an extremely highly qualified target shooter who has competed a number of times in the United States National Shooting Championships. He made application for the purchase of a very sophisticated single shot .22 Olympic-style target pistol manufactured in Switzerland and designed exclusively for competition in International-type Pistol Championship Matches. Such pistols are virtually hand made precision instruments calibrated for the ultimate in accuracy and sell for a minimum of $235 each!

Result: His application for the pistol purchase permit was refused. Subsequently, in reply to his inquiry for an explanation of the basis for refusal, he received the following letter from the office of the Superintendent of Police:

"We follow a policy in the Police Department of not issuing a permit to purchase unless the applicant can show a strong need for the weapon in addition to the fact that he is a person of good character. Apparently in your case you did not succeed in convincing the personnel in our Records & Communications Division that you had a need for the weapon in question.

We think this policy is wise for there are too many people purchasing weapons that really don't need them. The weapon can get into the wrong hands, individuals may be injured through careless or misuse of the weapon and it may be stolen from the person who owns it."

No further comment is needed. The above letter speaks for itself quite unmistakably.

EXAMPLE "D" Applicant was a male Caucasian, single, in his thirties, a licensed attorney in Illinois and a business executive in a large concern, a member of a target shooting club, author of a well known legal treatise on the subject of ballistic evidence, president of a large community improvement organization, and holder of the highest nationally recognized proficiency rating among competitive pistol shooters.

He applied for a police permit to purchase a specialized .22 rapid fire target pistol. Result: Application denied.

In Conclusion

Certain police force elements quite obviously favor the complete disarmament of everyone except the police as the solution to crimes committed with guns. However, this is not the view taken by the more knowledgeable and responsible police authorities. They well realize that inanimate objects, such as firearms, do not and cannot cause crime. They do not and cannot supply either the motive or the impulse.

The causes of crime must be sought elsewhere . . . in greed, hatred, jealousy, and moral depravity . . . and the remedy, if there be any, is more likely to be found in morals and education, in improved methods of detection, and in more prompt and certain imposition of punishment.

Those persons who advocate strict firearms regulations, do not know how to disarm the criminal and they, consequently, propose controls which would have as their sole effect the disarming of the honest man.

The Illinois State Rifle Association supports the view that all law-abiding citizens have the right to purchase, possess and use firearms for all traditionally legitimate purposes.

We believe that violent crimes are acts of individuals, and that such acts are not inherent in any instrument used, including firearms.

We believe that deterrent legislation must provide punishment for those acts, and to be effective, that those punishments must be promptly and firmly applied. The Illinois State Rifle Association has consistently favored increased and mandatory sentences where armed force has been used in the commission of a crime. This seems to us a logical and sensible approach. Combined with effective enforcement of existing firearms laws, we believe this will best reduce improper or criminal use of guns.

We fully support legislation designed to prohibit the sale of firearms to persons who have been convicted of a crime of violence, fugitives from justice, drug addicts, mental incompetents and other undesirables. WE OBJECT, HOWEVER, TO LEGISLATION WHICH PLACES THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHO CAN OR CANNOT PURCHASE OR POSSESS A GUN WITHIN THE ARBITRARY CONTROL OF ANY POlice officiAL OR AGENCY.

Our experience clearly indicates that some law enforcement officers view the possession of firearms by private citizens with a jaundiced eye, and are unwilling to give approval to firearms purchases because of the possibility that some unlawful use will be made of the firearm.

The Illinois State Rifle Association believes that the existing gun regulations are sufficient, if promptly and properly enforced.

AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, WE ARE PROUD OF OUR HERITAGE AND CHERISH OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. WE, AS A GROUP, OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THOSE PRIVILEGES FROM THE HONEST CITIZEN IN THE GUISE OF DISARMING THE DISHONEST.

STATEMENT OF FEDERATED RHODE ISLAND SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS, INC., AND RHODE ISLAND STATE RIFLE AND REVOLVER ASSOCIATION

(By Chester C. Gabeler, Chairman, Firearms Committees)

The Federated Rhode Island Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc. and the Rhode Island State Rifle and Revolver Association, individual memberships over 15,000, are grateful for this opportunity to express their opposition to H.R. 6628 and all identical or similar proposals for the control of firearms.

Before going into the details of our objections to the above cited legislation, we wish to clarify for the committee our general position on firearms legislation. 1. General position on firearms legislation

(a) We support those who wish to place needed and workable restrictions on the easy availability of firearms to the criminal, the mental incompetent, the narcotics addict, the habitual drunkard, or the unsupervised juvenile

(b) We support those who wish to prohibit our Nation from becoming the world's dumping ground for surplus arms that are generally worthless and, more often than not, extremely dangerous for the purchaser to use. However, we believe that the fundamental reason for outlawing the importation of these weapons is to protect our own essential firearms industries from unfair foreign competition that could conceivably result in our losing much of this important bulwark of our national defense and economy. Not all imports should be barred; some of the world's best made guns come from overseas and price is usually an indication of worth.

(c) We support those who wish to outlaw, for individual ownership and use, purely military weapons such as bazookas, mortars, rockets and fully automatic weapons.

(d) We support those who would place severe mandatory penalties on armed crime with additional heavy penalties for repeat offenses.

(e) We support those who would make the theft of a firearm, regardless of value, a major rather than a minor offense.

(f) We support those who would make the sale of firearms to minors subject to parental consent, and the use of firearms in public by minors subject to adult supervision.

(g) We support those who would require proper hunting safety instruction for minors and others before issuance of a hunting license.

(h) We believe that purchasers of firearms ought to identify themselves; that dealers in firearms should maintain adequate records of sales and retain them for a reasonable time, and that dealers in firearms should be subject to necessary controls to insure moral responsibility.

(i) We believe that persons having need to go armed with a concealed handgun should be required to meet specific conditions, but that such conditions should be reasonable and should be clearly set forth in the law. For example, any person meeting the character requirements for appointment as a police officer should, in the absence of a criminal record, a record of insanity or mental incompetence, a record of narcotics addiction or habitual drunkenness, and if of proper age, be granted a permit to carry concealed firearms. This permit should license the act of carrying, not the weapon itself.

(j) We oppose those who should levy discriminatory or punitive taxes or fees on the purchase, ownership or use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers. (k) We oppose those who would license the possession of firearms or the purchase of firearms.

(1) We oppose those who would require the registration of firearms for any purpose whatever at any level of government.

(m) We oppose legislation which would deny individual rights purely for the convenience of law-enforcement officers or the purpose of circumventing due process of law.

(n) We oppose legislation which can make prudent, law-abiding citizens unwitting violators, or which deny the right of self-defense.

(0) We strongly oppose legislation drawn in broad, undefined terms, and which, due to the vagaries of our court system, will deny our citizens equal protection under the law.

(p) We strongly oppose legislation which bestows legislative power on any elected or appointed official and which makes the degree of our liberty subject to the whim of this official or which tends to place us under the rule of men.

2. General opposition to H.R. 6628, etc.

Generally, our opposition is based on the violence done by these proposals to the following principles:

(a) Government under law: These proposals indicate, on the part of their advocates, an impatience with the plodding progress of the democratic process and a desire for the quick solution of problems at the whim of some official. This constitutes a reversal of the principle of government under law and a return to pre-A.D. 1215 when men established, with Magna Carta, the idea that the law supersedes the will of men. We want no man to be able to: "I am the law." The bestowal of unlimited power, by these bills, one the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury is evidence of an abdication of legislative responsibility and of the validity of the charge indicated above.

(b) The republican principle: We find a statement of Alexander Hamilton's (The Federalist, No. 71) an especially appropriate comment on the methods used by the proponents of this legislation: "The republican principle demands that

the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prefudices to betray their interests." [The italic is mine.]

(c) The rights of persons: (1) In section 200, chapter I, of Jones' Blackstone, entitled "Of the Rights of Persons," there is a summation which reads in part: ***** we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free employment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliament be supported in its full vigor and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the King and Parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. [The italic is mine.] Blackstone, of course, was the origin of the law in all of our States but one.

(2) For every human right or privilege, there is an equal responsibility. We have the right to free speech (with the responsibility to refrain from libel and slander), the right to free assembly (with the responsibility not to endanger public health or safety), the right to freedom of worship (with the responsibility not to judge or punish others for violation of social laws), the right to have and use arms (with the responsibility to use them with care and discretion). No official should have the power to regulate the employment of these rights-this power must rest solely in the law. The penalties for the abuse of these rights must be clearly spelled out in the law.

3. Specific, section by section, objections to H.R. 6628, S. 1592, etc.

(a) Section 1(3): The definition of the term "firearm" must be construed to include contractors' "ram-set" devices and odd lengths of pipe which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive.

(b) Section 1(4): The definition of the term "destructive device" is such that it includes Civil War and English muskets and rifles of .50 caliber and larger. A dealer license fee of $1,000 would be required to sell these old smudgepots. The Secretary of the Treasury would have to find that these were not likely to be used as a weapon for anyone to legally own one.

(c) Section 1(15): The definition of the term "ammunition" includes ammunition for a "destructive device" and according to section 1(4) this would include blackpowder and ball for antique muskets and rifles.

(d) Section 2(a) bans all mail-order sales of firearms to consumers in interstate commerce. No one may carry a firearm of any nature interstate with the intent to sell-this includes antiques. This will inconvenience thousands of rural citizens who do not live near sporting goods stores. Hundreds of small businesses making receivers, frames and conversions would be forced out of busi

ness.

(c) Section 2(a) (2): Under the provisions of this section a sportsman could buy a handgun only in the State of his residence. Many fine target handguns are not available for inspection in the smaller communities and sparsely populated States. Interstate transportation of pistols or revolvers, by or for individuals, could be made virtually impossible "under such conditions as the Secretary or his delegate shall by regulations prescribe."

(f) Section 2(b): No dealer could dispose of any firearm to any person except under regulations established by the Secretary of the Treasury. These regulations are not spelled out and presumably the Secretary of the Treasury could make any regulations he wanted to.

There should be reasonable controls over juveniles, but S. 1592 (H.R. 6628) should apply the same standards to the country boy as they apply to the city boy. This, in our opinion, is an unreasonable approach.

This section makes the dealer responsible for determining whether or not a customer had violated any provision of the act.

(g) Section 2(h) (i) makes it unlawful for any person to ship or dispose of any firearms or ammunition which he might have "reasonable cause" to believe were stolen. No definition is given of "reasonable cause." Due to the vagaries of

our various court systems there exists a reasonable doubt that our citizens will receive equal protection under the law because of the various interpretations that will be placed on "reasonable cause."

(h) Section 3(a): The application for firearms and ammunition dealers' licenses would be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary would prescribe. No limitation is placed on the type of information that the Secretary could require.

(i) Section 3(d) (3) (c): The dealer's license fee is increased 100 times to $100. This fee is considered to be discriminatory and would force thousands of small dealers and hardware stores to stop handling firearms and ammunition. This will work a hardship on hunters in remote areas where they could not go to the "crossroad" store for repairs and ammunition. Rural stores will be forced out of business. This is another example of urban laws being forced on rural America.

Small reloaders will have to pay a license fee of $500 a year. Clubs that are reloading for resale to members will have to pay the same fee. There is no provision in these bills protecting the more than 2 million individual reloaders in America.

There are about three-quarters of a million gun collectors in America. They will be subjected to dealer's licenses and fees from $100 to $1,000 (for muskets and rifles with a bore diameter of one-half inch or larger). They will be harassed by redtape as well as financial hardship.

(j) Section 3(c) (2): An applicant for a dealer's license could be refused if the Secretary of the Treasury decided that he is "not likely to maintain operations in compliance with this act." This wording gives the Secretary, or his delegate, unlimited arbitrary power.

(k) Section 3(e): No person could import a firearm if the Secretary thought it would be contrary to the public interest. Here again, the Secretary makes his own rules and the expression, "the public interest," is not defined.

is mine.]

[The italic

A sportsman returning to the United States from a foreign country would have to satisfy authorities that he was bringing back the same guns that he took out of the country initially. A hunter going to another State, and shipping his guns, would be subjected to delay and redtape.

(7) Section 3(g): Each license dealer must maintain records of sales in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe and shall submit to the Secretary such reports and information as he shall by regulations prescribe concerning the identification of purchasers of firearms, together with a description of the firearms so purchased. [The italic is mine.] This provision not only sets up the machinery for total registration of firearms-by implication, it suggests it. This section could harass from 25 to 40 million law-abiding recreational shooters in America. Is addition, records must be kept of all ammunition sales.

(m) Section 5(b): Any firearm or ammunition intended to be used in any violation of this act, or any rules or regulations promulgated by the Secretary are made subject to seizure and forfeiture. [The italic is mine.]

(n) Section 6 grants to the Secretary the power to grant relief from the disabilities under the act to certain convicted felons. We are concerned about this consideration for some wrongdoers. What is the purpose of this section? 4. Omissions

(a) We are unable to find any disabilities under this act for mental incompetents, narcotics addicts, habitual drunkards, aliens, or subversives.

(b) We are unable to find any provisions in this act that does violence to the criminal over and above the provisions of the present Federal Firearms Act. 5. Observations, with comment on registration and other items.

(a) Along with S. 1592 these proposals set up the machinery for the total registration of firearms and lay out the blueprint for the future disarming of America's citizens of good repute at the whim of the Secretary of the Treasury "under such regulations as the Secretary or his delegate may prescribe." In spite of protestations to the contrary by their proponents, there is nothing in these bills to deny this authority, and their provisions specifically delegate to the Secretary the power to make such rules and regulations concerning firearms and their owners as he may desire-including complete descriptions of all firearms and their purchasers. We are deeply concerned about this delegation of uninhibited latitude to write regulations to the Treasury Department, because