POWDER ACTUATED TOOL MANUFACTURERS' INSTITUTE, INC.,

New York, N.Y., July 21, 1967.

Subject: Gun Control Bills-S. 1 and S. 1-Amendment 90, S. 1853 and S. 1854.
Senator THOMAS J. DODD,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR DODD: Representing Powder Actuated Industrial Tool mfr., we would like to express our appreciation of the courtesies extended to our Associate, Becher Hungerford, when he telephoned Wm. C. Mooney, Chief Investigator of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency several days ago.

Also, we would like to bring to your attention an apparent, but unintentional legislative oversight in the drafting of the above legislation.

We respectfully submit that the wording of these bills is so all encompassing as to include industrial explosive actuated tools as made by our member mante facturers. These industrial tools are produced and used for building and other construction in accordance with the attached USA Standard Safety Require ments as sponsored by the National Safety Council and published by the USA Standards Institute on October 17, 1966. We believe that at the time the above bills were drafted, it was not the intention of the sponsors to include in them scha industrial tools.

We, therefore, respectfully request and urge that amendments excluding industrial explosive actuated tools worded along the following lines be includest in any of these bills which may be endorsed by the Sub-Committee on Juvené Delinquency before they are reported out:

"Except industrial tools which are explosive industrial fastening tools, undesi otherwise indicated, and all accessories pertaining thereto."

In further support of this request, we respectfully present the following addtional information:

1. Explosive actuated industrial tools are used in building construction for fastening together wood to concrete, concrete to concrete, steel to steel, steel te concrete, etc. Explosive actuated industrial tools are not used and were never intended to be used for firearms. Also, substantial savings in time and money result from the use of such tools.

2. Only qualified operators who have been thoroughly tested and given permits as described on Page 11 of the attached USASI Safety Standard are allowed t use these tools.

3. These industrial construction tools are manufactured in plants of our memi manufacturers and distributed nationally. The inclusion of such tools in abor bills, if enacted into law, would cause great hardship and unemployment in or member company plants as well as substantial financial loss.

We understand that this matter has already been brought to the attention f the Senate and that it is the intention of the Senate Sub-Committee on Juvente Delinquency to recommend the exclusion of explosive actuated industrial too from any of the above legislation which may be endorsed by that Sub-Committ--prior to the reporting out of such legislation by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

A confirmation of this will be greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,

GEORGE P. BYRNE, Jr..
Secretary.

STATEMENT OF E. H. HILLIARD, JR., REDFIELD GUN SIGHT CO., Denver, Cota BEFORE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTGATE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 12, 1967

Mr. Chairman, my name is E. H. Hilliard, Jr., I am Managing Partner and principal owner of Redfield Gun Sight Co., Denver, Colorado. Redfield has attempted, during its nearly 60 years of existence, to be a thoroughly reputab e manufacturer of high quality sighting devices for rifles, and particularly to be 1 responsible member of the firearms community. I classify myself as a moderzis on the firearms question, and I believe my testimony today, as well as before 125 and other committees in previous years, will bear this out. My remarks wil! brief.

I've advocated Federal Gun Legislation for several years, after openminde"; trying to absorb the complexity of information on the subject. In fact, Rein has even run paid advertising urging gun enthusiasts to be for reaso££? n legislation.

Today, I speak strongly for S. 1853 and S. 1854, as reasonable and practis approaches to prevent interstate traffic in concealable firearms in violation f federal, state or local law.

First, S. 1853's Unlawful Acts appear, (far more so than S. 1), to concisele ant effectively get to the essence of what a Federal Firearms Bill should do, that a to make it unlawful: for the trade to ship interstate in violation of federa state laws; for individuals to bring firearms into their locality in violation state and local laws; and for license applicants, or individual buyers, to

ingly make false statements. The increase in penalties seems logical and consistent for violations of the unlawful acts. Secondly, the affidavit procedure, for mail-order or non-resident purchases, is reasonable to ask of the buyer and trade. It effects adequate disclosure of information as well as adequate delay in delivery. Third, I think the increased license fees are acceptable and should cover the cost of a reasonable initial investigation and renewal procedure. Fourth, S. 1854 as an amendment to the National Firearms Act, is the proper way to control destructive devices, separating them from legitimate personal defense and sporting firearms. And, lastly and most importantly, S. 1853 avoids the unnecessary "Findings and Declarations" which seems to say that firearms are bad per se. Further, S. 1853 and S. 1854 do not overdelegate to the discretion of the Secretary.

I'm very grateful to Senator Hruska and the many others who have worked out this pair of bills, which contain the essence of what we need in Federal legislation. Yet they accomplish this with a minimum of burden on the shooting public and the trade. They are simple, concise, and what I would call clear in purpose.

By contrast, the backers of bills like S. 1 and S. 1 Amendment 90 persist in going beyond what seems necessary and therefore encourage opposition and incur delay in the passage of needed legislation to stop circumvention of state and local law. Examples in both S. 1's are the "Finding and Declarations" which, as I've mentioned, seem to broadly condemn all firearms, particularly in comingling destructive devices with legitimate personal firearms.

The backers of the S. 1-type of bill have, I think continued to leave unanswered questions in the minds of many sportsmen. Particularly I continue to be uncertain as to whether reducing "easy availability of firearms" means easy availability in interstate commerce in violation of federal, state and local law, or whether there is a body of thought that the Federal Government should protect the individual from his own legally possessed firearms. If there is any of the latter thinking involved, then we're clearly getting into the realm of what could lead to registration and confiscation. I think this would be too bad, because either registration or confiscation would remove a very significant and sensitive evidence of mutual respect between people and Government.

In connection with firearms registration, which so many of us feel could be a step toward confiscation and yet which we also feel would do extremely little to prevent the misuse of firearms, I raise the question that Congress might want to further clarify its position on the registration subject. The affidavit procedure, which in S. 1853 as well as S. 1 specifically excludes the serial number of the firearm involved, indicates the desire to avoid registration. Yet the records kept by the dealer do link the firearm serial number to the purchaser's name. In this day of ever-more-convenient information gather equipment, such as photo copy machines and perhaps scanning devices, would it not be wise for Congress to specifically state that the records on firearms transactions are not to be centralized? In the absence of Congress's expressing itself, the orderly gathering by administrative decision of names and serial numbers now required under the Federal Firearms Act would practically amount to a national registration.

I have two minor suggestions related to S. 1853: S. 1853, Sec. 2(c) requires of the dealer reasonable effort concerning whether he is shipping in violation of state law. I would think that the higher license fees should support the suggested preparation by Treasury of a Director of State Firearms Laws and Regulations. Reference by a manufacturer or dealer to this directory would normally constitute reasonable effort.

The excellent affidavit procedure, in S. 1853 Sec. 2(e) is intended to notify of a proposed handgun shipment to a person in a Chief Law Enforcement Officer's jurisdiction. We should do all possible to have this procedure accomplish its purpose without the burden of having to repeat steps. A large source of repeat steps may be from inaccurate names or addresses of Chief Law Enforcement Officers, resulting in affidavits coming back to the dealer not refused but simply not deliverable. I hope that Law Enforcement won't take advantage of the prospective buyer's telephone inquiry by not giving the correct information and thus creating undeliverable affidavits. If this were to become prevalent, it might be legitimate for Treasury to maintain for the public a Directory of Chief Law Enforcement Officers.

Carrying this a step further, it could also evolve into a Directory of Local Firearms Regulations (brief summarys), the local jurisdictions voluntarily submitting the information.

I very much want to see us, as a nation, solve the social problems that underlie the misuse of firearms. But the S. 1-type of bill over-legislates against the firearms, as opposed to the cause of its misuse.

Again, S. 1853 and S. 1854 appear to me to be reasonable, and should be effective in assisting states and localities in the enforcement of their firearms Laws and regulations. I therefore support the passage of these two bills.

Many thanks.

STATEMENT OF BOYD WILLIAMS ON BEHALF OF WILLIAMS GUN SIGHT Co., INC., AND OF THE MICHIGAN TRAP SHOOTING ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE

Mr. Chairman, my name is Boyd Williams. I am Secretary-Treasurer of the Williams Gun Sight Company of Davison, Michigan as well as Secretary-Treaurer of the Michigan Trap Shooting Association. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to present this statement in behalf of these two organizations.

The Williams Gun Sight Company is unlike many of the firms that have either testified or submitted papers regarding Firearms Legislation in that it has ca a Retail Outlet, (b) a Service-Repair Department, (c) a Wholesale Division (d) a Distributing Division, (e) a Catalog Division, (f) a Manufacturing Plast In view of this, I feel it is necessary I tell you a little of our operation so it can readily be seen how the Firearms Legislation effects not only our company, bot our dealers, jobbers, firms for which we manufacture accessories, and the portmen-not only in Michigan, but throughout the country, who utilize our facilities. Becaus of the scope of the operation of Williams Gun Sight Company, we are in a position to realize how some of the proposed legislation would affect the many facets of the shooting industry.

Our Retail Store services not only the local trade in our State of Michigan. but thousands of sportsmen throughout America who come to make use of our facilities to obtain service on their firearms, to check on various hunting areas throughout the world where they may wish to go hunting, or to purchase part. ular types of firearms which may not be available in their own community.

Our Service Department is one of the very finest in America. Approximately twenty thousand firearms are serviced annually; repaired, accessories added, etc. Individuals and dealers throughout the country forward their firearms to us fr our services.

We have approximately thirteen thousand dealers on our mailing list, each of whom we contact monthly on any new items in the shooting line. We not only distribute items that we manufacture, but items of other firms in the shooting industry, such as stocks, firearms, ammunition and hundreds of accessories Our Manufacturing Division makes various accessories in the firearms line, uz cluding gun sights, scope mounts, sling straps, swivels; in all, about five hundred different accessories that are used in this particular field.

The Williams Gun Sight Company is vitally interested in the proposed lezie lation on firearms, because it vitally effects not only themselves, but thousands and thousands of dealers, both big and small throughout the country. And if course, the individual sportsmen. The economic factor is of very great importance. As Secretary-Treasurer of the Michigan Trap Shooting Association. I know that we have several thousand shooters here in Michigan, many of whom travel from State to State going to other clubs, or to regional matches, who al cat be affected. Most of these shooters not only own one firearm, but rather dozens of them and they are expensive firearms too. When they find one that will perform the way that they want it to, they are willing to pay most any price for ir To make it next to impossible for them to purchase it when they are away fr home, even out of their home state, when they want to use it for competir 15 ** use in shoots, would amount to about the same thing as telling one of the leading golfers that he can't buy a certain golf club out of the State, when the use of that club might substantially improve his score. As indicated, many of these transactions are between individuals and not through firms.

In looking over the various Bills that have been submitted. I am led to believe that S. 1 in the original form and S. 1 Amendment Number 90 are both nach tow severe. They not only would literally handcuff the sportsmen, but they would hurt a great many of the hundreds of businesses throughout the country nomically that are legitimately engaged in business. The biggest problem w to laws of this type is that they might work well for a State like New York. Yaze

would be hardly acceptable for North Dakota, South Dakota, or some other State where the situation is entirely different.

We at our Company recognize the problems of Juvenile Delinquency. I think we show this by the fact that we have put on twenty-one Shooting Schools over the past twenty-one years for youngsters within the ages of 12 to 18. Better than twenty thousand youngsters have gone through this school. And the fact that we work with the Big Brothers and their program throughout the year. Since we are also a major supplier of the Police Departments throughout the State of Michigan and the Great Lakes region, and that we have actually conducted Riot Training Schools for the Police Departments, I think that we are also aware of some of their problems.

Certainly no sportsman would question but what the destructive type of devices, Bazooka, Cannons, etc., should be strictly controlled. They don't even belong in the same category with sporting goods equipment or even handguns. Their use by anyone gives the whole firearms industry a black eye. They just don't belong in a sportsman's arsenal. A Bill handling their control should be separate from anything in the sporting firearms field. The Hruska Bill S. 1854 and S. 1853 are much less objectionable, and I do think that the entire industry could live with them.

Handguns, which would include revolvers and pistols, should be given separate treatment from the shotguns or rifles. I don't believe that sales in inter-state trade should be barred entirely, even to individuals, because this would work a hardship.

As an example, our firm is quite a large distributor for the Smith & Wesson line of handguns. To carry everything in the complete line of Smith & Wesson handguns with the innovations that they are offered in, and the Smith & Wesson line is just one line, we would have to carry between six and eight hundred different models. In a great many states, there are not too many firms that can carry such inventory, for economic reasons and from the fact that they just don't get that large a demand for some of the less called for models. To require an individual to purchase all of his firearms within his own state, would certainly limit his choice and is forcing him to deal with people, who in some cases are not able to give him service or delivery.

I do think that regulations can be put in where the shipper does have to comply with the State regulations from where the person resides, and this certainly should be the case. All States are not alike, nor does the same type of situation apply to all States. As an example, you can pick any number of small towns in the Western States, or even some of the Midwestern States, where there may not even be a source of supply for a handgun, and persons wanting these handguns, have to go out of their own immediate community in order to obtain what they wish. Certainly forms can be set up similar to what was outlined in the Hruska Bill that would take care of this situation.

One of the big things that was objectionable on the original Dodd Bill, was the tone of the Bill would indicate that the firearms are one of the major causes of the problem, instead of the persons involved. Hruska Bill, on the other hand, puts much stronger penalties for the guilty ones, the wrong-doers, and this is as it should be. The innocent should not be penalized, but only the guilty ones and the innocent ones should not be so greatly inconvenienced because of the small percentage of the guilty ones.

I don't want to make this paper too long, because if I were to lengthen it, I could tell you of about three different cases at our Plant where we caught persons stealing firearms. One of these persons, that we know for certain, had been cherry-picking firearms over a period of months, stole in excess of $5,000 worth from our Plant. In this case, he was sent to a mental institution, where he was released about three months later as cured. We didn't even have a chance to question him.

In the other two cases, the offenders were given suspended sentences. The criminal is not going to buy a firearm to commit a crime, because he can be tied to it; he is going to steal it. Laws should be greatly strengthened to see that the penalties for the theft of firearms is greatly increased. The particular statement just made, of course, does not apply to the crimes of emotion or passion, in which case, the persons involved might use any type of instrument which is handy.

In the case of the long guns, which we speak of as the rifles or shotguns used in either target shooting or hunting, these fit into an entirely different classification. They are not readily concealable, they're of minor importance as far as crime is

82-646-67-74