am not a mental incompetent, a drug addict or an adjudged drunkard-and that I am not prohibited from legally acquiring a firearm by state or local laws (Signature) (Date).

It could well be that after nearly 30 years in law enforcement I have become overly cynical, but I am certainly not naive enough to believe that any criminal, mental incompentent, drug addict, drunkard, or professional dissident would hesitate for a single second to provide such a so-called affidavit in order to procure a gun for his own nefarious purpose.

In the conclusion of the editorial in the July 1967, issue of the American Rifleman the editor states, in part:

The true picture of the American with a gun is of a considerate person: Either a sportsman who shoots only under conditions of safety for all or a citizen who knows that the mere sight of a gun often halts crime without firing a shot honest sport with guns, requiring concentration, caution and physical fitness. is one of the world's favorite pastimes. And, after all, this isn't a bad world.

And I don't dispute this premise. I only suggest that the editor read it to the wives and families of the 266 policemen who were mntdered by guns during the period of 1960 through 1965, or to those policemen and military personnel who were the targets of the snipers during the riots in Newark, Detroit, Cambridge, and our other cites in the recent past.

I would make one more comment on this opposition to the Federd legislation as proposed. I fail to read in this act any curtailment of the prerogatives of legitimate sportsmen or law-abiding citizens in t ownership of guns. From my study of the bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act presently before the 90th Congress, it is clear cut in section 2(B) that "the purpose is not to place any undue or unneces sary Federal restrictions or burden on law-abiding citizens with re spect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms for hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any lawful activ ity" nor is "the act intended to discourage or eliminate private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." The import of this proposed legislation and the position of our association, representing the police profession, is quite clear. Lawabiding citizens and the police are convinced that it is intolerable and against our basic national concept of being a government of laws to live in a country which is becoming a veritable armed camp erupting too frequently into violence-violence that brings death and destra tion to innocent citizens and those whose sworn trust it is to proter: them.

Are we of America condemned to live in the age of the sniper Must we be subjected to the guerrilla warfare outlined by Stokely Carmichael in Cuba where he is participating in a conference of tCommunist hierarchy that "we are applying the tactics of guerril warfare (and) are preparing groups of urban guerrillas for our de fense in the cities"?"

I don't believe so, and I don't believe the distinguished membe of this subcommittee do, either. I believe that by curbing the dom of lethal armament to such dissident elements we can go a long was toward halting the civil war that is raging in our cities and making our Nation and its concept of democracy a thing of mockery in o nations of the world. We of the police most earnestly urge the err's adoption of this proposed legislation to keep firearms out of the res

of minors, irresponsible adults, malcontents, and criminals who would replace our government of laws with one of anarchy.

I might say, Senator, that I am fully aware that this has been for 4 years. May I commend you on the part of my association for your interest and persistence in this legislation?

Chairman DODD. I thank you very much, Mr. Tamm. Your testimony is so impressive and so well documented, that I find it difficult to tell you how much I am sure the whole committee appreciates your appearance here.

Senator Hruska, I want to explain to you, had to leave because he had to be at another meeting. He asked me to ask some questions on his behalf. I would like to do so now.

His first statement is, if the witness does not supply information about the organization's membership, I am to ask you to supply the details. I take it, that would mean the number of members in your organization.

Mr. TAMM. The present organization is approximately 6,800; 6,200 of whom are in this country. We represent individuals. Our membership consists of command officers in police departments, all of the chiefs of police of the major cities in this country, as well as, obviously, thousands of the smaller cities; all of the heads of the State police organizations and State highway patrols, 49 in number.

There are only 49 such State police organizations in this country. Hawaii does not have a State police organization. It also includes military police, members of command people, or supervisory personnel of the Federal agencies I guess that is about it.

Chairman DODD. The second question, Senator Hruska requested me to ask, is as follows: Does your organization speak for the 480,000 policemen or just their bosses?

Mr. TAMM. We speak for the police administrators and those in the command position. I think that their bosses, sir, if I may be permitted to say so, know the feelings of their men.

Chairman DODD. The third and last question which Senator Hruska asks is as follows: I have here a letter from the National Police Officers Association of America which purports to serve the interests of 480,000 law enforcement officers throughout the Nation. The views of this group appear to differ with yours.

Then he requests that I quote from page 2 of a letter which Senator Hruska received on July 25, 1967, from the National Police Officers Association of America, National Police Academy Building, Venice, Fla. The four points that he asks me to quote are as follows:

To sum up, we would favor legislation that would, one, provide mandatory penalties for use of a firearm transported in interstate commerce in the commission of a crime; two, provide that no licensed manufacturer or dealer may ship any firearm to any one in any State in violation of that State's law; three, bring destructive devices and crew-served weapons under the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and four, provide when a person orders a handgun by mail or over the counter in a State other than his own, that he be required to submit a sworn statement containing appropriate information. Such information would be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality to which the handgun is to be shipped, and that shipment should not be mailed until at least seven days have elapsed from the time of the notification to the chief law enforcement officer.

That letter is signed by Lt. Mario Biaggi, president.
Senator Hruska asks, what is your comment?

Mr. TAMM. Well, Senator, if I may say facetiously first, because my legal counsel is not here and I have been advised not to comment on the National Police Officers Association because they are presently suing me for libel-this would be my first comment.

I challenge the fact that they speak for law enforcement at all. and they might as well sue me again, sir. The association that I represent has been in existence since 1873. We represent what we consider the law enforcement leaders of this country. We feel that the people for whom we speak represent the body of law enforcement in this country. We know of no officers in our association, because our resolution was adopted unanimously, that are not in favor of the restriction of the shipment of firearms.

As I say, I am handicapped in what I can say about the National Police Officers Association, so I guess I will just let it go. The suit is still pending.

Chairman DODD. I understand.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tamm. I think it is relevant and has some bearing on these questions.

I have in my hand a copy of the book, "The Right to Bear Arms," by Carl Bakal. On page 124 of that book, Mr. Bakal discusses the National Police Officers Association of America. He discusses it o page 123, as well. I think that this quote, for what it is worth, should be in the record. He says:

Actually, the NPOAA is a small, fraternal-type insurance benefit organizatio set up in 1964 by Frank Schira, who is a 16-year veteran of the Chicago Polic❤ Department and at present a detective in its Homicide and Sex Unit. Now listed as the President of the organization, which claims a membership of 11.000 pobre officers (out of 360,000 in the United States) is Donald Snyder, a patrolman 3 Braintree, Massachusetts. Among the national vice presidents are chiefs and assistant chiefs from such places as Sleepy Hollow, Illinois; Sheboygan, W;< consin; and Clinton, North Carolina. By contrast, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, with a membership of 5500 police officers and high-ranking staff officers, has as its current president, Atlanta Police Chief Herbert T. Jeniz. and among its vice presidents the Police Commissioners of New York, Sau Frai cisco, and St. Louis.

It goes on to the bottom of page 124. I think we will have that pa into the record at this point.

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 146" and is a follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 146

EXCERPT FROM "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS," BY CARL BAKAL, MCGRAW-HILL PUBLISHING Co., 1966, PAGES 123-4

Although the gun groups have a lurking fear of the police, feeling that ta enforcement officers generally view the possession of private firearms with a jaundiced eye, the lobby strains to invoke some seemingly competent authority state that guns don't cause crime. Anointed some years ago for this purpose w an organization called the National Police Officers Association of America 1. easy to understand why. Back in 1959 or 1960, the organization, through its res president and current executive director Frank J. Schira, issued a statement its position on firearms control. After giving the matter "considerable thought Schira said, "we feel that an American citizen of voting age and of g character should have the right to purchase without restriction a harda pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or a like item without interference by a governge body." In what would seem to be an unflattering reference to his police colle aÊTES Schira also said that "to place the purchase of firearms in one official would cre cause in some cases to abuse."

In 1962, the year-old National Shooting Sports Foundation, casting about for an "objective" yet authoritative-sounding police partner, sat down in Chicago with the National Police Officers Association of America. The two groups, with the behind-the-scenes help of the National Rifle Association, drafted a joint resolution. The resolution, since then reprinted in gun and outdoor magazines, presented solemnly before congressional committees and cited endlessly in speeches and statements, reiterated the earlier NPOAA statement that any citizen of voting age (even the earlier proviso specifying "good character" was now missing) should be allowed free access to handguns, unhampered by any red tape whatsoever. The resolution, among other things, also stated that "restrictive anti-gun laws have never been, and never will be, a successful deterrent to crime, organized or otherwise, and . . . do not succeed in disarming the criminal, but do disarm the law-abiding citizen.

It matters little to the lobby that the NPOAA has little, if any, standing among criminologists or members of the law enforcement community. No police officer of any repute belongs to the group, but few people know this. In fact, few of the police officers I once queried in various parts of the country had ever heard of it.

Actually, the NPOAA is a small, fraternal-type, insurance benefit organization set up in 1955 by Schira, who is a sixteen-year veteran of the Chicago Police Department, and at present a detective in its Homocide and Sex Unit. Now listed as president of the organization, which claims a membership of 11,000 police officers (out of the 360,000 in the United States), is Donald Snyder, a patrolman from Braintree, Massachusetts. Among the national vice presidents the chiefs and assistant chiefs from such places as Sleepy Hollow, Illinois; Sheboygan, Wisconsin; and Clinton, North Carolina. By contrast, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, with a membership of 5,500 police commissioners and high-ranking staff officers, has as its current president Atlanta Police Chief Herbert T. Jenkins and, among its vice presidents, the police commissioners of New York, San Francisco and St. Louis.

Mr. TAMM. I would like to refer the committee, if I may, sir, to the States of Ohio and Illinois, where the States' attorneys general presently have suits pending against the National Police Officers Association.

I would answer the one question which was raised which applied to this four-pronged question. That is, the value of affidavits. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the Governor of New Jersey testify about the difficulty that law enforcement agencies would have in searching such affidavits.

May I say that having been in charge of the largest fingerprint collection in the world in the FBI, the affidavits bearing the names and partial descriptions of individuals, as far as identification is concerned, are absolutely worthless. They have no value. They would serve no purpose, and I question whether a police department in a small community could do anything or any justice to such a request for a name search. It is not quite as simple as just having the chief walk over to a file and look in a small index to see if so-and-so has a criminal record. It goes a great deal further than that, in identifying the individual and where he is from.

It takes time and it takes money, and I am not too sure that this is a police responsibility under our present concept of police. They have a lot of other things to do right now.

Chairman DODD. Well, they certainly appreciate that observation. I thank you again, Mr. Tamm, for this testimony. It is very valuable.

Mr. TAMM. Thank you, sir.

82-646-67-68

(A letter relative to Mr. Tamm's testimony was subsequently sent to the Honorable Thomas J. Dodd by Mr. Franklin L. Orth, marked "Exhibit No. 147" and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 147

HON. THOMAS J. DODD,

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA.
Washington, D.C., August 9, 1967.

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR DODD: On Tuesday, August 1, 1967, in testimony before your Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency on the matter of federal firearms control legislation, Mr. Quinn Tamm, Executive Director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, made the following statement:

"In an editorial in the May 1967 issue of The American Rifleman magazine published by that organization (NRA), it is suggested that citizens arm them selves and join posses and unorganized militia to protect their communities against riots.

"As official spokesman for our organization, I issued the following statement in part: 'In sounding the alarm to fight anarchy with anarchy, NRA displays a recklessness which does a terrible disservice to our citizens and the police Responsible citizens and police executives throughout this nation should not fail to reject this senseless call to arms.

"As an Association, the IACP has spoken out for measures designed to herter control the sale and distribution of non-sporting weapons. In encouraging rather than dissuading violence, NRA has made us even stronger in our conviction that armed posses and unorganized militia are not the answer to the disturbances which have occurred in our cities.

"We strongly condemn this irresponsible statement by NRA.'"

This charge by Mr. Tamm is completely untrue. It is all the more reprehensible because Mr. Tamm had made this statement previously and had been advised that it was untrue.

I do not know why Mr. Tamm, speaking for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, should choose to make this gratuitous attack on an association with whom his association has been on terms of mutual assistance and respet for many years. I am concerned that the Record of the Hearings on this impertant firearms legislation not contain false charges with respect to the National Rifle Association of America. This Association has never suggested that citizens arm themselves and join posses and unorganized militia to protect their cominu nities against riots. This Association has never sounded an alarm to fight anarchy with anarchy. The editorial in the May 1967 issue of The American Rifleman contained no irresponsible statement.

Accordingly, in simple fairness, I respectfully request that this letter, together with a copy of the editorial from the May 1967 issue of The American Riflen an be entered into the Record. The editorial cannot be read by any reasonable 1-7son and the inferences drawn which Mr. Tamm has stated to be a fact. Best personal regards.

Cordially yours,

FRANKLIN L. OBTH. Executive Vice President.

[From the American Rifleman, Washington, D.C., May 1967]

WHO GUARDS AMERICA'S HOMES?

In these unsettled times when some courts seem to pamper criminals, when tow many Americans revel in all sorts of law-breaking from speeding to head-m 14h ing, and when law enforcement officers are popular only on television, the best police on earth, alone cannot stem the kind of mob violence that has swept .ET American cities.

Mob action on a scale unprecedented in the modern United States has ravaged community after community in recent years, Chicago, Cleveland, Omaha. Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Rochester, N.Y., Birmingham, Ala., Newport. R.L., Dayton Beach, Fla., and many others have felt the lash of mass fury and rioting.