Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the restrictive views of that agency are already largely known. This delegation of authority, in our opinion, violates the principle of government by law, and substitutes therefor government by the edict of men. Section 3(g) of S. 1592 (reportedly identical to H.R. 6628) is a prime example of the provisions we refer to, and which we believe constitutes an abdication of legislative responsibility by the framers of this legislation. It is our firm conviction that the authors could have saved themselves much time and trouble if they had simply stated : "The Secretary of the Treasury shall have control over all firearms and their owners, in the United States, in accordance with such rules and regulations as he or his delegate may prescribe.” The Congress must not delegate its lawmaking powers to any administrator-thus giving him the right to say: "I am the law."

(b) We have mentioned the possibility, even the probability of registration under the provisions of these proposals. The long list of objections to registration has been published many times. We list below our principal reasons for objecting :

(1) No criminal will register any firearm that he might use in an unlawful manner. The criminal, by definition, differs from the rest of his fellow citizens by an absolute unwillingness to live within any of the laws of society which might stand in the way of getting what he wants. The subversive and the incompetent share the same tendency to do what suits their purposes without regard to any other factors; except the chance of getting caught and the severity of punishment. All of these persons regard prohibitory statutes aimed at preventing them from getting money, weapons, or power as mere topographical or environ. mental handicaps, and not as moral limits. In short, their aim is to evade, and not abide by, the law.

(2) Compulsory registration is unenforcible against the criminal. Any effort to compel registration, or to prosecute for failure to register, brings into play the fifth amendment as an absolute defense. To compel disclosure of possession of an object that it is illegal for a criminal to possess, or that he could claim was stolen, would involve making his testify against himself in violation of the Constitution-from Hon. John L. McMillan, chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives.

(3) Registration tends to give some central authority the power to decide who may be given permission to have a gun.

(4) Registration makes it possible for some central authority to seize all guns whenever it deems such seizure is desirable. It sets the stage for the easy usurpation of power by a central political force. It places us at the mercy of unscrupulous politicians, subversive infiltration of our police system, and any invading enemy. During the Second World War, when the administration's War Powers Act was passed, the Congress specifically inserted an amendment prohibiting the requisitioning or registration of privately owned firearms. Such lists, they reasoned, would be a danger should a conqueror ever come.

(5) Registration tends to disarm the responsible, law-abiding citizen since it involves contacts with the police and inconveniences to which most citizens object. No one claims that registration will disarm the criminal. Its only effect is to disarm the honest citizen and make crime a protected occupation. New York's infamous Sullivan law provides the classic proof of that statement.

(6) Registered guns provide an ideal means for rigging frameups. If a registered gun is ever connected with a crime, mistakenly perhaps, the owner of record will have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. The law will hold that the gun proves his guilt.

(7) It is historic fact that no nation on earth has ever been subjected to a dictatorship without first having a firearms registration law.

(8) Registration serves no useful purpose except, on rare occasions, when it is instrumental in returning a stolen gun to its rightful owner.

(c) It is our opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald could have gotten a dealer's license under the provisions of this act. He was neither a convicted felon nor under 21 years of age, nor was he ineligible under Texas law.

(d) It is also our opinion that the only people directly affected by the provisions of these bills are America's decent and responsible law-abiding citizens.

(p) It is our further opinion that the only person not restricted by the provisions of these proposals appears to be the Secretary of the Treasury. 6. Conclusions

(a) All of us, we are sure, share the conviction that nothing in these bills mounts anything against the rising crime rate in this country. The regulations embodied in S. 1.592 would not prevent the determined criminal from obtaining firearms; instead, it would impose severe penalties on millions of honest, lawabiding citizens. 7. Objections to methods used to promote these proposals

(a) Senator Dodd, through outright deception, and overt appeals to passion and prejudice, has sought to marshal support for his indefensible legislation.

(b) In the Providence (R.I.) Evening Bulletin of March 8, the President, in a special message to Congress, is quoted as asking for a comprehensive program including a Federal ban on all firearms shipments in interstate commerce. The only exceptions would be among importers, manufacturers, and dealers licensed by the Treasury Department.

S. 1592 and H.R. 6628 embody what he had in mind.

On April 1, the President, commenting on Dr. Martin Luther King's plans for a boycott of the State of Alabama, said: “I think we must be very careful to see that we do not punish innocents in this country while we are trying to protect all of our people and that we do not hurt those who through no fault of their own could be damaged without any real reason."

The fair and logical policy embodied in the President's statement could and should be applied to all problems, the solution of which involves efforts to cure social evils or injustices.

We find it difficult to square the President's statement with the fact that less than one in a hundred of our people are involved in serious crime. Our laws should concentrate on the criminal and the incompetent-not on the 99 out of a hundred innocents who, through no fault of their own, would be hurt and damaged without any real reason by the scattergun pattern of S. 1592 (H.R. 6628).

(c) We have neither seen nor heard any testimony debating the content of these bills. On the contrary, the testimony in favor of their passage has relied solely on emotional appeals, sensationalism, innuendo, and deception. As an example; Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach's statement of May 19: "As long as I live," he said, “I can never forget that it was a mail-order rifle--sent to a post office box, that had been rented under an assumed name, by a man with an established record of defection and mental instability—that killed President Kennedy."

Nothing in these bills places any disabilities on defectors or mental incompetents. Why didn't Mr. Katzenbach discuss the implications contained in these bills instead of making irrelevant, emotional appeals?

(d) We now refer to Senator Robert F. Kennedy's emotional plea for what he must know is bad legislation. On May 20 he said : “Wipe this stain of violence from our land." He also stated: “It is time that firearms be subjected to at least as much control as cars, liquor, or prescription drugs."

Anyone can buy a car, and in 1964 over 47,000 Americans were killed by registered cars operated by licensed drivers. Where is the connection? Did the cars do the killing, or was it the licensed drivers?

Anyone can buy liquor and become a drunken driver, the destroyer of his family, or a poverty-stricken habitual drunk.

From the narcotics addiction statistics we can assume that prescription drugs are available without the formality of a prescription.

Why did Senator Kennedy resort to Mr. Katzenbach's type of defective logic and emotional appeal?

Why didn't Senator Kennedy hold up the details of the bill he cosponsored for all to see?

(e) On May 19, Senator Dodd, amid the trappings of a well-staged circus, opened the hearings on S. 1592. With all of the diplomacy and bad taste of a P. T. Barnum, Senator Dodd set about to "document in this record the contribution made by the proliferation of firearms to our burgeoning crime picture.”

Senator Dodd was obviously oblivious to the words of Professor Wolfgang, head of the Sociology Department at Pennsylvania University, who said: "It is the impression of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if the firearm were not immediately present, and the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal. Probably only in those cases where a felon kills a police officer or vice versa, would homicide be avoided in the absence of a firearm.”

On May 20, according to the "Huntley-Brinkley Report.” Senator Dodd attempted to have Senator Robert F. Kennedy pose for news photographers while holding a Carcano rifle similar to that used to assassinate his late brother, John F. Kennedy. A more deplorable exercise in bad taste is not conceivable.

Senator Kennedy was equally oblivious to Professor Wolfgang's words when he said: “The great majority of these deaths (9,300 by firearms in 1961) would not

51-635—65-pt. 2--19

have occurred if firearms had not been readily available. For the evidence is clear that the availability of firearms is itself a major factor in these deaths."

To our knowledge, the implications contained in the provisions of these bills have never been publicly discussed. The metropolitan press and the advocates of these bills have displayed a singular lack of honesty in their misrepresentation and unfair attack on those of us who oppose these bills. Their appeals have been to passion, prejudice, and emotion. 8. Recommendations

(a) Exempt antique firearms from legislative controls and regulations. Define an antique firearm as one which does not use fixed ammunition and/or one which is 100 or more years old.

(b) Continue the present $1 dealer license fee, but require that a dealer have a bona fide place of business and/or a State firearms dealer license.

(c) Make it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to ship or cause to be shipped in interstate commerce, any firearm in violation of the laws of the State and locality of destination.

(d) Require notification by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the chief law enforcement officer at destination of the shipment of any firearm. Make it his responsibility to notify shipper of any violation under (C) above.

(e) Specifically define all terms used in the law. (f) Do not delegate any arbitrary authority to any administrative official.

STATEMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION

1. OPPOSITION TO LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

We unalterably oppose the removal of the right of honest citizens to ship or receive a rifle, pistol or shotgun in interstate commerce except in the most limited provisions, as set up in these bills.

2. SUPPORT SENSIBLE LEGISLATION TO KEEP UNSUITABLE PERSONS FROM SECURING

FIREARMS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE

We support adequate and reasonable controls to keep pistols out of the hands of criminals, ex-convicts, fugitives, juveniles, mental defectives and persons addicted to narcotics or alcohol, who subvert State laws through use of interstate commerce. Good controls were incorporated in the original "Dodd bill," S. 1975, of August 1963. This bill had been agreed to by Senator Dodd and the national sportsmen's organizations, as well as many other groups concerned. Investigation procedures to determine that buyers of handguns were suitable persons to receive them were outlined in the original bill. It was a certain amount of inconvenience, but the sportsmen and honest citizens were willing to accept this inconvenience, in order to prevent abuse of interstate commerce by unsuitable people. We oppose H.R. 6783 as it drops all pretense of reasonableness, and arbitrarily puts all Americans who have legitimate use and need for any tirearms into the category of suspected persons. It puts a premium on dishonesty, as did prohibition.

3. BAN ON LARGE MILITARY ORDNANCE SUPPORTED

We support a ban on large military ordnance and explosives such as bazookas, antitank guns, and such weapons which are not true collector's items and are dangerous; as well as the restrictions of these articles in interstate commerce. These items should be specifically named, rather than included in an all-embracing definition which would cover many items for which there is no need for restrictions and would entail litigation.

4. FOREIGN MILITARY SURPLUS DUMPING OPPOSED

We support legislation which will prevent the dumping of foreign military surplus and unsafe firearms into the United States from foreign countries.

5. RETAIN PRESENT LANGUAGE OF FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT, SECTION 4

We support the provisions now used in the FFA in section 4 regarding exemptions and request that these exceptions be retained : “Section 4, excepted persons. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with respect to the transportation,

shipment, receipt, or importation of any firearm, or ammunition, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of (1) The United States ...; (2) any State, Territory ...; (3) any duly commissioned officer or agent of the United States .. .; (4) or to any bank ...; (5) or to any research laboratory . ...; nor to the transportation, shipment or receipt of any antique or unserviceable firearms, or ammunition, possessed and held as curios or museum pieces: Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent shipments of firearms and ammunition to institutions, organizations, or persons to whom such firearms and ammunition may be lawfully delivered by the Secretary of War (Defense), nor to prevent the transportation of such firearms and ammunition so delivered by their lawful possessors while they are engaged in military training or in competitions." (Omissions indicated by dots mean to include all the wording of the act, even though not written herein.)

6. H.R. 6782 AND H.R. 6783 WILL CAUSE INJURY TO THE HONEST CITIZEN, BUT NOT

MATERIALLY IMPROVE LAW ENFORCEMENT

Intended or not, H.R. 6782 and H.R. 6783 are aimed at the honest citizen who will try to obey the law, while the criminal will ignore it just as criminals ignore other laws. These bills will put a premium on dishonesty, cause smuggling of guns, hiding of guns, cause bribery of police and military persons by dishonest individuals to get guns, and increase thefts of firearms. Prohibition of such items as firearms will make them much more valuable and drive them into black market and clandestine type sales. This happened all over the world where strict restrictions were placed on firearms sales.

7. THE BILLS WE OPPOSE WILL RAISE COSTS TO CONSUMERS AND LEAD TO RESTRAINT OF

TRADE AND MONOPOLY

The costs to the consumer will inevitably be raised under these bills because of the severe licensing restrictions, leading to restraint of trade and monopoly of the firearms business in the hands of a few large dealers in the major communities who could afford and would bother with the high license fees and special requirements under the new proposals. Elimination of small business and independent gunsmiths, as well as small firearms or ammunition departments on hardware stores, rural general stores, and other small businesses, due to excessive fees and other requirements would result. It would also hurt the business of such large companies as Olin-Mathieson's Winchester-Western Arms Co. and Remington Arms Co. of Connecticut, as many of their small accounts in sporting goods stores, etc., would drop out due to these higher costs, thus eliminating the thousands of marginal and minor dealers who handle firearms merely as an accommodation for their customers, or to fill out their sporting goods lines. This would lead to unemployment as dealers and workers in the industry would be laid off.

8. THE ORDINARY CITIZEN IS SEVERELY RESTRICTED, BUT BIG BUSINESS AND THEIR

OFFICIALS, EVEN IF CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES, ARE FORGIVEN, IN APPLYING FOR LICENSES (H.R. 6783, SEC. 6)

Citizens with no criminal record or other disability under the law will be prevented from shipping or receiving a rifle, pistol, or shotgun through interstate commerce, except under the most limited provisions, yet section 6, entitled “Relief of Convicted Persons Under Certain Conditions" allows a person who has actually been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceed. ing 1 year (other than a crime involving the use of a firearm or other weapon or the Federal Firearms Act or the National Firearms Act-these would refer primarily to violations in trade and commerce laws) may be excused by the Treasury Department, and allowed to be a firearms dealer or manufacturer. We oppose this provision for exceptions. If the ordinary citizen is prohibited from interstate shipment of firearms, except his own gun and for repairs, any organization or official who has violated any law with a penalty over 1 year of imprisonment, should thereupon be ineligible to have any dealings with firearms. Mere expediency is no justification for such exceptions. All U.S. citizens should be equal under the law. Since some of the big companies connected with firearms and their officials have already been indicted or convicted under certain Federal trade laws, these organizations and officials should receive no preferential treatment over other people in our country.

9. THE BILLS GIVE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT TOO MUCH POWER The bills would give the Treasury Department the right to make regulations on almost every facet of the firearms industry and overturn many established lawful trade practices. We oppose this "blank check" as the courts seldom overturn adminstrative decisions. Congress should spell out the regulations for the citizen. Judge Pierson Hall ruled in a Federal district court case in Los Angeles some years ago that the “Chicago palm pistol” need not be registered under the National Firearms Act. The Treasury refused to recognize his decision in other jursidictions, and tried to force registration of that type pistol in Ohio. Now, in Washington State, agents have seized a Chicago palm pistol. What average citizen can afford to fight this type of conduct in the courts? See also, hearings on Treasury's changes in regulations, August 27, 1957.

10. THE DEFINITION OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES ; DROP DOUBLED TRANSFER TAXES

Antique arms, large hunting rifles and other true sporting arms should be removed from the definition of destructive devices. Severe hardship and property loss would result from including such arms of one-half-inch bore or larger in the definition of destructive devices, requiring registration and a $100 transfer fee as listed in H.R. 6782. What good purpose should be achieved in doubling the transfer taxes in the present National Firearms Act is not apparent to us, and we oppose this increase.

11. THE SAJE TYPE OF REGULATIONS ON RECORDS AND INSPECTIONS AS FOOD AND

DRUG ACT

Similar methods of handling reports and records, and the right of notice for inspection of dealers premises and records should be incorporated in the Federal Firearms Act as are in the Food and Drug Act. Each industry should have the same rights as any other industry which is lawful.

12. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SHOULD BE SPELLED OUT IN THE

BILLS

This is very important in laws which affect the rights of millions of individual citizens, as well as all sizes of business organizations.

13. WE OPPOSE THE LOSS OF AN HONEST PERSON'S RIGHTS TO PURCHASE OR SELL

FIREARMS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (COMMON CARRIER) While H.R. 6783, section 2 (a) (1), (2), (3), would permit an individual to transport a legal shotgun of rifle when traveling in interstate commerce, and his pistol under certain conditions, or having said rifle, shotgun, or pistol transported for him under conditions prescribed by Treasury regulations for lawful use or repairs, section 2 (g) prohibits any common or contract carrier from delivering in interstate commerce any firearm to a person without a dealer's license, or as stated in section 2(a) (1), (2), and (3). Thus no individual could receive any firearm shipped from a dealer out of State except for repairs. Orders to outside dealers would have to be placed through a local dealer to the out-of-State dealer or manufacturer, every intermediary collecting a commission on his services, adding to the cost. This would greatly handicap the custom gunsmith and his customers.

14. WE OPPOSE THE ELIMINATION OF THE HONEST CITIZEN'S RIGHTS TO PURCHASE OR

SELL A HANDGUN OUTSIDE OF HIS STATE OF RESIDENCE

We are opposed to the abrogation of the right to buy or sell a pistol by an honest citizen outside of the State of his residence. If he has proper identification, he should be allowed to buy in any part of the United States. In order to buy, he often needs to turn in to the dealer his old gun on the purchase price. He should be allowed to do this. Members of our Olympic games pistol teams, National, State, or club teams attending competitions in other States or internationally, would be unable to replace a broken pistol when they were out of their own State. Many other situations involving legitimate needs arise under this limitation, which would be very serious. This restriction could be unconstitutional.

« AnteriorContinuar »