Chairman DODD. There are one or two other questions, Commissioner. Yesterday you referred to the fact that there were about 1,100 firearms received by residents of New York from out of State. I think that was about the figure. It does not appear from the record, as I read it, whether they were mail-order purchases or something else. Do you know what they were? You may not have it, but if you could get it, I think it would supplement that part of the record. Mr. COHEN. The gentleman from New York who testified after I did yesterday may have gone into that. We could check the record. Chairman ĎODD. I am not sure whether the assistant district attorney said it or you did. I think you did. Mr. COHEN. I will have to take a look at the record. Chairman DODD. Well, you can check it out. It was on page 47 of the copy I got of the transcript. Mr. COHEN. We will check that. Chairman DODD. Yes. It was in your statement on page 47. Mr. COHEN. Let me read it to you. that statement reads, "During February 1967, residents in New York, which has stringent gun controls, received 1,110 firearms from out of the State." That was physical carrying in. Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Chairman DODD. I thought that ought to be made clear. What is your rationale for the inclusion of destructive devices in S. 1 and Amendment No. 90? Mr. COHEN. I think that there has been some discussion whether you stigmatize hunters, conservationists by including controls over these sort of devices in the Federal Firearms Act. I might point out that the machinegun and sawed-off shotgun, which are now covered by the National Act, have always been duplicate covered, not really duplicate but coordinated covering has always been provided in the Federal Firearms Act. The National Act requires, for example, you pay a license fee in order to have the privilege of owning a machinegun, but it does not apply to the interstate shipment and the interstate transportation, and other things, that might be done with the National Act type weapon. The coordinate controls over those sort of things are in the Federal Act so that the two of them act jointly to control the-not only the acquisition but the uses made of the, what have heretofore been called gangster-type weapons but which under the new bills would include bazookas, grenades, and that sort of thing. Chairman DoDD. Well Mr. COHEN. So we think that you have to have both. It a man is willing to pay $200 to acquire one of these things, you want to make sure that if he carries it across State lines he is still under the control of the requirements that the act would put on him. Chairman DODD. It seems to me the important point is this. Let me put it in the form of a question. Under S. 1854, which amends the National Firearms Act, could a convicted felon or racketeer, however you want to describe him, lawfully obtain a destructive device such as we have been talking about? Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir; I think he could if he were willing to pay the license fee. 82-646-67-10 Chairman DODD. That is all he would have to do? Mr. COHEN. That is right. Chairman DODD. And could a convicted narcotics addict do the same thing? Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. These are the reasons that the Federal Ac would have to come in. Chairman DODD. I think it is an important point. Mr. COHEN. I think it is a very good point. Chairman DODD. And, also, as I read it, a convicted narcotic trafficker could do the same thing? Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Chairman DODD. And a convicted extortionist could do the same thing, or kidnaper, or go on down the line? All he would have to do is pay the license fee and get a bazooka or antitank gun or handgrenade or anything else he wanted. Mr. COHEN. And there would be no Federal control that would make it a violation. Chairman DODD. None that I know of under that act. Mr. COHEN. It would depend whether the State in which he carried it would have some control. Chairman DODD. But under my bill this could not happen. Mr. COHEN. That is correct, sir. Chairman DODD. And I think that is an important distinction for the record that ought to be made because I do not think that should be permitted. Senator HRUSKA. Would the Senator yield? Chairman DODD. Well, before I do Senator HRUSKA. On this point. Chairman DODD. Yes. Senator HRUSKA. May I direct your attention to the language ir subparagraph (d) and the bottom of page 4, the last two lines: It shall be unlawful for any person And that includes anybody and everybody, licensee, or not It shall be unlawful for any person to ship, transport, or cause to be shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce any firearms to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is under indictment for or has been convicted in any Court of the United States or in any court of any State And that is a firearm, including your destructive weapons. Mr. COHEN. Sir, I am not sure that that applies to a grenade or a bomb. Chairman DODD. Forgive me, Commissioner. Let's read that again Mr. COHEN. A grenade or a bomb is not a firearm, sir. Chairman DODD. Well, we can argue that. Some people will say a grenade or a bomb is a firearm. But what Senator Hruska has just read includes this language: Who has been indicted or is under indictment for or has been convicted in any Court of the United States or in any court of any state of a crime of violence. Senator HRUSKA. Exactly. Chairman DODD. Well, now, you get into a pretty fuzzy area. That is my point, Senator. I think you and I could agree that this is a place where we might want to change the language, because lawyers will argue that narcotics peddling is not a crime of violence. Senator HRUSKA. Well, let me refresh the Senator's recollection again. When we considered this bill in the last session in the full Judiciary Committee, one of the amendments we unanimously agreed upon was the definition of "crime of violence" that is found on page 3 in subparagraph (10) and instead of stating that blanket description of having been convicted of a felony which is punishable by a sentence of a year or more in jail and $5,000 more in a fine, we resorted to the definition that we agreed upon in the Judiciary Committee unanimously, and it is contained in its full glory from lines 12 to 19 on page 3. Chairman DODD. But it does not include any of the offenses that I questioned Commissioner Cohen about. Senator HRUSKA. Well, all I say is the committee agreed unanimously on this. You see, that is a difference. Chairman DODD. That was a parliamentary device to get a bill on the floor of the Senate. I do not think the majority of us agreed with it; but we wanted to get a bill on the floor. Senator HRUSKA. That was a vote on 1592-not on my bill, on 1592. That was the very highly meritorious bill. So I do not think that was a parliamentary device. Chairman DODD. But we were trying to get all kinds of compromises that day to get the bill out. Senator HRUSKA. At any rate, that is the very point made by this Senator not too long ago. You see, here we were talking about a convict or a felon, but if a guy is guilty of perjury and he gets convicted of perjury or planting too much wheat, or something of that kind, and he is sentenced to a year and day in jail, what relationship has that got to the idea of owning firearms? That is why we limited the crimes to those related to crimes of violence. Chairman DODD. I agree with you on that, but S. 1592 describes it as a conviction of a felony. Senator HRUSKA. Exactly, and we amended it in the Judiciary Committee executive session by unanimous vote. Chairman DODD. Yes. I say for tactical reasons. Mr. COHEN. If I may, there are two points that I would like to raise in that regard. One is that the definition of "firearm" within the present framework of 1853 would not include a bomb, a grenade, or a mine. Chairman DODD. Well, that is a good point. Senator HRUSKA. Those are items of great traffic in America. Do you have to have a license to own one of those; and do you pay a tax on a bomb? Mr. COHEN. Under the new bill you would, sir. Senator HRUSKA. Under the present law? Mr. COHEN. Under 1854. Senator HRUSKA. But not under the present National Firearms Act. Senator HRUSKA. So that is why we have to amend it. Mr. COHEN. I am saying your bill, or whatever bill comes out would want to cover those kinds of devices. Chairman DODD. Well, I was just trying to get the record straight so we can make amendments. Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have some responsibility that Mr. Cohen does not share. I have a responsibility as Under Secretary of the Treasury for the apprehension of narcotics pushers and counterfeiters. I would like to assure the committee that these are pretty violent people. I do not know if they would be crimes of violence. However, I hope in whatever definition you come up with you wi!! not forget narcotics pushers and counterfeiters. Mr. COHEN. Nor violators of this very statute. Chairman DODD. I think felony is a better term, conviction of a felony, although Senator Hruska is quite right. Senator HRUSKA. What about some poor postmaster who latches or. to $40, living in the heart of the pheasant country, and he is sentenced to a year and a day, and from there on in he cannot own a gun to shoot those pheasants that almost eat his cornfield bare. That would be a horrible thing. I do not think we want to put up with that. Mr. COHEN. Under the law the Secretary has authority to make exceptions for that type of thing. Senator HRUSKA. No, not on the ownership of guns. Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Senator HRUSKA. Where? Where can a felon buy a gun? Dealers, yes, but not a felon. Mr. COHEN. Section 910 of the present act provides for relief from disability resulting from conviction-it provides for the means of application, and so forth. Senator HRUSKA. For what, for getting a license? Mr. COHEN. For getting a license. Senator HRUSKA. Yes. We are talking about a gun owner, not a licensee. Mr. COHEN. It provides Senator HRUSKA. A gun owner. There is nothing on a gun owner. And that is one of the inconsistencies of S. 1 and Amendment 90. Because in the matter of a license you extend to the man under indictment and all that a lot of privileges that the individual owner of a gun does not have. Mr. COHEN. The legislative history indicates that this was intended to apply both to an individual Senator HRUSKA. You mean the present law? Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Senator HRUSKA. Where does it say that? Mr. COHEN. We can bring you a memorandum on that, sir. I do not have it all with me right now. (The memorandum dated Aug. 3, 1967, was subsequently submitted by Mr. Cohen, marked "Exhibit No. 15," and is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 15 Memorandum Re applicability of section 10 of the Federal Firearms Act 15 U.S.C. 910) Section 10 of the Federal Firearms Act authorizes the Secretary of the Tressury to grant relief, in certain limited situations, from disabilities under the Act incurred by reason of criminal conviction. The question has arisen as to whether eligibility for this relief is limited solely to persons holding or seeking licenses under the Act. The Federal Firearms Act places certain disabilities on persons who have been convicted of a felony. The primary disability is that such person whether a manufacturer, importer, dealer, or private individual cannot ship, transport, or receive firearms (or certain ammunition) in interstate or foreign commerce. This disability is applicable to everyone whether or not engaged in a firearms business. The second and secondary disability (in that it actually results from the first disability) is that a convicted felon cannot obtain a license under the Federal Firearms Act. Obviously, the Government should not issue a license to a convicted felon since such a person is under the law barred from shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms in interstate or foreign commerce and therefore could not carry on the licensed business. The language of the statute does not, in terms, limit the granting of relief to those engaged in a firearms business and who therefore need a license, and it would appear that Congress intended that relief be available not only to such persons but also to private individuals on a showing of proper conditions. Therefore, the question essentially appears to be whether or not the Secretary may properly exercise his discretion of granting relief only in those cases where the person seeking relief intends to engage in a business requiring a license under the Act and has filed an application for such a license. Under such an interpretation, there would be no way in which a convicted felon could legally carry his arms on an interstate hunting trip or move his belongings from one state to another if they included a gun. The legislative history of the statute militates against such a restrictive view of the relief provisions of the Act. The enactment of the legislation in question stemmed primarily from the desire of the Winchester-Western Division of the Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, a major licensed manufacturer, to obtain relief from disabilities incurred by reason of the corporation's conviction for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (fraud in the distribution of drugs in the Far East). The legislation which eventually became section 10 of the Federal Firearms Act was first introduced in the 88th Congress, First Session, as S. 3068. That bill was introduced by Senator Magnuson as Chairman of the Committee on Commerce. S. 3068 would have provided for relief only in the case of a "licensed manaufacturer" and only when the discontinuance of operations by such manufacturer would be likely to impair the national security. S. 3068 passed the Senate but died in the House primarily because of the objections of Congressman Dingell of Michigan. His objections were based on the fact that the exemption was limited to licensed manufacturers whose operations affected the national security. He believed that the exemption should not be so limited. After the 88th Congress adjourned, the proposed legislation was redrafted in a form acceptable to Mr. Dingell and the executive agencies concerned. Congressman Dingell introduced that proposal as H.R. 4000. Upon consideration of H.R. 4000 by the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee determined that the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate should be required to publish grants of relief in the Federal Register. Another bill incorporating the provisions of H.R. 4000 and the publication requirement was introduced as H.R. 9570. That bill became Public Law 89-184 which is section 10 of the present Act. As noted above, the language of section 10 is not in terms limited to cases where a person has filed an application for a license, nor is there any language in the Committee reports or other legislative history of Public Law 89-184 which specifically indicates that it was the intent of Congress that the granting of relief should be limited to those in the firearms business and to deny relief to the individual citizen. The legislative development which culminated in Public Law 9-184 indicates that the broad application was intended. S. 3068 introduced in 1964, authorized granting of relief to "* ** a licensed manufacturer convicted of a crime ***". The bill enacted into law provided that "A person who has been convicted ***" may apply for relief and that the Secretary may grant the relief if certain conditions are met. Senator HRUSKA. What section did you just now read from? Senator HRUSKA. 910? |