Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of weapons not normally included in sporting, collecting, or self-protection activities. The terminology descriptive of a "destructive device" can be construed to include tracer-type ammunition such as that used for practice in target shooting of rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and the limitation on barrell bore size of 1⁄2 inch would place practically all antique weapons made before 1870 in the class of "destructive device" and thus subject to a prohibitive tax. For example, most weapons used in the Civil War, Indian wars, and Revolutionary War in this country have bores of 1⁄2 inch or larger in diameter.

The terminology descriptive of "manufacturer" apparently would include the practices of gunsmithing as an avocation and of hand loading for personal or club use. thus making these practices prohibitively expensive under the proposed new license schedule.

The restrictions on selling or buying any type of gun in interstate commerce are such as to virtually prevent the ordinary law-abiding citizen from making such a purchase or sale except under circumstances so closely circumscribed with regulations as to discourage all gun ownership. These restrictions would, in addition, hamper the movement of hunters and sportsmen from State to State, would discourage the practice of target shooting as now known with many interstate and national meets, and would cause collectors of antique and modern weapons to suffer great financial loss when they or their heirs attempt to dispose of, or add to, their collections. The restrictions on importation would make it unduly difficult to import any type of gun for whatever reason, even though the purpose is as yet not declared illegitimate. The fees set for various classes of licenses are so high as to be disproportionate to the economic value to the license holder, and, therefore, appear to be aimed more at discouraging the accessibility of firearms and ammunition to the law-abiding citizen than at any normal regulation of trade. Under this proposed act the probability of administrative rulings placing parties to transactions involving guns in undue jeopardy, even where no intent to commit an unlawful act exists, is almost inevitable and is contrary to all of our traditional concepts of liberty.

We do believe that legislation should be enacted which would be aimed at the improper use of a gun as an act rather than at a gun as an instrument. Such legislation should (1) prohibit the purchase or possesison of firearms by persons who have been finally convicted for a crime of violence, who are fugitives from justice, mental incompetents, drug addicts, or while adjudicated as habitual drunkards; (2) provide severe and mandatory additional penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime; (3) make the sale of firearms to juveniles subject to parental consent and the use of firearms in public by juveniles subject to adequate supervision; and (4) regulation of concealed handguns should be reasonable and the requirements should be clearly set forth in the law so as not to make mere possession a crime. Having met the conditions, it should be possible to obtain a license to carry; issuance of this license should be mandatory and the license should cover the act of carrying, not the handgun itself.

These recommendations are relatively simple and, of course, are stated here in general terms. The wording of a statute and the mechanics of enforcement are necessarily complicated, and circumstances of population density, etc., may seem to be cause for more restrictive legistlation; however, we ask you as our legislators to evaluate this proposed law, H.R. 6628, in the light of these four provisions, that we may avoid a network of technical restrictions which can trip sportsmen into being unintentional violators, which can ge used by an unscrupulous person or party to extend or perpetuate its own power, and which are unenforcible and will not achieve the purposes for which they are intended-that of promoting safety and curbing violent crimes.

We must recognize that no law can accomplish by prohibition that which can only be accomplished by education to a higher degree of personnel responsibility.

R. L. HALEY,

President, Memphis Gun Collector's Association.

THE CAMP FIRE CLUB OF AMERICA,
New York, N.Y., July 16, 1965.

Re H.R. 6628, introduced by Congressman Murphy of New York.

Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In view of the fact that we did not learn of the hearings before your committee in time to arrange for a personal appearance on behalf of our club, we respectfully request that this statement be received and considered in lieu of such personal appearance.

1. The undersigned, P. Randolph Harris, whose address is 52 Wall Street, New York and Charles H. Stoll, whose address is 41 Broadway, Hicksville, Long Island, N.Y., are members of and appear on behalf of the Committee on Conservation of Forests and Wildlife of the Camp Fire Club of America. 2. The Camp Fire Club of America was organized in 1897 and incorporated in 1904 under the laws of the State of New York. It has 2 honorary members; 258 active resident members; 71 associate resident members; 119 active nonresident members; and 14 associate nonresident members, or a total membership of 464 men.

In order to qualify for membership, a candidate is required to have spent at least 30 days in the wilderness; to have successfully hunted big game; and to subscribe to the code of ethics of the club.

Our club is dedicated to the protection and wise use of our natural resources of forests and streams, fish and game, while assuring their perpetuation for the benefit of future generations.

Since its formation in 1909, our conservation committee is credited with a number of significant accomplishments, such as the preservation of the Alaskan seal, the protection of migratory birds through a treaty with Great Britain, and the Walcott-Kleberg duck stamp bill, sponsored by a member of our club, the Honorary Frederick C. Walcott, then the senior U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

We have in recent years considered the impact of firearms regulation upon the cause of conservation, and the prevention of crime.

We have pressed firearms legislation to prohibit hunters from using the U.S. semiautomatic 30-caliber carbine with full metal jacketed bullets. The following States have adopted such legislation: Idaho, Washington, Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Indiana, as well as the territory of Alaska.

We are concerned with the use of firearms by the criminal element. Two members of our conservation committee served upon the advisory committee appointed by Senator Berkowitz, chairman of the joint legislative committee to revise the firearms law of the State of New York.

Conservation and firearms legislation are big subjects, and we do not pretend to know all the answers. So we asked the fish and game commission, or the conservation commissioner, of the States which constitute the Atlantic flyway of migratory waterfowl how they felt about S. 1592, the companion bill to H.R. 6628. We did not receive approval of the bill from any State.

The director of the Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game reported that Senator Dodd and members of his subcommittee had been advised that they opposed S. 1592 as written.

The director of the Delaware Game and Fish Commission reported that they had written to their congressional delegation pointing out dangers in S. 1592, and also wired Senator Dodd.

Pennsylvania said that letters had gone to their representatives in Congress on S. 1592.

The Maryland director of game and inland fish reported that wires opposing S. 1592 had been sent to the Maryland delegation.

The director of the Department of Natural Resources in West Virginia sent a resolution to their delegation in Congress concerning S. 1592.

The director of the Division of Fisheries and Game of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts strongly opposed S. 1592, and realized the serious consequences to fish and game departments nationally if it should be enacted into law. At a Rotary meeting in Great Barrington, Mass., the director called the bill "most restrictive," and posed it as a real threat to the $125 million per year hunting and fishing industry in Massachusetts.

The director of the Fish and Game Department of the State of New Hampshire contacted their representatives in Washington on their feelings concerning Senator Dodd's bill.

In Maine, they are quite concerned about S. 1592, and have been most active in attempting to combat it.

The Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission passed a resolution condemning the bill, and wrote to all members of their delegation in Congress concerning this matter.

The director of the Wildlife Resources Department of the State of South Carolina actively opposes S. 1592.

The commissioner of fish and game in Vermont is quite concerned about this bill, because Vermont's recreation industry could be seriously hurt. In 1964 Vermont received $499,663 from the sale of nonresident hunting licenses, or 51 percent of Vermont's total license sales of $979,211.75. Over 70 percent of this total was contributed by nonresidents. The Vermont commissioner says that all

three northern-tier States could be hurt.

And so we find the fish and game departments in the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Florida, South Carolina, and Vermont united in opposition to S. 1592, which is identical with H.R. 6628.

These men are practical, experienced, and dedicated conservationists. They apprehend that their work may be impaired by lack of funds from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses; by lack of funds for conservation projects, derived from the Pittman-Robertson Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C.A. 669); and by decreasing the moneys available for the conservation of migratory birds derived from the sale of duck stamps, pursuant to the act of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C.A. 718).

The existence of these fears on the part of conservation commissioners is not susceptible of debate.

We will try to see whether substantial basis for these fears may be found in S. 1592, H.R. 6628.

The intent and object of the bill is to render the purchase, sale, ownership, transportation, and use of firearms burdensome and difficult for citizens of the United States.

The bill covers rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers (sec. 1(3)).

"The term 'manufactuer' means any person engaged in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution" (sec. 1(8)).

"The term 'ammunition' means pistol or revolver ammunition, ammunition for a destructive device, and ammunition for a machinegun or rifle" (sec. 1(15)). It is common practice for a sportman's club or one of its members to load rifle and pistol ammunition for club members, and to sell and distribute such ammunition among club members.

Is this a violation of H.R. 6628, if the club or its member does not hold a license as a manufacturer of ammunition, which costs $500 a year?

We do not know the answer to this question.

Section 2 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to transport, ship, or receive any firearms in interstate or foreign commerce, except

"(1) That in the case of a shotgun or rifle (other than a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle) nothing in this subsection shall be held to preclude an individual traveling in interstate or foreign commerce from transporting such shotgun or rifle (or having such shotgun or rifle transported for him under such conditions as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe), if such transportation is for a lawful purpose."

We do not know what purposes will be considered to be lawful.

We do know that hunters frequently ship their rifles or shotguns to their selected hunting area by airplane or express, or ask a member of their party to transport their firearms by car to the hunting area, where they plan to join

the party.

Under the bill, the Secretary has the authority to impose burdensome regulations governing such transportation, which could be upset only by recourse to the courts.

He also has the authority under sec. 1(4) to exclude Civil War muskets from the definition of "destructive devices," if he finds that they are not likely to be used as a weapon. Until he does so, enactment of the bill would convert Civil War muskets into "destructive devices," because their barrels have a bore of one-half inch or more in diameter.

We respectfully suggest that the bill should classify military weapons which fire fixed ammunition and have a bore of one-half inch or more as "destructive devices." but that is not what the bill says.

Sec. 2(a)3 permits a person to ship a shotgun or rifle (other than a shortbarreled shotgun or short barreled rifle) or a pistol or revolver to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer "for authorized service and the return of such firearms to the sender as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe."

What is "authorized service"? We do not know.

What regulations will the Secretary prescribe?

We do not know.

We do know that under this provision the Secretary can prescribe regulations having the force of law and governing the repairs to and restocking of our firearms in interstate commerce.

We find that the Secretary of the Treasury is by this bill invested with broad and sweeping powers. We refer to:

Section 1(4), pages 2 and 3.

Section 1 (13), page 5.

Section 2(a) (1), pages 5 and 6.

Section 2(a)(2), page 6.

Section 2(a) (3), page 6.

Section 2(b) (1), page 7.

Section 3(a), page 11.

Section 3(d), pages 14 and 15.

Section 3(g), pages 16 and 17.

We invite attention to section 2(e) which makes it unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell or dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person (other than a licensee) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.

Section 1(13) says that the term "crime punishable by imprisonment for 1 year" shall not include any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, "or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices as the Secretary may by regulation designate."

In other words, in certain fields of crime, the Secretary of the Treasury may determine which of the crimes alleged shall not render unlawful the sale or disposition of firearms or ammunition to a person under indictment.

The bill says that the sale or disposition is unlawful, but that the Secretary of the Treasury may determine that the sale or disposition to certain classes of alleged criminals is lawful.

In this, and in other provisions of the bill to which we have referred, the Secretary of the Treasury is vested with powers legislative in nature which we deem too great to be entrusted to one man, or to his subordinates.

The Constitution of the United States was framed by the Founding Fathers: "To the end that this shall be a government of laws, and not of men.” This fundamental principle of our Government is repeatedly violated by H.R. 6628.

We believe that the bill as presently drawn should be defeated.

Respectfully submitted.

CHARLES H. STOLL,
P. RANDOLH HARRIS.

Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.:

OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROJECT,
East Lansing, Mich., July 14, 1965.

I am informed that your committee is conducting hearings on the several bills to amend the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 which have been introduced thus far in the 89th Congress. I understand the main attention of the committee will be directed to the administration's proposals for firearms control which are contained in H.R. 6628 by Representative John M. Murphy, 16th District of New York, and H.R. 6783 by Representative Abraham J. Multer, 13th District of New York.

As a leader in outdoor education, I wish to go on record as opposing H.R. 6628 and H.R. 6783.

The many teachers and recreation leaders with whom I work believe firmly in the importance of marksmanship training and gun safety programs as important parts of good outdoor education and recreation programs. We agree in principle with the intent of the administration's proposals to curb the accessibility of firearms through mail-order channels. However, we are the opinion that the methods used to achieve this purpose as contained in the aforementioned bills are so comprehensive in nature and content as to include not only the lawbreaker, but also unnecessarily the law-abiding citizens.

We favor, instead, the approach to the problems at hand as is contained in H.R. 7472 by Representative Cecil R. King, 17th District of California. Its central control provisions are so designed and formulated that reasonable and effective regulations can be achieved without unduly infringing upon the legitimate areas of interest and action of the citizen of good repute.

I trust that the opinions of teachers and leaders in outdoor education will be of use to the committee in your consideration of the numerous proposals for firearms control.

[blocks in formation]

HONORABLE SIR: I wish to speak in opposition to the kind of firearms control represented in S. 1592. My personal contacts with hundreds of sportsmen's organizations leads me to believe that they, too, are concerned with criminal misuse of firearms and would welcome any legislation serving that purpose. They do not believe, however, that measures which make it more difficult to obtain sporting arms are the answer-nor do I.

I believe in legislation which cleans up slums, gives young people opportunities for higher education, and includes some recognition that it is a person's environment which principally makes him a criminal-not the accessibility of a gun. Millions of young men who hunt with their fathers have guns at hand in the gun rack at all times. Yet it is well known that these are not the young people who end up in the juvenile courts.

Thank you.

BILL WALSH, Conservation Director.

STATEMENT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR FIREARMS LEGISLATION, Box 44, BELLE MEAD, N.J., L. ARTHUR BURTON, SECRETARY

Gentlemen, the Citizens Committee for Firearms Legislation was formed after several years of considered actions upon firearms legislation in the State of New Jersey. The committee is composed of some 12 members, each representing varied interests relating to firearms. Included are organized sportsmen, arms collectors, hunters, target shooters, trap and skeet, firearms dealers, gun

« AnteriorContinuar »