has risen from 24 percent of all felonies in 1945 to 47 percent of all felonies in 1964. 3. An inconcealable explosion in the cost of providing police protection to the citizens of this city. It may, at first glance, prove difficult to accord these results to a law whose avowed purpose and constantly repeated defense is that it serves to contain the criminal. Nonetheless, the conclusion is inescapable that, just as prohibition, under the Volstead Act, turned us into a nation characterized by wanton and promiscuous consumption of alcoholic beverages, the Sullivan law ("making it difficult for the criminal to buy a gun") has had the paradoxical effect of spawning violence where none existed, and of reinforcing the power of the professional criminal. The citizen walking abroad in the streets of New York City is an open invitation to the criminal. The lawbreaker knows that his victim has been stripped of the means of self-defense, and that bystanders or witnesses have been similarly stripped of their ability to act as deterrent to the crime, defense to the victim, or (by fear of subsequent violence) witness to the prosecution. Given this incentive, the criminal has armed himself with unprecedented frequency, and engaged in crimes of a nature almost proscribed by the previous condition; namely, that a few (certainly a small percentage, but an existing deterrent nonetheless) of his potential victims had the means to resist a criminal attack, and leave the attacker dead upon the street. Under the Sullivan law we have encountered curious phenomena: witnesses fearful of even summoning police (let alone of providing testimony) in anxiety over retribution; rapists capable of attacking up to 30 women before encountering a condition of seriously threatening resistance; and citizens under indictment for acting in self-defense, or in defense of others. Unless the criminal picks as victim the 1 man in 300 authorized to carry a firearm at all times (the police officer, on or off duty) he can count on the effects of the Sullivan law to allow him to prey virtually at will. This condition is not limited to New York City, and exists wherever officialdom frowns on the possession, by the average undistinguished citizen, of the means of self-defense. Nonetheless, official reluctance to issue firearms permits reaches a peak here, and so does the rate at which our citizens suffer at the hands of the criminal. Each major city differs from each other, and comparisons of crime rates among cities are meaningless. It is possible, however, to compare each city's crime rate with its own past record. On this basis, any serious attempt to follow the approach of making it difficult to buy a gun stands as a monumental failure. THE RESULT OF MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO BUY A GUN During a period when New York City's population grew not at all (from the inflated wartime peak) crime in this city has shown the following increases (1945-1964): Total felonies, up 428 percent; total misdemeanors, up 381 percent. Violent crime categories: Murder, up 118 percent; rape, up 164 percent; robbery, up 549 percent; felonious assault, up 506 percent; burglary, up 1,898 percent. (The starting point of 1945 is chosen for the tabulation above because in that year a massive campaign was conducted to advise the public of the nature and the requirements of the Sullivan law. This was prompted by the flood of war souvenir pistols brought back by returning servicemen.) Never has the idea of making pistols more difficult to obtain been given a fairer chance to work than during this period, and never has this idea so clearly been proven bankrupt. After 20 years of ideal conditions in which to flower, this experiment has resulted in the failure of a vastly increased crime rate, a rate of seizure of illegal pistols over twice the level of pistol licenses issued to sportsmen, and the clear evidence that the pistol is more than ever the common tool of both the occasional and the professional criminal. Those who point with pride to this experiment reveal only an ignorance of its outcome, or a deliberate effort to shunt aside a proper assessment of their performance in public office. THE CRIMINAL WILL OBTAIN A GUN SO LONG AS IT IS PROFITABLE FOR HIM TO DO SO Thus does the whole idea of "making it difficult for the criminal to buy a gun" stand exposed as a failure. It is not possible to state in what measure this idea has been responsible for the vast increase in crime evident during its tenure, but time and time again over the past 20 years the newspapers of this city have reported the words of apprehended criminals to the effect that: 1. The criminal will always surmount or evade efforts to make it difficult for him to obtain a firearm. 2. A disarmed populace encourages the criminal to step up the pace and brutality of his activities. We can offer no more telling testimony against S. 1592 and the many other measures before this House than our certain conviction that they will prove far more aid to the criminal than to society. In place of these measures, let us again address ourselves to providing the only effective weapons against the criminal: Swift apprehension, certain prosecution, just punishment. Thank you. CLAYSVILLE, PA., July 9, 1965. Hon. WILBUR MILLS, House Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLS: The Claysville sportsmen voted unanimously to oppose both Dodd bills, S. 1591 and S. 1592. They feel that every good citizen should now, more than ever, own a gun for his own protection. This is true because Congress has done nothing to deter the rising crime rate. Limiting guns to the good citizen would only increase the number of crimes in place of deterring it. Sincerely yours, H. O. CAMPSEY, MIDDLETOWN, VA., July 18, 1965. Mr. LEO H. IRWIN, Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR SIR: In pressing for the passage of S. 1592 Senators Dodd, Robert Kennedy, Tydings and their followers should consider what effect curtailing the activities of the National Rifle Association's 4,000-odd junior and 4,000-odd senior clubs and their help from the Army's Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship would have on national preparedness now and in the future. S. 1592's proposal to charge reloaders of ammunition who receive pay for their work a license fee of $500 is a wrong way attempt to curb crime. Few hoodlums do enough target shooting to need the economy of reloads. Their shooting is normally short-range firing at unarmed or unsuspecting victims. It is civilians who are preparing to be, when called upon, already capable rifle or pistol shots, that need hundreds or thousands of practice rounds a year; hence, reload ammunition to reduce costs. Yours sincerely, HENRY M. STEBBINS, Instructor, Winchester (Va.) Junior Rifle Club. STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. WATERS, PRESIDENT, BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB Mr. Chairman, I am Robert S. Waters, a member and president of the Boone and Crockett Club, with headquarters in the Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace, 28 East 20th Street, New York City, and I wish to present for the consideration of your committee this statement: The Boone and Crockett Club was founded in December 1887 by Theodore Roosevelt, who with other influential persons, saw the necessity in that early day for an organization to select sportsmen to spearhead an assault against the massive problems facing the big game, public land, and forest resources of the Nation. Appalled by the thoughtless ravaging of America's natural resources, Roosevelt and his associates were determined to enlist official and public support for necessary reforms. Roosevelt served as the club's first president, from 1888 through 1894, and he remained an active member until his death. Statesmen and conservationists have shared in the work of the club since its establishment. Included among them were such leaders as Gifford Pinchot, Elihu Root, Jay N. "Ding" Darling, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., and Henry L. Stimson. Through the years the Boone and Crockett Club has been at the forefront in efforts to establish and protect the national forests, parks, and wildlife refuges. A recent book, "Crusade for Wildlife: Highlights in Conservation Progress" by James B. Trefethen, details the club's origin and its activities in behalf of natural resources conservation. Theodore Roosevelt's interest in firearms as a hunter and a collector is widely known. He advocated their use in hunting and target shooting, and he recognized also that wholesome outdoor sport of this kind would provide a trained citizenry for national defense. One objective of the club he formed, as would be expected, is "To promote manly sport with the rifle." Roosevelt never lost interest in furthering that objective. He remained a shooter and a hunter throughout his adult life, and he unceasingly encouraged others to hunt and to involve themselves in wildlife conservation. Although he became President of the United States as a result of the assassination of President McKinley, and himself was wounded by a would-be assassin in 1912, Roosevelt never advocated abridgement of an American's right to bear and use firearms. Instead, by example of his vigorous outdoor life, he did much to popularize hunting and the sporting use of firearms. The members of the Boone and Crockett Club, like sportsmen throughout the country, are concerned about the antifirearms sentiment that arose in the wake of President Kennedy's unfortunate death. This concern is heightened by the large number of proposals for greater restrictions that have been introduced in the Congress and in the State legislatures and by the erroneous writings and statements that continue to appear in the press. Many of these statements and articles make it appear that crime occurs largely because of the private ownership and use of firearms. Nothing is further from the truth. Sportsmen share fully the desire of law-abiding persons everywhere to see a reduction in crime of all kinds. We know from experience, however, that action to curb the misuse of firearms in crime is neither as easy nor as effective as some persons would lead the public to believe. In truth, there is no magic formula. There is no simple, one-step legislation that will end crime of any kind. The ramifications of crime, its causes and reasons, are much too broad. The practical approach, it appears, would be to move to correct the situations that contribute to crime. One of these, according to available evidence, involves the misuse of pistols and revolvers by juveniles and by criminals, addicts, and other undesirables. Although it never will be possible to prevent the determined criminal from obtaining a weapon, the Congress does have an opportunity to control one avenue whereby juveniles, criminals, and others may circumvent local and State laws and regulations and obtain pistols and revolvers. This is the approach used in S. 1975 of the last Congress, which pertained to handguns in its original form. That proposal was supported by shooting interests generally. It was much like the new bill, S. 1965, recently introduced by Senator Hickenlooper. S. 1975, as initially introduced, had the support of law enforcement, juvenile authority, and shooting and sporting groups. Representatives of those groups helped in drafting and perfecting the bill, and from their considerable experience they were able to develop recommendations for controlling the sale and shipment of pistols and revolvers in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. The Boone and Crockett Club, like many other conservation organizations, did not oppose the enactment of S. 1975 in its original form. Pistols and revolvers are the type of firearms used mostly in armed crime, but even in that category, according to a 1960 study of violent crimes of all kinds by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Only one-eighth of the assaults were accomplished with a firearm of any kind." Knives were the weapons used in almost half of all violent crimes, the FBI found. Unlike that eariler proposal, which had been developed in cooperation with law enforcement, juvenile authority, and shooting and sporting groups, S. 1592 would invoke a blanket prohibition against the mail order sale of firearms of all kinds to all individuals. It would make no distinction between concealable firearms and rifles and shotguns. In effect, it disregards the large body of evidence that links pistols and revolvers to the commission of armed crime. In doing so, it presents the hazards of inconvenience to a large segment of America's hunters and shooters who do not reside in convenient proximity to retail stores, and who are unable to get the firearms of their choice in their local communities. These many persons, under the terms of S. 1592, would be forced to take time away from their work and undergo the additional expense of traveling to a store where they can obtain the kind of firearm that they want. 51-635-65-pt. 2-20 It is not believed that this considerable inconvenience to the country's sportsmen and gunowners would be offset by a reduction in armed crimes. In reality, no restrictive firearms law will deter premeditated crime, because the penalty for falsely obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes is insignificant compared to the penalty for the contemplated crime itself. The hardened criminal, bent on obtaining a pistol or revolver for use in committing a crime, will not be deterred by the mere threat of the minor penalty for getting a gun falsely or by stealing it. It also is difficult to visualize how the ban on mail-order sales of rifles and shotguns would deter crime, because sporting shotguns and rifles rarely are involved in the commission of crime. On the other hand, they are used by millions of sportsmen each year for target, trap, and skeet shooting, and hunting. Many of our citizens reside in rural areas and any action that would restrict their acquisition of sporting firearms through the mail, or that would require special trips to notaries and the like, would be an inconvenience that would be resented. Sportsmen are further concerned because S. 1592, in six places, would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations concerning the sale, shipment, transport, and purchase of firearms. No one knows what would be required. We can be reasonably sure, however, that S. 1592 and the regulations that would be imposed by the Treasury Department to implement it would subject American shooters to further restriction and complication of their daily affairs. As I noted in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, the members of the Boone and Crockett Club are concerned about the misuse of firearms by criminals, addicts, juveniles, and others. We want to be constructive and wish to support an approach that holds promise of accomplishing some good. We believe that a partial solution to the problem lies in S. 1975, as originally drafted by the chairman of this subcommittee after long consultation with cooperating groups, as well as in S. 1965, recently introduced in the Senate. That proposal reflects the experience and judgment of law enforceemnt, juvenile experts, and shooting groups. It offers a rational means of curbing the flow of pistols and revolvers into the hands of juveniles, criminals, and unstable persons. And equally important, those similar proposals recognize the rights and responsibilities of the millions of law-abiding Americans who use firearms for all kinds of healthful and traditional recreational purposes. STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. Our board of directors has among its membership some of the outstanding conservationists in the country, and I am most pleased to be able to represent them in the matter of legislation relative to the control of firearms. It would be improper for the statement of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources to be presented in such a fashion that the objective and purposes of the committee could be misunderstood and/or alined with other groups that take exception to the legislation for reasons quite apart from those we espouse. We are not concerned with the public being disarmed and thus left powerless in the event of a Communist invasion. Neither are we concerned about maintaining private stocks of firearms to be used against any human being irrespective of the variety of purposes which have been suggested. Our principal and predominant concern is that those who are law-abiding citizens not be placed in the position of finding it impossible or so complicated that they will be unable to purchase firearms for legal and legitimate purposes such as hunting and sports shooting. We are not so naive as to suggest that the balancing of a variety of interests in order that the overall public interest best be served is an easy task. If there could be a complete assurance that crime would be reduced abruptly and significantly by the control of firearms then any objections that we could offer relative to any inconveniences suffered by the legitimate firearm user would perhaps be an appropriate price to pay for reduction of crimes of violence. It is not just a rationalization to suggest that crime is a highly complex function of human behavior, the basis for which is varied and numerous. The sociological problems of urbanization and the attendant economic problems of adjustments and growth are but a part of the community problem in controlling criminal acts. We are sure the committee is more aware of the details than are we in that many crimes of violence are committed without using firearms of any type, whether they be handgun, shotgun, or rifle. By the same token, the vigorous debate continues unabated over whether the courts have dealt with criminals with sufficient stringency or whether the procedure of investigation of crimes is too lenient. Thus whether the increase of police power is warranted or whether such an increase constitutes an erosion of due process of law is a problem with which society continues to grapple. It would appear to us that the many factors which impinge upon the crime of violence are sufficient to warrant the most careful consideration in the regulation and availability of firearms. We are not contending that no legislation is necessary, especially as it is applied to juveniles and known undesirables in attaining firearms. We are sympathetic to the committee's difficulties as they attempt to eradicate the misuse of firearms and at the same time not penalize unduly the legitimate use made of firearms by the many sports-oriented and sports-minded individuals in the country. We think one of the first steps would be to clearly distinguish between rifles, shotguns, and handguns. We feel, additionally, that this is an area wherein the administrative agencies in their zeal to carry out the intent of Congress may go well beyond the terms of the legislation. It would be our hope that whatever legislation is decided upon by the committee that the details of administering the act be made crystal clear. Perhaps the committee could go further in this instance than Congress generally wants to go in prescribing the administrative details that will implement the legislation. We know the committee has heard often enough in their consideration of the pending legislation that there are between 15 and 20 million lawabiding sportsmen in this country who use firearms for sports and recreation. We know the committee does not desire to penalize unduly the law-abiding citizens in order to obviate those who would misuse these firearms. We understand that the committee has under advisement a modification of mail-order sales to individuals, which in the first instance many felt that the design of the legislation was to remove completely all mail-order transactions. This would make it extremely difficult for the farmer or rancher or any other inhabitant of remote areas to obtain a particular firearm of his choice. It would seem therefore that this would be penalizing an area that is not subject to high crime rates relative to urban areas which generally do have high crime rates. The Citizens Committee on Natural Resources has always abhorred the availability of World War II and some later weapons such as grenades, bombs, bazookas, etc. It is difficult to envision any legitimate use to which these weapons might be put. Some of the detailed descriptions, however, in efforts to outlaw these weapons of war, would also exclude muzzle-loading rifles, most of which are involved as collectors' items. There are areas in the United States where particular types of hunting is limited to only muzzle-loading firearms. We would hope the committee changes the specifications in order not to include this particular piece among those weapons that would be outlawed. Mr. Chairman, we want very much to impress upon the committee that the vast majority of sportsmen have disported themselves in a most responsible fashion. The overwhelming percentage of money, in each State, for enforcement of rules and regulations of its wildlife in addition to many other programs which enhance fish and wildlife are provided from the sale of hunting licenses. Also, the 11 percent manufacturers' excise tax levied upon sporting arms and ammunitions ultimately impinges upon the sportsmen and hunters and has amounted to between $15 and $20 million which is allocated in matching grants to the States for wildlife enhancement. We sincerely hope that the committee in their deliberations will not recommend legislation to the serious detriment of the sportsmen of this country. We additionally hope that whatever regulations are ultimately approved by the committee will be carefully detailed for the protection of all concerned. We thank the committee for the opportunity of offering this statement. |