it was interpreted as affecting interstate commerce, and would there fore be included within the broader term.

Mr. COHEN. I think that is right, sir. I think there is a memorandur of the General Counsel of the Treasury Department which was sub mitted to this committee earlier which goes into the description of affecting interstate commerce.

at.

Senator KENNEDY. I suppose that is really what you were driving

Mr. COHEN. This is what I am relying on; yes, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Then just a final question, and Senator Kennedy, will you assume the duties of chairman? Senator Dodd had to leave. He gave them to me by default. Let me hand them back to the proper side of the aisle.

As a final question, I have here a little news clipping. It is a littl distressing, and I think the letter upon which it is based is a little dis tressing. It says:

No Gun Law Invites Riots. Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara says Congress is writing an "open and permanent invitation to violence and disorder by failing to pass gun control legislation.”

The implication is, I presume, that if we pass this gun bill, there will be no more riots, no more disturbances, but even without that implication would you have any comment to make on that as to how this could be?

Mr. COHEN. Well, I did state in my testimony yesterday, sir, that every time there was civil unrest our firearms inspection people da report that the acquisition of firearms in that locale and indeed i other locales around the country drastically increases.

Now, the acquisition of such firearms by people who do not normally keep such firearms is a dangerous situation. The more people who acquire them under such stress circumstances, the more likel they are to be used, so that it

Senator HRUSKA. Well, you see, there is supposed to be

Mr. COHEN. The local police, for example, in some of these riot torn areas have noticed a run on firearms in hardware stores, the other gunshops, and some of those firearms purchased under those kinds of conditions are used in the rioting situation.

Now, some of these situations where the States have more stringent controls, guns are acquired by mail order or by acquisition across State lines. As we have indicated any number of times, the bills before you, any one of them, is no definitive answer to that problen Certainly it is a means of making firearms less readily accessible to those elements of our society who want to go out in the heat of passion and buy a gun to commit an act right now.

Senator HRUSKA. A laudable objective and one greatly to be desired. but how will the passage of this law prevent somebody in Cicero, I or in Watts, or near Watts, in Pasadena, or anybody else to go to the store and buy a gun?

Mr. COHEN. In those States which have no controls, or no waiting periods, they may not, but in those States where there are controls, or waiting periods, we want to aid them. We also do not want to say and I do not think we ought to see ads like the "Long Hot Summer" ad that Mr. Barr put in the record yesterday. These sort of things are deplorable.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, will ads like that cease upon the passage of this law?

Mr. COHEN. With the passage of S. 1 or S. 1 with Amendment 90; yes, sir, they would.

Senator HRUSKA. Why would they?

Mr. COHEN. Because it is the acquisition of a mail-order weapon. Senator HRUSKA. Except by mail.

Mr. COHEN. This is a mail-order ad, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Yes, that is mail order, but what about stores, what about stores, store sales? They will still be available.

Mr. COHEN. They may be, but local authorities can take whatever steps they wish to take. This is our federal system, that the local authorities have that right.

Senator HRUSKA. That is right. That is right. And this little letter here says nothing about it. It has the implication that if we pass the legislation, no more riots, no more disturbances.

Mr. COHEN. I do not want to read Mr. McNamara's mind, but the letter does not say that. The letter indicates that it will aid the problem.

Senator HRUSKA. It says that the failure to pass a law is an open and permanent invitation to violence and disorder.

Now, how would the passage of this law have stopped that mob in Watts 2 years ago from busting into those hardware stores and stealing guns? Maybe there is some way. I just raise the point again. Ï raise the point again. But I thought maybe you had some

Mr. COHEN. I can state my position. I think you would have to ask Mr. McNamara about this. But I agree in general that easy access to guns is a contributing factor. It is not the only factor.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, that is fine.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we had a letter from the General Counsel dated July 6 analyzing and commenting on S. 1854. I would like to ask unanimous consent that that be inserted in the record at the appropriate time.

Senator KENNEDY (presiding). Without objection, so ordered.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 17" and will be found at page 1086 in the appendix.)

Senator HRUSKA. As of the moment, that is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to say something as to its substance. It puts S. 1854 in a range and a place where it has a high degree of acceptability in the General Counsel's mind and in his legal judgment subject to some amendments, and I think virtually all of those amendments are negotiable and I think in the main acceptable, so we may make some progress. Mr. COHEN. Well, we would applaud any effort to reach agreements. Senator HRUSKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HART. I enjoyed it. I will read what I missed.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Cohen, for making yourself available and particularly for your very helpful answers in response to many of these questions which have come up. You have shown that you are a master of the legislation, and I think have demonstrated, certainly to me, the thought that went into each of the provisions of this legislation. I want to express my own ap

82-646-67-11

preciation for your appearance here and for your responses to the questions.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you very much, Senator. I want to reiterate Mr. Barr's statement earlier and my own statement earlier that should the committee members or the staff of the committee desire any techn cal aid, I would offer my lawyers to help in the drafting of any pr visions or amendments to the provisions.

Senator KENNEDY. Fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir.

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman?

Senator KENNEDY. Senator Hart.

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, the able junior Senator from Mo tana, Lee Metcalf, had intended, hoped to be here himself this afternoon. A judicial conference in his State requires his presence ther and he has asked me with the leave of the committee to make to the committee the statement he intended to offer on behalf of himself and Senator Metcalf

Senator HRUSKA. Mansfield.

Senator HART. And Senator Mansfield.
The statement is as follows:

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA (AS PRESENTED BY SENATOR HART) Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity on again to express my views on proposals relating to the intersta commerce in sporting firearms. I submitted a statement to this committee in 1965 when it was considering the subject at that time. August 18 of last year, I inserted a statement in the Congressiona Record concerning proposals under consideration at that time. I won like to add that statement to my testimony today. Senator Mansfie has gone over this statement and asked that it also be considered his My views on the misuse of firearms are based on my own understand ing of the problem and the hundreds of suggestions I have received from Montanans for whom I speak. I am sure my experience in th matter is similar to that of other Members of Congress who returne to their respective States after adjournment. I found Montanans co cerned vitally with the kind of firearms legislation that may ultimatel be enacted. As would be expected, their concern ranged over a broz front, extending from the individual right to possess and use firearm for legal purposes of all kinds, including defense of family, home, and property, to the continuance of the very substantial hunting and recreational service industry that the sporting use of firearms supports in Montana. There is concern, too, about the continuation of State wildlife management programs supported entirely by the licen fees paid by hunters by the Federal excise taxes they pay on sporting arms and ammunition. In Montana, as in other States, hunters p the bills for necessary wildlife management and restoration progran as well as maintain the food, transportation, equipment, and all businesses that service their needs. Furthermore, Montanans wa firearms restrictions to apply directly to criminals and the criminally inclined, rather than to the vastly greater number of law-abidin citizens.

I fully share the concerns of Montanans in this regard, Mr. Chairman. As they do, I support corrective amendments to the Federal Firearms Act and to the National Firearms Act that hold promise, with vigorous enforcement, of reducing the criminal misuse of sporting firearms and the so-called destructive devices.

I question whether the existing Federal Firearms Act has been enforced with sufficient vigor, and I believe that many of the abuses the committee now hears about would not have taken place had this been done. Clearly, the Federal Government has been lax in discharging the responsibilities it assumed under that act. Many of the complaints we hear can be attributed to this laxity. Nevertheless, it is clear, as experience has shown, that some additional amendments. would help the States in preventing the interstate acquisition of firearms by persons in violation of State laws or regulations. It is this traffic, the record shows, that contributes largely to the criminal misuse of firearms. It is through this route that many criminals, alcoholics, addicts, and juveniles circumvent State or local restrictions against their acquisition and possession of firearms.

The goal of any legislation that is considered should be to provide the utmost Federal assistance to State and local governments în curbing traffic in concealable weapons that is contrary to State and local law. These are the firearms that figure most prominently in crime. Because of their concealability and lack of bulk, handguns are the firearms favored by criminals and the criminally inclined. They are the firearms most used in premeditated crime. I believe that the flow of pistols and revolvers to certain individuals can be slowed by the enactment of appropriate legislation and by its subsequent vigorous enforcement. All interested persons should realize, however, that it would be unrealistic and inaccurate to assume that any legislation ever would end the misuse of firearms or, for that matter, of narcotics, automobiles, alcohol, or kitchen knives.

Certainly, it is reasonable to expect that any State or local unit of government, experiencing difficulty with the misuse of firearms, should have enacted or should enact laws pertaining to the possession of firearms to meet its own specific purposes. What these units of government need now, because local laws are being circumvented by the out-of-State purchase of firearms, is a relatively uncomplicated and straight forward act to close this loophole.

Senator Mansfield and I believe that this would be done by the enactment of legislation along the lines of that-S. 1853-introduced by the senior Senator from Nebraska-Mr. Hruska. We belive that this proposal closes the loopholes that have been causing the most trouble, makes certain other needed corrections in the Federal Firearms Act, properly establishes restrictions on interstate traffic in the problem handguns, while at the same time assuring the least inconvenience to the millions of citizens who find, I am sure, that legislation of this kind, does have the support of all of the major sporting and shooting organizations as well as of individual sportsmen across the country. Contrary to some of the statements that have appeared in the press, I find that sportsmen do believe that improvements can be made in the Federal Firearms Act. They do believe that some improvements are necessary and that the amendments that would be made by S. 1853 are norkable, realistic, and hold promise of effectiveness. They hold the

promise of helping the State and local governments to enforce laws and regulations that respond to conditions as they exist in various sections of the country.

They do not seek to invoke a broad national ban on firearms. Rather, the recommended amendments recognize that conditions vary widely through the country and that a ban or prohibition that may be desirable in one State or local area may not be in the best interest of another. Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on another legislative matter that has the strong endorsement of sporting groups throughout the country. This is the control of destructive devices, automatic weapons and others that can only be used for war material. From letters I have received and from copies of resolutions that have passed over my desk, there can be no misunderstanding about the desire of all Americans to bring crew-served weapons, and other of the destructive devices, under prompt control.

Unfortunately, some persons prefer to persist in thinking that sportsmen object to such control. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sportsmen want destructive devices controlled, but they want the control to be accomplished by an amendment to the National Firearms Act, the so-called Machinegun Act, rather than through the Federal Firearms Act, which applies solely to sporting firearms. There is a clear distinction between machineguns and weapons of that kind and sporting firearms. Machineguns, handgrenades, and the heavy ordnance of war have a use and a purpose separate and apart from sporting firearms. That is why we have a Federal and National Firearms Act.

Personally, I doubt if we ever will see the day when sportsmen will agree to lumping sporting firearms and destructive devices into the same basic law. I am confident that a destructive device amendment to the National Firearms Act could have been enacted by now had it not been for the ill-advised persistence of some persons to link such weaponry with sporting firearms. Under an agreement discussed May 24 on the Senate floor, S. 1854, a bill to amend the National Firearms Act, has been referred to this committee. This is the first time that the committee has had the opportunity to consider the two facets of this problem together in this manner. Again, Senator Mansfield and I urge that this proposal receive prompt consideration and that destructive devices be included under the National Firearms Act.

I have sought in these brief remarks to show that there is positive support for certain corrective firearms legislation in Montana and throughout the Nation, Mr. Chairman. This support is based on the belief that Federal legislation should assist, rather than usurp, State and local authority to deal with the firearms problem as it may exist. There is no jurisdiction, in my opinion, in attempting to blanket the entire country with restrictive legislation when the criminal misuse of firearms is largely a local or regional problem.

Maximum, but realistic, effort should be made to restrict the interstate traffic in concealable weapons, the kind of firearms that are used most prevalently in the commission of armed crime. Much of the difficulty that has been encountered, especially in the centers of population where armed crime is most prevalent, would be overcome by more vigorous law enforcement and by greater attention in the courts. The failure to provide such enforcement and the laxity of some courts have contributed to the current problem.