Senator HRUSKA. I reserve the right to make a modification of that. Mr. Chairman I would have no objection to putting the list in, but it would not count for much. It would not indicate the type of guns they handle, nor would such a list indicate the number or the extent of the selection from well-known brands that would be in demand. It might lead to the wrong conclusion.

It might lead people reading the record to believe they can buy all models of guns from these people within the State, whereas they would not be available. Would there be some way we could write to them and ascertain what stocks they carry in each of these stores, and indicate that there are Brownings, that there are Winchesters, that there are other popular guns, as well as guns of limited popularity, but guns that are in demand?

Chairman DODD. Why not do both?

Senator KENNEDY. I see no reason we cannot. It is self-evident, and I would expect that if these stores, Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck, have these outlets, and this legislation passes, then with the demand which would be built up, I am sure, Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck would necessarily take the appropriate actions to have in their inventory the kinds of weapons for which there is demand. I do think it is important that we have this kind of information in the record, so that the members have before them, the members of this committee in the Senate do have an idea that Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck do provide outlets, do have stores in what might be considered in the less populated areas of the country.

(The lists referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 77" and are as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 77

Number of Sears locations in each State where a customer can order and pick up a firearm from a Sears catalog

Senator HRUSKA. I think it is a helpful item of information. But, of course, many of these guns are sold by franchised dealers. In fact one of the objections to the bill, as the Senator will recall, that it estab lishes a monopoly. It is fine for Sears, and for Montgomery Ward. That is fine. They have 49 States in which they have outlets. A lesser mail-order house, or even a man who is in an individual business of mail order does not get that chance. He does not get that chance, and therein lies the danger of monopoly. The law says, this is a channeling of the firearms into the hands of licensed dealers and not all licensei dealers can get all the brands because many are franchised.

For the big guy, it is wonderful. But we have a lot of little people in Nebraska and all over the West. And I kind of like to favor the little people a bit. We have no factories for making guns. I understand that both the State of the Senator from Massachusetts and the State of the Senator from Connecticut, are blessed by having large factories that make them. I wish we had some in Nebraska, but we do not.

It must be added, Mr. Chairman, that we are assuming that intrastate mail-order sales could be made under S. 1 Amendment 90. This I realize is a very dangerous assumption to make.

Senator KENNEDY. We cannot have it both ways, can we? Earlier we had testimony this morning that by passing this restrictive legis

lation this is going to cut back on the number of gun users, and, therefore, this will adversely affect us up in Massachusetts and Connecticut. So, you cannot have it both ways, can we? We cannot say, by passing the legislation we are going to restrict it and, therefore, lessen the kind of production and job opportunities in Massachusetts, because the legislation is restrictive, and on the other hand say we are going to have a boom or benefit up there because it provides the kind of exclusive kind of dealership.

Senator HRUSKA. I did not say a boom. If you fellows are going to make it tough we will have to build our own factories.

Chairman DODD. Maybe this is a good place to have the statements for that. The firearms industry in my own State is not happy about the legislation I have introduced and perhaps the same is true in Massachusetts.

Senator KENNEDY. I also in this point of the record, since we are going to admit the list of dealerships, would also include the numbers of certified licensed dealers which have been made available, and I think this is helpful as well. You find out in Colorado, for example, you have 1,795 licensed dealers. In the State of Nebraska, 1,546. I would' like to, if I could-this is a short list of 13 States-get some idea of the number of licensed dealers according to the Internal Revenue Service. Senator HRUSKA. The names of the States and number of dealers in each State? You do not want to put their names and addresses in? Senator KENNEDY. Just the number of licensed dealers.

Senator HRUSKA. No objection.

Chairman DODD. So ordered.

(The information referred to and supplied by the Treasury Department was marked "Exhibit No. 78" and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 78

Recapitulation by States of Federal Firearms Act licenses applied for and issued

Mr. FOOTE. I do want to emphasize again, and I did not state it because it was part of the resolution, but the interntional association does favor legislation along the lines that would selectively limit the acquisition of firearms by felons, juveniles, or incompetents, whatever form that may necessarily take. There was an act in the last session along these lines and there would be no opposition to this for such legislation. Senator KENNEDY. If it was mail order?

Mr. FOOTE. We believe that unreasonable and an unnecessary restri tion. This is where we differ and where we draw the line.

Senator KENNEDY. If it is going into the hands of incompetents or juveniles?

Mr. FOOTE. No; not necessarily, not at all.

Chairman DODD. What is unreasonable about putting some control over mail-order sales of dangerous firearms?

Mr. FOOTE. What is unreasonable about it?

Chairman DoDD. What is unreasonable about it? How can you say it is unreasonable?

Mr. FOOTE. To this extent. The man who wishes to obtain a firearm to commit a crime, we substantially believe he is going to obtain that firearm through any one of the numerous, illegitimate, unlawful channels.

Chairman DODD. Is it unreasonable to make it more difficult for him to buy one?

Mr. FOOTE. Here again is where we differ. We don't think this will significantly make it more difficult.

Chairman DODD. That is a matter of judgment. When you say it is unreasonable, this is something else, it seems to me.

Senator KENNEDY. Would you use the same logic with regard to the acquisition of heroin or dope when you say someone is going to go out and try to acquire dope or heroin anyway; therefore, why have any legislation on that?

Mr. FooTE. There has been considerable debate on the narcotics subject, of going to the British system. Senator Kennedy, I am not an expert in that field nor have any experience.

Chairman DODD. You do not have to be to answer that question. The Senator asked a very simple question. He did not ask you to be an expert. There is such a thing as traffic in narcotics.

Mr. FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Chairman DODD. And the British experiment by the way, has been disastrous.

Mr. FOOTE. I didn't mean to say I was in favor of it. I frankly would not feel competent to answer the Senator's question.

Senator KENNEDY. You are from Nebraska.

Does the State of Nebraska have a State liquor law-any restrictions on the purchase of liquor?

Mr. FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. Does that make it more or less difficult for people to acquire liquor in the State of Nebraska?

Mr. FOOTE. Very slightly more difficult, in my opinion.

Senator KENNEDY. Nonetheless, why does not the argument follow that if they are going to get liquor anyway, therefore, why should you have any law restricting it?

Mr. FOOTE. One of the reasons in the law is important-liquor is revenue to the State of Nebraska. There is an attempt to keep liquor

from the hands of juveniles. I said an attempt. It is a constant problem, as it is in most States.

Senator KENNEDY. But if a juvenile really wants it he can get it, he can get his hands on it in the State of Nebraska-it is more difficult for him.

Mr. FOOTE. It makes it slightly more difficult, especially when surrounding our State we have States that sell and we require 21.

Senator KENNEDY. As I understand the purpose of this legislation, it is to make it as least slightly more difficult for juveniles, criminals to acquire firearms.

Senator HRUSKA. There is such a law in Nebraska now. A man under 18, he may not have a gun unless he is in proximity to his parents.

Mr. FOOTE. A handgun. Or as a member of the Armed Forces, as are some at 17.

Chairman DODD. In the great State of Nebraska you can get a gun through the mail-order route.

Mr. FOOTE. This is a problem all over the country. There is no question about it. Many States do. Where you have got this traffic by the mail-order route your people do not even know-a person could get it in Chicago via the mail-order route.

Senator HRUSKA. However, we could not do it under the Hruska bill. That is the one the witness testified his association supports.

Chairman DODD. I am not so sure. We found, and I am sure you will confirm that reputable mail-order houses have sold many weapons to hardened criminals around the country. This is one of the basic reasons for trying to get some control over this mail-order traffic.

Mr. FOOTE. Senator Dodd, with an affidavit and waiting procedures, I think a great deal of those problems that you just mentioned could be alleviated. No law is going to be perfect; we all know that. Chairman DODD. We know that. I wanted to get that cleared up. You feel, I take it, that there is a need for some control of the mailorder traffic?

Mr. FOOTE. In the handgun field.

Chairman DODD. Not in the long gun?

Mr. FOOTE. We don't think it is significant in long guns.

Chairman DODD. That is a matter of argument. I take it that it is serious when 30 percent, approximately that number of murders are committed with long guns. I know there are those who minimize that and say it is only 20 or 25 percent. It is rising all the time. I have no doubts that before many a day Congress will be back at it and amending the law to put in the long guns because I am satisfied that there are criminals who will resort to the long guns, if they cannot get their hands on the handguns. I say that we should include long guns right now. These are the steps we ought to reasonably take. It would save a lot of lives that way, a lot of trouble in this country.

Senator HRUSKA. I would not want the record to stand without clarification of that statement. That might be used for a basis for concluding that those who are opposed to extension of this affidavit procedure to long guns are minimizing 25 percent of the crimes which are committed with long guns. That is not the point.

Chairman Dopp. I'm not suggesting this.

Senator HRUSKA. The statement is "some people say it is only 25 percent." I am one of those who say so. But I also say that the long