The statement continued with the charge that the ordinance "has driven a third of Philadelphia's licensed retail firearms dealers out of town or out of business; and the businesses do not cater to the underworld but to sportsmen." To determine the validity of these charges, the Crime Commission made a check of the volume of business done by the major gun dealers in Philadelphia for the years 1964, 1965, and 1966. In 1964 the total volume of business for 15 major gun dealers was $3,364,648.79. In 1965, during which time the gun law was in effect for almost 9 months, the business volume for these same 15 dealers was $3,461,247.66. The tax files are complete through 1966 for 8 of the 15 dealers. They include the largest dealers in Philadelphia. The other 7 dealers have filed returns within the past 30 days, but the returns have not been completely processed by the City's tax department as of this date. Their 1964 volume was $1,545,715.41; for 1965, $1,606,158.70; and for 1966, $1,720,742.80. There are 5 gun dealers in Philadelphia who do the greatest volume of business. The total of their business volume for 1964 was $2,534,848.71 and for 1965, $2,640,541.05. The tax files for 2 of these dealers are complete for 1966. Their 1964 volume for $1,033,713.17; for 1965, $1,099,531.95; and for 1966, $1.225,368.80. Of the 15 major gun dealers in business in 1964 one discontinued business in Philadelphia in 1965 and one in 1966. (Another dealer began business in 1965.) The dealer who left Philadelphia in 1965 had a business volume of $4,767.42 in 1964. The dealer who moved out in 1966 had a business volume in 1964 of $48,391.44 and in 1965, $48,509.84. One of these gun dealers moved his business to the suburbs, primarily because his Philadelphia store was in a high-crime area; and it had been robbed on several occasions. Critics of the Philadelphia law have gone far beyond alleging that the legitimate business of dealing in guns has been destroyed. We are told that the ordinance makes it so difficult for prospective gun purchasers to obtain rifles, shotguns, and hand guns that people are discouraged from seeking licenses. Perhaps the best answer is that, in the two years of experience under the Philadelphia ordinance, 6,890 applications for licenses were filed; and almost 97 per cent of them were approved. A most significant fact relating to the licensing process is that 220 applications were denied in the first two years of the law's life. Our concern for effective law enforcement compels us to pay more attention to license rejections than to license approvals. For those who were denied guns in Philadelphia are the very people who could purchase them in almost every city and state in the nation. Here is the catalog of the 220 to whom Philadelphia said, “We will not allow you to buy a gun in our city." 46 had been previously convicted of burglary 39 previously convicted of aggravated assault and battery 19 had been convicted of carrying concealed and deadly weapons 19 convicted of robbery 33 convicted of previous violations of the Uniform Firearms Act 11 convicted of assault with intent to kill 7 previously convicted rapists 3 had been convicted drug addicts 7 were former mental patients 5 had been convicted of criminal homicide 1 whose permit was denied because he was actually wanted for the commission of a crime The remainder of the 220 were denied permits for a variety of other reasons. Again, the opponents of gun control say that if a criminal cannot buy a gun der the Philadelphia ordinance, he will go somewhere else to make his purchase. It is true that a gun may be obtained from legitimate dealers in the five Counties surrounding Philadelphia. Although these counties were memorialized by the Philadelphia City Council in 1965 to enact similar legislation, they did not do so. But despite the ease of buying a gun in suburban Philadelphia or bowhere, the 220 who were denied permits between April 15, 1965, and the same date in 1967, only seven of them were arrested subsequently for crimes involving the use of guns. Three of them were charged with violating the gun ordinance. The others were arrested for homicide, aggravated assault, assault with intent to kill, and violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. Supporters of gun control have been ridiculed for stating that gun regulation justified if only one life is saved thereby. While no one will ever know the facts, It requires little speculation to conclude that some among the 220 who were denied ermits were prevented thereby from committing further criminal acts. Much has been made in the gun press about the alleged increase in the number of Philadelphia homicides in which guns were involved. The most recent rast ef gun publicity has sought to discredit the data on this subject produced by the Philadelphia Police Department. The figures of the Philadelphia Medical Examiner or Coroner are more reliable, they say; and those figures show that guns are being used in homicide more often now than before the Philadelphia law. Since you have heard, or will be hearing, from a Philadelphia collector of antique guns who is on the staff of the Medical Examiner, I alert you now to the facts. Before a case is classified as a criminal homicide, there must be coûte plete agreement between the Medical Examiner and the Police Department Therefore, a criminal homicide reported by the Police Department is a definitive statistic. The Medical Examiner deals with many other kinds of deaths of a noncriminal character. The Crime Commission has analyzed the total criminal homicides and crin inal homicides by guns for the period 1960 through the first five months of 1967 What is important for our purpose is not the total number of homicides but, rather, those in which guns were involved. In 1965 there were 205 homicides In Philadelphia, the largest number in the period under study. That year saw 43.4 per cent of homicides committed with guns. In 1966 homicides with guns droppi to 38.8 per cent. In the first five months of 1967, homicides with guns are down to 28.7 per cent. Only in 1962 was the percentage of homicides with guns lower than it is today. Any person who purchases a rifle or shotgun outside of Philadelphia and brings it into the city to keep in his home or use for any other purpose is required first to obtain a license. There have been many who tried to evade the law Many have been arrested. In fact, arrests for violation of firearms acts, both state and local, have doubled since the new ordinance went into effect. Serious offenses, including homicides committed with guns, dropped slightly in 1966 compared with 1965. But no one attributed this to the Philadelphia g ordinance. Nor can anyone say that there would have been more criminal acts with guns had there been no local gun control law. It must be remembered that no one has yet found a way of statistically measuring criminal intent in the absence of criminal offense. I have just returned from a brief visit to Amsterdam, Paris, and London Plice officials in those countries were exceedingly helpful in preparing data flecting the nature and extent of gun control laws in Holland, France, and England. The Philadelphia ordinance, described by the National Rifle Association a the harshest gun law in the nation, represents the most inadequate kind of control when compared to the established laws and regulations in those thre countries. In Holland I met with First Chief Inspector F. W. Perrels and Chief Inspect; ~ L. Bakker, who are responsible for administrating gun control laws in Amster dam. While the earliest Dutch gun control law dates from 1890, the national firearms laws came in 1919 as a result of the Dutch experience during World War I. In 1919 the Dutch government forbade the manufacture, purchase, ownership, and use of all shoulder and hand guns and initiated rigid control over the importation of all such guns. Hunters and gun-club members may be licensed to use guns and may have them in their possession only to or from hunting and gun club activities. For the hunters and gun-club members, the pur hae of a new gun requires the obtaining of a new and separate license. Even to sell or make a gift of a gun requires a license. A gun license is valid for ore year only and must be renewed each year. If a licensee moves from one city to another, he must reapply for his license. One of the prime arguments of those who oppose gun control legislation in the United States is that licensing and registration of guns are evil because in invading army will know precisely where to find all of the guns owned by the defending Americans. I mentioned this argument, used by the gun crowd t Philadelphia, to my Dutch police friends. Holland had experienced the plight -* foreign invasion in our lifetime. They smiled and said that the possession of a gun by a Dutchman during invasion meant instant death and reprisals against hundreds of those who did not own guns. The ownership of guns, they said does little or nothing to help resistance. The Dutch government rigidly controls the importation of firearms. F when guns are in transit through Holland to another country, control is evi” cised. Holland reports that so few crimes are committed with guns that start tical data of this nature is rarely maintained. As of 1958, all previously owned firearms were required to be surrendered by their owners to the French government. Under the 1958 law, no one is allowed to own long barreled revolvers or rifles or to buy or sell them unless he is a police officer, a public-service officer who handles funds, or a member of the military. Ownership of weapons is not considered a right but a privilege granted at the discretion of the government, as I was informed by M. Jean Confida, Sous Prefet of the Cabinet of Police in Paris, who administers the gun control laws. There is no such thing as the mail-order purchase of firearms without a government permit. Hunters are allowed to purchase shotguns; but they must be legitimate hunters, certified as such in the communities in which they live. In all of Paris and its suburbs, with a total population of more than 5 million people, only 700 permits were issued to purchase so-called "special purpose" defense weapons of a kind that are not totally prohibited. The French procedure for securing permits is very much like that in Philadelphia, with absolute discretion vested in the police. As with other European nations, the French government, through its War and Home Office, maintains a total and absolute control over the manufacture, import, export, and dealing in all firearms. It is interesting to note that in Paris there were only 76 homicides and attempted homicides involving firearms in 1966; in 1966 it was 77; in 1964 it was 76; in 1963 it was 100; and in 1962, at the time of the Algerian crisis, it was 145. Offenses including robbery, illegal trading or owning firearms, and carrying firearms are equally rare offenses in France. Firearms in France are the proper subject of absolute governmental control. In England, Scotland, and Wales, the Firearms Acts of 1937, 1962, and 1965 currently are undergoing consolidation and strengthening. All automatic and rifled guns are under strict control, and firearms certificates for their use are issued by police only for very restricted puposes. Certificates are not issued generally for protection of person or property. Smooth-bore guns, such as shotguns, are soon to be licensed, as well. The government may declare any type of weapon "especially dangerous" in order to bring it under control, and while this has not yet been done, statements in Parliament indicate that even air weapons will fall into this category. Six times since 1933 the English government has declared an amnesty for the owners of firearms who surrendered them because they were held without permits. Three of these occurred in 1946 when 76,000 guns were surrendered to the government; in 1961 when 70,000 were given up; and in 1965 when 40,660 guns were turned over. A future amnesty for shotgun owners undoubtedly will be announced when shotgun certificates become the law. In England, there is an index maintained by the police of all firearms certificate holders. The index contains the serial number of all weapons. There is also an index of lost or stolen firearms. As of December 31, 1966, in all of vast London and its suburbs, there were only 15,584 certificate holders. Virtually all of them were confined to shooting-club members and sportsmen. Firearms in England were used in only 3.1 per cent of the 9,201 robberies and offenses against the person in 1966 and but 3.4 per cent of the 7,980 similar offenses in 1965. Along with total control over the importation of firearms in England, the very rigid certification requirements for the ownership of guns would make impossible the acquisition of foreign firearms surplus by the British population. In Holland, France, and England where I raised the question, I was told that the importation of foreign-made surplus firearms and their distribution to any category of citizens, as in the United States, would be unthinkable. While in Paris and London, police officials supplied me with the statutes and the government regulations for the purchase, ownership, and transfer of firearms. For the convenience of this Committee and should they be of special interest to you, I shall be happy to make them available or, at least, to provide you with the citations. If we can learn anything from the control over firearms exercised in Holland, France, and England, it is that the legislation you are considering, the Amendment to Senate 1, Senate 1853, and Senate 1854, continue to acknowledge that some segments of the American community have an absolute right to buy and use guns. The people of Philadelphia do not believe this is so. We have expressed our feelings in a modest, local ordinance that treats all firearms as dangerous weapons, justifying the licensing of those who would buy and use them. Senate 1 Amendment, I believe, is much more realistic in its attempt to provide some controls. But even it is hardly sufficient. We shall not have effective regulation of deadly weapons unless and until Congress paves the way with successive, strong laws. Only then will states follow the example you set. Only then will cities be encouraged to fight back as Philadelphia did against those who believe that every citizen should be armed. Chairman DODD. Well, thank you, Mr. Gomberg. That is a very great contribution to the hearing on this important matter. Senator Thurmond, as you may have noticed, had to leave for another meeting. He asked me to ask you this question. He left a note with me. On page 5 you refer to statistical data in Philadelphia. I thinkin any event, he asked, have you such data, can you supply it for the record? Mr. GOMBERG. The statement, Mr. Chairman, contains an abstract of it. We will be happy to supply the data on which the statement is based. Chairman DODD. Very good. I am sure that will be helpful. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 38" and is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 38 CRIME COMMISSION OF PHILADELPHIA-PERCENT OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDES BY GUN TO TOTAL Chairman DODD. You have discussed the possible effect of this Philadelphia ordinance on crime in that city and the fact that opponents of the ordinance point to the continued high incidence of gun crimes. Well, let me ask you, was any effort made by the Philadelphia Police Department to trace the weapons involved to determine where or when they were actually purchased? Mr. GOMBERG. There is no record in the Philadelphia Police Department Chairman DODD. Let me clear up what I am getting at. You pointed out you have had this ordinance for at least 2 years. Mr. GOMBERG. That's right. Chairman DODD. There must have been tens of thousands of guns already in the city when the ordinance was passed. It seems to me the most significant thing about this is that there has been a dramatic drop in gun crimes since the law was passed despite the fact there must have been a lot of guns in the city before it was passed; is that right? Mr. GOMBERG. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but nonetheless it hardly justifies a claim that there is a direct scientific correlation between the gun law and the drop in the incidence of guns used in serious crimes. Chairman DODD. That's my point. My point is that there has been a decrease. Mr. GOMBERG. There has been a decrease in the number of crimes involving guns. Chairman DODD. I think that is the significant fact and the critics seem to go by that altogether, or at least those with whom I am familiar. I notice, also, in your statement, on page 4, you say that opponents of a gun control law, demand proof that the passage of the legislation will reduce crime. Well, we have had that same experience in these hearings. But even when we supply what I think has been overwhelming proof of the usefulness of strict ordinances or gun laws, gun enthusiasts simply refuse to acknowledge it or believe the statistics or the facts. They just laugh at it and refer to it one way or the other to try to limit the impact that the figures and facts will have on the public generally. I assume that is what you are talking about. You must have had a similar experience. Mr. GOMBERG. We have had it from the moment that anyone spoke of gun regulation. Statistics were unimportant, and controls involving rifles or shotguns were totally anathema. Chairman DODD. Yes; that seems to be a chronic problem. I was interested particularly in your statement that some people have tried to evade your local law, and that since it was passed you have had a number of arrests for violation of the firearms law. Could you give us a general idea of the type of persons who have attempted to evade the Philadelphia ordinance? Mr. GOMBERG. Very often individuals with criminal records. Philadelphia runs about 500 arrests a year for violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. With the introduction of the Philadelphia ordinance, the number jumped to 1,000 in 1965 and 1,200 in 1966; the difference consisting almost entirely of those who sought to evade the local law. Chairman DODD. An important part of your testimony for this record, I am sure, is that part which dealt with the 220 applicants, I believe that was the figure, who were denied permits; and you spell it out clearly. But you said that some 30 were denied permits for, I believe it was, a variety of other reasons. I think it would be helpful for the record if you give us some idea what you meant by that. Mr. GOMBERG. Yes, I will be happy to. I have it right here. Chairman DODD. A brief explanation. Mr. GOMBERG. It includes these are the ones that I did not spell out. One who had previously been convicted of acquiring a stolen gun; two who would not sign their applications; one who was considered too old to risk carrying a gun; one who had been convicted Chairman DODD. How old was he? Mr. GOMBERG. I don't have the facts in front of me. He is just classified as too old to carry a gun. One who was convicted of making threats against another person; two who were noncitizens of the United States: and two who are classified as having had in the past just Too many arrests. That I think with three habitual drunks brings you to the total of 220. Chairman DonD. That's it. Well, I am glad you spelled it all out so we will have it all in the record. I notice that you also told us that the issue in Philadelphia was not on the question of firearms control but on whether rifies and shotguns 82-646-67-24 |