ready to give prompt attention and study to any such measure submitted. The Dodd-Administration bills do not, in my opinion, fall into this category. They are bills which reflect the fear and antagonism of people who have little or no ac quaintance with guns and are consequently suspicious of those who do.

Mr. Chairman, firearms are familiar items to me. They are not things which belong to an alien and hostile world. They constitute a part of my life and that of my sons. When I agreed to sponsor S. 14 in 1965 I did so because I wanted to see and end to the irresponsible practices of certain mail order gun deals. But I was. and remain, stringently opposed to curbs so severe that they place unwarranted burdens on the law-abiding citizens, and go far beyond what is necessary or what, under a true Federal system, is possible.

(Short recess.)

Senator KENNEDY. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our next witness is Congressman Saylor representing the d District of Pennsylvania.

Congressman?

Mr. SAYLOR. Good afternoon, Senator.

Senator KENNEDY. The Congressman was elected in the 81st Con gress and has been reelected to each succeeding Congress. We are delighted to have you over here.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SAYLOR, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 22D DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you. It is always a pleasure to come over t this side of the Capitol to talk to these men who are making legis lation on this side of Capitol Hill.

For the record, it has been known for a number of years that I have opposed this type of legislation being considered by this committee for a number of reasons, the principle one of which is my belief that this legislation is based upon the assumptions that guns commit crime and, therefore, if you can control guns you can control crimes.

Very frankly, guns do not commit crimes; people commit crimes. And if this committee wants to carry itself to the logical conclusion to get rid of crimes of violence, then we had better broaden all of the bills that have been introduced and we should begin to take care of al knives and make those illegal. Since we have had a number of women who have been strangled up in Massachusetts by silk stockings, and the police have not been able to find the culprit, we should probably decide that the use of silk stockings is illegal. Of course, you might find that the women of this country have something to say about this, and they would object to it. You might find out that we should get rid of all ropes and all other things of that nature.

Now, one of the reasons that I tell the members of this committee that legislation of this sort is not necessary grows out of several experiences that I have personally had here in the District of Columbia.

Some years ago after a hunting season I sent a gun which I had purchased in Pennsylvania back to the factory. I told the Railway Express Co., told them I had a gun that I wanted them to pick up and to send to the factory. I wrote a letter to the factory and told them the gun was on its way. I had no difficulty with the local police in having the Railway Express Co. pick up my gun.

They hauled it to Connecticut. Several weeks later I received a bill, or a letter telling me that the gun had been repaired and sent me a bill for the charges, and the gun would be returned by Railway Express.

Now, it just so happens that I got a call from the people of the Railway Express who told me that if I would come down to the Railway Express office and fill out a number of forms which the Chief of Police of the District of Columbia had for me, that they would be very happy to return my gun.

I had not practiced law since I came to Congress in 1949, but I called the Library of Congress and asked them to get out the books over there that had to do with the laws Congress had passed affecting the transportation of firearms. I went over, and I read them, and I found nothing that Congress had passed which would authorize the Railway Express Co. to touch my gun or not to return it.

I called the Corporation Counsel the next day to find out whether or not I had missed anything and was told that I had not, and found out that there was absolutely nothing that would prevent my gun being returned except that the local Chief of Police had an arrangement with the Railway Express Co. that certain forms which he had would have to be filled out.

Now, I was very interested, and I think you foiks in Massachusetts would be interested in knowing that if I would have sent it by Mr. O'Brien's Post Office Department I would have had no difficulty at all. They would have returned my gun.

Finding out that I could not get it back, with the Railway Express Co. refused to send it, I notified the president of the Railway Express Co. that unless he returned my gun I would institute suit in the Federal court for the return of the gun. Very promptly the gun was returned. Now, this is not an isolated instance. Mr. Goodling, who is a lifelong friend of mine, has had the same experience, and a number of other people who have sent guns which they purchased that have never been used for an illegal act have had the same experience.

Now, Philadelphia gained some fame some years ago because after the unfortunate event which occurred down in Texas they passed an ordinance, and that ordinance was supposed to be the model for all communities to have.

Well, very frankly, that piece of legislation has proved most unsatisfactory. It has not caused crime in the city of Philadelphia to be reduced. In fact, the police department of the city of Philadelphia tells me that the crime rate is aboute the same and in some cases even a little more. So that with all of the things that they have done in Philadelphia they have not stopped crime.

Now, it is rather interesting to note that this same pattern continues to try and legislate firearms every time there is a national tragedy, and I am afraid that that is one of the things that is in back of the movement as far as this legislation is concerned. And I would hope that if this committee would report out any legislation at all, that they would limit it to that kind of firearms which are not used or cannot be used by the average citizen of this country for his own personal enjoyment as far as shooting and as far as hunting is concerned.

Now, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation-another reason I oppose this legislation is that the U.S. Army has done some research in these fields, and the Army has made some remarkable discoveries in their research.

First, they have discovered that the man who comes into the Army who has been taught to use a rifle or a shotgun by his parents when

he is smaller makes a better marksman on the average than one who is not. And having followed that up, the Army asked one of the universities to do a little further study. And they have discovered that a man who has been trained in the use of firearms before he comes to the military makes a far better soldier.

Now, if these are the results of investigation which have been done by the Department of Defense, then legislation such as has been proposed before this committee will have not only the effect of limiting citizens the right to own and to handle firearms, but it will also have a direct effect upon the young men that we are calling into the military service. And I for one would like to see to it that this legisla tion would not be reported by this committee.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Congressman. I appre ciate your coming over and testifying this afternoon.

Our next witness will be the junior Senator from the State of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify today on a matter of deep national interest. Regulation of the sale of firearms is, in my judgment, essential for the safety and welfare of the American people.

Every year, thousands of Americans are killed by firearms-17,700 in 1965 alone. There were 5,600 murders, 9,900 suicides, and 2.200 fatal accidents involving firearms. In addition, 34,700 aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.

The great majority of these deaths and crimes would not have occurred if firearms had not been readily available. For the evidence is clear that the availability of firearms is itself a major factor in these deaths.

One out of every 20 assaults with a weapon in the United States in 1965 resulted in death. Where firearms were used, however, almost one out of every five assaults resulted in the death of the victim.

Of the 278 law-enforcement officers who were killed by criminals from 1960 through 1965, 268-96 percent-were killed by firearms. Of the weapon users responsible for these deaths, 76 percent had been convicted of crimes before acquiring the murder weapon.

This bill the administration bill which is amendment No. 90 to S. 1-would meet the firearms problem in a moderate and in a careful fashion.

It would restrict the interstate shipment of firearms to shipments to manufacturers, dealers, and importers, thus eliminating the present flow of 1 million inexpensive mail-order weapons annually. Many of these guns go to juveniles, persons with criminal records, and emotionally unstable persons.

It would prohibit the retail sale of all firearms to youths, and the sale of handguns to persons not resident in the State of purchasethus helping States to enforce their own firearms regulations.

It would sharply curtail the importation of foreign military surplus weapons, which account for the bulk of the cheap mail-order

trade, and the bulk of the large-caliber weapons sold in the United States.

Basically, this bill would subject deadly weapons to a lesser control than we have always imposed on automobiles, liquor, or even prescription drugs. The use and sale of these things are carefully regulated by Federal, State and local government. The same should be true of firearms.

The administration bill would impose necessary controls. It would make State and local law enforcement more effective, and safeguard policemen in the exercise of their duties. And it would accomplish these ends without unduly curtailing the use of firearms for legitimate shooting or hunting, and without curtailing the lawful activity of sport gun clubs.

Let me underscore these points. No adult-I repeat, no adultwould be prevented from purchasing a rifle or shotgun within the State of his residence, or any other State, provided both States permitted the purchase. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for me to understand why so much controversy continues to plague this moderate and reasonable proposal.

What the curbs on interstate transactions would do is facilitate local firearms regulation where it is needed-in relation to convicted criminals, mental incompetents, juveniles, habitual drunkards, and drug addicts. Some States and localities with the best regulatory intentions are frustrated by the ease with which would-be criminals can obtain guns from the outside. One State with strong gun laws reports, for example, that 87 percent of concealable firearms used to commit crimes in recent years came from the outside. And other States, I am afraid, have relied on the lack of interstate controls to excuse their failure to enact local controls, saying, in effect, "What's the use?"

It is clear, too, that more effective firearms regulation is related to the incidence of crime involving such weapons. The President's Crime Commission tells us, for example, that in Phoenix, where firearms regulation is relatively weak, 65.9 percent of homicides were committed with these weapons, whereas in Chicago, where regulation is more strict, the figure was 46.4 percent, and in New York City, with the strongest gun controls of any major city, the figure was only 25 percent. And, as I have indicated, the facts show that assaults committed without firearms result in death far less often.

I repeat again-this bill inconveniences no legitimate sportsman. He may buy his rifle or shotgun either in his own State, or in person in another State, as long as he complies with the State law. I do not think that is a serious inconvenience. Indeed, I do not believe it is an inconvenience at all.

Nevertheless, the Nation, Congress, and sportsmen have been subjected to a massive publicity campaign against this bill. This campaign has distorted the facts of the bill and misled thousands of our citizens. Those responsible for this campaign place their own minimal inconvenience above the lives of the many thousands of Americans who die each year as the victims of unrestricted traffic in firearms. The campaign is doing the Nation a great disservice.

And in recent weeks, the campaign has taken a new and more virtriolic turn. Opponents of the legislation have suggested the need for

people to arm themselves against civil disorder--an inflammatory invitation to help break down law and order-and have implied that enactment of the bill would stop this "essential" process from taking place. The premise is destructive and the conclusions irrational. Rational debate. Mr. Chairman, would help to clear the air. I hope that all sides can engage in it.

The national interest will be served by the speedy enactment of the administration bill. I support every one of its provisions.

The time for enactment of this badly needed legislation is now, before one more senseless death occurs with a cheap mail-order weapon.

During its deliberations, I would also urge the subcommittee to consider ways by which the private arsenals of secret groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the R.A.M., and the so-called Minutemen-could be curtailed and eliminated. At a minimum, all weapons in the posses sion of these organizations or members of these organizations should be registered. Further, all large-caliber heavy weapons should be removed from private hands. Private citizens have no need for antitank guns, mortars, or for machineguns.

And I would also urge all citizens, and all State and local authori ties, to take every appropriate step to control the sale and possession of firearms in their own communities. Without that action, this bill will not be nearly as effective as it should be.

We have a responsibility to the victims of crime and violence. It is a responsibility to think not only of our own convenience but of the tragedy of sudden death. It is a responsibility to put away childish things-to make the possession and use of firearms a matter undertaken only by serious people who will use them with the restraint and maturity that their dangerous nature deserves--and demands.

For too long, we have dealt with these deadly weapons as if they were harmless toys. Yet their very presence, the ease of their acquisition, and the familiarity of their appearance have led to thousands of deaths each year-and to countless other crimes of violence as well. With the passage of this bill, we will begin to meet these responsibilities. It is a necessary bill, and I urge its immediate enactment. It would save hundreds of lives in this country and spare thousands of families all across the land the grief and heartbreak that may come from the loss of a husband, a son, a brother, or a friend.

It is past time that we wipe out this stain of violence from our land. Senator KENNEDY of Masachusetts. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.

Of course, when you served as Attorney General I know that you were deeply interested in the problems of crime throughout our country and certainly in the major urban areas.

Is one of the reasons that you support this legislation a belief that it will help to control crime in this country?

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Yes, it is one of the major reasons, one of them.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You have, also, in your own State of New York, perhaps the strongest law in the country, the Sullivan law, and yet there are those that have suggested that even in New York you have not been able to stop all crime, and therefore