The subcommittee dick, Tydings, Kenner mond) met, pursuan i Office Building, Senate mittee) presiding.

Present: Senators I = Hruska.

Also present: Carl L special counsel; Richar Mooney, chief investin Peter Freivalds, resear minority counsel.

Chairman DODD. I Wi
We are glad to see
We are sorry we could 1-
how busy they are.

As I understand it.
would like to make.
Mr. COHEN. Yes. M
Chairman DODD. GOT

STATEMENT OF SHELL
REVENUE; ACCOM
TARY OF THE TREAT

Mr. COHEN. Whe
several points in the
were somewhat com
questions properly c
like to amplify som
To begin with. I
comparative
he has
T

public

here is

re is no In-State irement

that the .ed felons

liberately

order sales censed dealles with the

As would not be

ble to the retail e counter to out3.90 permit such

unlawful certain ith respect to which that with respect to

sale to criminals on the to believe," I can see no an imposing an absolute

provisions such as this one blish that a person charged tances he should have known,

e are at least five provisions deaded on knowledge or reasonable

re discussing yesterday was the St. icated that Police Chief Brostron → in 1965 that most criminal's guns e. It was suggested that many of the enefit of the required Missouri permit the Federal Firearms Act.

to carefully review the record of testithe statements of Major Jacobsmeyer of e made before this committee on June 30, ng in that testimony of either of these offilating to the purchase of out-of-State have suggested a violation of section

I think the confusion yesterday centers on the relative merits of th affidavit approach for Federal control and the approach in the administration bill and the chairman's bill for the control for implementing State and local laws.

It should be noted that the affidavit procedure in S. 1853 applies only to handguns. It does not apply to rifles and shotguns.

Chairman DODD. By the way, that's the provision which was in the first bill that I introduced

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir; that is right.

Chairman DODD (continuing). Four years ago.
Mr. COHEN. In early 1963; yes.

Chairman DODD. It was in August of 1963.

Mr. COHEN. The administration proposal and that of the chairs man includes control over the handguns as well as shotguns and rifles,

Another point to be clarified, the provisions of section 902 (c) of the present statute require that where the State requires a permit t purchase, the permit must be displayed by the licensee who transports or ships, and emphasis is on "transports or ships," to a resident of th State. It does not apply to delivery, thus it does not require the display of the permit by a resident of the State requiring a purchase perm who goes and purchases over the counter in his own State or in another State.

With respect to the out-of-State mail-order transactions, I wan to emphasize that S. 1853 makes the affidavit notice procedure appli cable only to handguns. Both S. 1 and S. 1, Amendment No. 90, would effectively prohibit out-of-State retail mail-order sales of handguns by allowing interstate transportation only between licensees. Thus you can see that S. 1853 would permit out-of-State mail-order sale of handguns to continue, subject to the affidavit requirements, wheres S. 1 and S. 1, Amendment No. 90, by prohibiting such sales entirel would more effectively cope with this particular problem.

With respect to these out-of-State mail-order sales of long guns S. 1953 offers no regulatory controls whatever. S. 1 would subje rifles and shotguns to an affidavit notice procedure similar to S. 1853 which applies only to handguns. S. 1 with Amendment No. 90 would, so far as mail-order transactions are concerned, treat long guns the same as handguns and prohibit out-of-State mail-order sales.

As to over-counter sales to out-of-State residents, S. 1853 would provide the same controls over handgun sales as for out-of-Sta mail-order sales. It would make no provision, however, with respe to the sale or rifles or shotguns to out-of-State residents. S. 1 wou completely bar the retail sale of handguns by a licensee to an out-o State resident through the provisions of section 2 (b) (3) which woul prohibit the sale of all firearms other than rifles or shotguns to nonresidents not licensed under the act.

S. 1, Amendment No. 90 would similarly prohibit the retail sale of handguns to nonresidents.

These bills would also prohibit the retail sale to nonresidents of rifles, shotguns, unless the purchaser could legally purchase and possess them in his home State.

If these qualifications were met, the licensee could ship the rifle shotgun to the purchaser in his home State under the provisions of S. 1, Amendment No. 90.

I strongly support the prohibitions against Federal licensees selling firearms to juveniles or knowingly selling to felons or fugitives from justice. I do not feel that these provisions impose any undue restrictions on Federal licensees, and I do feel that they are in the public interest.

With respect to the sales to in-State residents, intrastate, there is no basis for comparing S. 1853 with the other two bills. There is no provision whatever in S. 1853 applicable to dealer sales to in-State residents. S. 1 and S. 1, Amendment No. 90, do impose a requirement applicable to in-State as well as out-of-State transactions.

The sale of firearms to persons under age or to persons that the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe are convicted felons or fugitives from justice is prohibited.

This latter provision simply says that knowingly and deliberately trafficking in firearms to criminals should not be condoned.

In summary, S. 1853 permits retail out-of-State mail-order sales and out-of-State over-the-counter sales of handguns by licensed dealers if the dealer obtains the required affidavit and complies with the notice requirement.

Under S. 1, Amendment No. 90, these same transactions would not be permitted at all.

S. 1853 offers no special controls whatever applicable to the retail sale of long guns by out-of-State mail order or over the counter to outof-State residents, whereas S. 1 and Amendment No. 90 permit such dealer sales only under controlled conditions.

In addition, S. 1 and Amendment No. 90 make unlawful certain dealer in-State retail sales to residents of a State with respect to which S. 1853 proposes no controls whatever.

So it would be completely irrelevant to say that with respect to these controls the affidavit procedure is superior.

As to basing the unlawfulness of a dealer's sale to criminals on the standard of "knowledge or reasonable cause to believe," I can see no particular problem. Certainly it is fairer than imposing an absolute duty on a licensee.

It is also known that in any penalty provisions such as this one the burden is on the Government to establish that a person charged actually knew, or that under the circumstances he should have known, of the critical facts or circumstances.

I might also add that in S. 1853 there are at least five provisions describing unlawful acts which are founded on knowledge or reasonable cause to believe.

Another point that I think we were discussing yesterday was the St. Louis, Mo., problem. It was indicated that Police Chief Brostron testified before this subcommittee in 1965 that most criminal's guns came into St. Louis from outside. It was suggested that many of the guns were purchased without benefit of the required Missouri permit in violation of section 2(c) of the Federal Firearms Act.

My staff has now had time to carefully review the record of testimony of Chief Brostron and the statements of Major Jacobsmeyer of the St. Louis police that were made before this committee on June 30, 1965. And they found nothing in that testimony of either of these officers other than conjecture relating to the purchase of out-of-State mail-order guns which might have suggested a violation of section 2ic).

A statistical report submitted by Major Jacobsmeyer listed man firearms seized in law-enforcement activities. However, research e tablished that most of these guns which were determined to be purchased from out-of-State sources had been purchased outside the State and carried inside the State. This can be found in the hearing record on pages 580 to 599.

There was no indication that specific weapons were acquired by outof-State mail order.

Section 902 (c) does not restrict overcounter sales to out-of-State residents, or for that matter, to residents of the State requiring a permit.

That is the summary of the confusion yesterday.

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. That is a very clarifying statement. I suggest that your memorandum comparing S. 1853 an S. 1 Amendment No. 90, of which I have a photostat, be placed in the record following your remarks.

Mr. COHEN. I think that might help the comparison; yes, sir.
Chairman DODD. That will be done.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 14" and is a follows :)

EXHIBIT No. 14

DISCUSSION OF S. 1, S. 1—AMENDMENT NUMBER 90, S. 1853, AND S. 1854

Attached is a tabular comparative analysis of Senate Bills S. 1853 and S. 1Amendment No. 90 concerned with regulation of interstate and foreign commerce in firearms.

Another bill, S. 1, closely resembles S. 1-Amendments No. 90, S. 1-Amendment No. 90, differs from S. 1 in two principal respects. S. 1 adopts an affidavit and notice procedure for controlling interstate mail-order sales of rifles and shotguns and would prohibit mail-order sales of other firearms whereas S. 1– Amendments No. 90 would prohibit interstate retail mail-order sales of all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, by channeling all commercial interstate transportation of firearms between licensees. S. 1-Amendment No. 90 would impose restrictions over private (non-licensee) interstate transactions in handguns S. 1 contains no such provisions. In addition, S. 1 would amend the Federal Fire arms Act while S. 1-Amendment No. 90, would repeal the Federal Firearms Act and incorporate firearms controls in Title 18, United States Code.

S. 1854, which is also before the Judiciary Committee, would amend the National Firearms Act. The principal objective of this Bill is to bring certain large caliber and explosive and incentiary military-type weapons under the strict controls of the Act. This bill would impose new taxes under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAJOR INNOVATING FEATURES OF S. 1853 AND
S. 1-AMENDMENT No. 90

B. Controls on Licensee Sales-Continued

eligible to receive in home state and locality.

C. Non-Licensee Sale Transactions

D. Transportation Controls (other)

E. Destructive Devices