Page images
PDF
EPUB

what is the use of passing Federal legislation if New York, with this strong legislation, has been unable really to handicap the criminal. What is your reaction to this?

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Well, first, I think that we have done better than we would have done if the legislation had not been on the books. And, secondly, we would be greatly strengthened if there was Federal legislation dealing with the same problem. We are handicapped in the State and in the city of New York by the fact that there is no federal legislation. So with the passage of Federal legislation, the provisions of this bill would greatly strengthen our position in New York and other States where there are strong gun laws already.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. For example, you border on the State of Vermont where they do not have strong laws, and it would be easy for someone to gain access to these weapons, I suppose. Senator KENNEDY of New York. Acquire them and come across the border.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You have a number of hunters as well in New York, in upper New York State. Has this served as a deterrent to the hunters?

Senator KENNEDY of New York. No; I do not think it has had any effect. In fact, there is a strong law on the books in the State of New York, but it has had no effect on sportsmen within the State of New York, and the Federal legislation would not have an effect on them. So I think the fact that we have been talking about this bill for such a long period of time, it has been discussed, but we continue to have crimes and violence which result from the possession of guns and rifles and we still have not taken action, this is a black mark on our country, and I would hope that we pass this legislation this year. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. As I understand it, you feel this is really minimum legislation.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Yes. Really, I would favor-when I was Attorney General, I favored stronger legislation than this. But as I say, I think it would be satisfactory if this legislation was passed, but I think that it is incredible that after the incidents of violence that have occurred we still have not taken this minimum step.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I want to thank you very much for the helpful testimony and your statement particularly, I think, in light of the experience which you have had as the Attorney General of the country and your interest in this legislation. It is extremely helpful to the members of the committee.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. There being no further witnesses today, the subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock, July 12, in room 318.

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene tomorrow, Wednesday, July 12, 1967, at 10 a.m.)

FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT

WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee (composed of Senators Dodd, Hart, Bayh, Burdick, Tydings, Kennedy of Massachusetts, Hruska, Fong, and Thurmond) met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Dodd and Hruska.

Also present: Carl L. Perian, staff director; Richard W. Velde, minority counsel; Bernard Tannenbaum, special counsel; William C. Mooney, chief investigator; Eugene W. Gleason, editorial director; Peter Freivalds, research director; and Richard C. Sheridan, assistant minority counsel.

Chairman DODD. I will call this session of the subcommittee to order. We are very pleased to have one of our distinguished colleagues, Senator Bourke Hickenlooper, of Iowa, here with us this morning. We all listen whenever he has anything to say, and this occasion is no exception.

We are glad to welcome you, Senator Hickenlooper, and are delighted to have you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, A. U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Senator Dodd.

I appreciate your consideration, and I have a very short statement. here which I hope to amplify later in connection with the consideration of this measure, either here or on the floor of the Senate, but the Foreign Relations Committee is meeting at 10 and is in the middle of marking up the foreign aid bill.

Chairman DODD. I know. I should be there myself, but I cannot do it. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I have asked them to delay action until I can get there this morning because I am kind of between the rock and the hot place on this situation here.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to present my general views on S. 1 and S. 1853, to regulate firearms in interstate and foreign commerce.

In my opinion, S. 1, sponsored by the chairman of this subcommittee, is, in its overall approach, unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome. I have seen nothing since public hearings were initiated on this

82-646-67- -12

question in 1963 to support a total ban on the transportation, shipment, or receipt of all firearms by nonfederally licensed individuals in interstate or foreign commerce. If there is evidence to substantiate the direction taken by S. 1, then the record does not reveal it.

Mr. Chairman, I represent a State where the possession and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens is part and parcel of the everyday life of the people. The ownership of a firearm is a highly valued right for Iowans in all walks of life-city or rural, white collar or blue collar. Millions of persons in this country own firearms of one kind or another. Such ownership covers a multitude of activities in the general areas of target shooting, hunting, collecting, marksmanship training, and personal defense. These persons would consider any unduly restrictive legislation to be violative of their rights as citizens to engage in entirely wholesome and legitimate pursuits.

There is no doubt that the law-abiding owners of firearms, many of them outstanding leaders in their communities, would support any reasonable controls directed against the misuse of firearms by the criminal, the delinquent or any person who is morally and mentally unfit. However, the scope of S. 1 is so all-encompassing that it goes well beyond this purpose and would include in its restrictions and controls the reputable citizen to whom weapons legislation ought not be directed.

The counsel of experience and logic would indicate that even the best drafted firearms legislation would have a limited effect on the criminal and other persons who would use firearms for unlawful purposes.

I think this has been amply demonstrated over the years. The criminal gets guns anyway. He does not get registered guns. He does not get guns that have a record. His effort is, nine times out of 10, to get a gun that has no record, that cannot be traced to anybody. So legislation will not reach that situation.

Now, if that is the case, Mr. Chairman, and everything that I have read, seen and heard supports this view, then we must be extremely careful that in our desire to aid the processes of law and order in this country we do not take the simplistic "blanket" approach as the cureall for the problems posed by firearms and crime.

Discrimination and balance ought to be the hallmark of any legis lation, particularly that which would affect the legitimate activities of millions of individuals throughout the United States. In brief. Mr. Chairman, we should not use a ball bat to kill a fly, nor should we employ a massive retaliatory approach for the solution of a problem which, statistically, forms but a small part of the national crime picture. I might say that these statistics do not differentiate, so far as I know, between legitimately owned and traceable guns with which crimes are committed, and the crimes which are committed with guns that are not traceable at all. And it is my opinion, although I have nothing to base this on from the standpoint of solid statistics, but it is my opinion that the guns that are not traceable are in the overwhelming majority used in the commission of crime.

And if that is the case, and with 20, 30, or 40 million people in this country owning firearms legitimately, and with the small number that are used in an uncontrollable way in the commission of erine. it is like attempting to cure a sore throat by cutting one's head off, because you are putting the whole onus and impact of this legislation

on the innocent and the legitimate owner of firearms, which has been a traditional right in this country ever since the Constitution so recognized it.

Now, there is a reasonable alternative to S. 1. This alternative is S. 1853, introduced recently by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Roman L. Hruska. In my judgment, the Hruska bill would do all that can be reasonably done to control the movement of firearms in interstate and foreign commerce.

In fact, S. 1853 would adequately meet the requirements of additional regulation without unnecessarily infringing upon the right of the private individual to acquire, own, and use firearms for sporting, hobby, training, and defense purposes. The Hruska bill is similar in its framework and thrust to a bill, S. 1965, which I introduced in May 1965. I highly recommend S. 1853 as a viable and acceptable middle ground between too much regulation and too little control.

I am firmly convinced that the interest of the American people would be well served by S. 1853 and that this bill would go far toward fulfilling the requirements for meaningful and effective control of firearms in commerce.

I may supplement what I said, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me for just a moment, by saying that I think it is quite well accepted in this country that there is a basic right of an individual to own an automobile, and true, we license automobiles, yes, but we do not put the ability to own an automobile in the discretionary power of a police sergeant someplace or a Treasury bureaucrat someplace.

We put the restrictions on the use of an automobile based upon the overall good of society, such as the people who are mentally incompetent, who cannot see, who have various disqualifications that are written into the law, and so on. And I think the same thing applies to a firearm.

We did not write into the Constitution of the United States that the right to own horses and buggies, which were the vehicles of those days, should not be infringed. We did not conceive it was necessary. But we did write into the Constitution of the United States that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

So there was special attention given to that in the United States, and it has been the traditional attitude ever since. And when we take that right away, I think it can only be justified when the burden is put on the public, or the public officials, to come up with affirmative reasons why a certain individual is not entitled to have, or capable of using properly, a firearm.

Now, I think-and I will pay my respects to the Sullivan law in New York, which I think is one of the most atrocious laws I know of in this country. I do not think it accomplishes anything except to disarm the public in New York. And I think it approaches the problem from the wrong direction, when a person must pay his, let's say, $20, or whatever he has to pay with his application, his $20 applicaItion fee, and on the whim of some police officer in the precinct, that is turned down for no reason at all except just a whim or caprice of a police officer; and they keep his $20.

To me, it is basically unjust, and it is not a workable provision. I feel quite strongly about this, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps I spoke a Lule too strongly about it here this morning.

Chairman DODD. Oh, no; not at all.

« PreviousContinue »