Page images
PDF
EPUB

Chairman DODD. I assure you of that, Senator.

Senator KENNEDY. You support the Hruska proposal, is that correct! Mr. GUTERMUTH. Yes.

Senator KENNEDY. Now, if it were the judgment of this committee to extend coverage for not only handguns or long guns but to all. would you also support the Hruska approach with regard to the affi davit provisions for long guns.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. No, I don't believe that-I was in Montana, Senator Kennedy, and I could not be here with Mr. Kimball of the National Wildlife Federation, with whom we work very closely and who is ore of my best friends. Í noticed that he supported an affidavit procedure on long guns.

Senator HRUSKA. He preferred one. He said he would go along with one or the other.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Yes, he said he would prefer one or the other. And I believe in answer to your question that we are going to find very strenuous opposition across this country to any kind of restric tions on the sale of long guns, such as an affidavit procedure. And I just don't believe that the people across the country are prepared for this yet.

If there can be a showing made which is much better than has ever been presented, to my knowledge, that the long gun is truly used in a significant amount of crime in this country, then I believe that maybe the general public, law-abiding citizens across this country would be willing to subject themselves to inconvenience to overcome this. But I don't believe that the sportsmen of this country, the millions of people who are using long guns for legitimate, wholesome outdoor recreational purposes will put up with the enactment of that kind of leg-lation at this time.

You know, Senator Dodd, in your statements that I listened to ir the colloquy yesterday about the gun being used to kill-I am getting to be an old man, and I have owned guns since I was a small childChairman DODD. What I think I actually said was to put a buller into something.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Yes. I am going to say that there have been rare cases throughout my lifetime where this gun has been used to kill. This gun has been used for recreation purposes, for target shooting, skeet shooting, and that sort of thing.

Chairman DODD. That was not my point. You have been a patien witness. I do not want to detain you. Just this last question.

I get the impression from what you said that you think that the enactment of 1853 and 1854 would significantly reduce the misuse of firearms provided the laws that were passed were vigorously enforced.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. No, I would never admit to that kind of assump tion, not at all. I am supporting these two measures in the hope that they might possibly help this crime situation up to a certain point, but I am like most of the witnesses that are testifying here—

Chairman DODD. Do you have any doubt about the effect of thee bills?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right, I do not believe that this is going to have any material effect at all in taking the firearm, the concealalis weapon that is doing most of the damage, out of the hands of eru inals in this country who are using it improperly. I simply do not

think this. I am supporting these measures only because I am in hopes that they might help some.

Chairman DODD. That is your only reason for supporting it?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is my only reason; yes, sir. I think we are imposing by these measures restrictions upon people in the hope that we can do something, and I sincerely hope that, too, along with others. Chairman DODD. I am not sure I quite understand, but I will not press it further. I thought you were for 1853 and 1854.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I am, yes.

Chairman DODD. But you do not think they will really do anything significant about the misuse of firearms?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. No, I do not think that this is going to stop the criminal element at all.

Chairman DODD. Would you prefer not to have any legislation? Mr. GUTERMUTH. No, I think we have reached a point in this country where we are going to have a lot of people that additional laws and regulations are going to be necessary for. Perhaps this will satisfy some people. I do not know. But when you asked me whether I think this is going to have a significant influence on crime in this country, I do not think it will.

Chairman DODD. So your real reasoning, then, I take it, is it will more or less satisfy the majority of people who think it will help Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right.

Chairman DODD. Have an effect on the criminal.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I would not say the majority. I mean a lot of people, yes.

Chairman DODD. Well, that is a reason. Thank you very much. Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Jackson, we are glad to welcome you.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DODD. Mr. Jackson is here representing the American Society of Arms Collectors, the Texas Gun Collectors Association, and the Ark-La-Tex Gun Collectors Association.

Mr. Jackson has been operating his own antique gun business in Dallas for 18 years, I believe.

He is the past president of the Texas Gun Collectors Association and a past director of the American Society of Arms Collectors.

I hope I have not left anything out. I think I am accurate about that. We are glad to have you.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DODD. I may have to excuse myself. I do not want you to feel there is any disconcern on my part. It is a necessary absence because of a commitment which I made earlier which I have to keep. So when I go out you will understand why.

STATEMENT OF LEON C. JACKSON, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ARMS COLLECTORS, THE TEXAS GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, AND THE ARK-LA-TEX GUN COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

In view of the fact that the Senator has introduced me, I would like to skip down to the last paragraph of page 1 rather than reciting who I am and where I come from.

82-646-67-41

Chairman DODD. We will insert your whole statement as if read. Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, sir.

In order to avoid repetitious testimony the bulk of my statement will concern the effect of the proposed legislation on gun collectors. This country achieved its freedom and its successful spread across the continent to the Pacific on a firm foundation of peculiarly American firearms in the hands of courageous men properly trained to use them. The serious collector is the preserver of that heritage. These people are neither "kooks" nor neo-Nazis, although efforts have been made by the antigun lobby to make them appear as such. Teacher-collectors often use early firearms to stimulate interest in American history. Such a physical memento can make history live and generate more interest than a mere printed page. The knowledge and appreciation of our heritage cemented into a living belief is essentially the essence of patriotism.

To understand the problem you must know how collectors acquire firearms. The collector, far more than the average shooter, would be seriously hurt by the prohibition or curtailment of mail-order purchase and interstate shipment. In order to acquire a representative collection, it is an absolute necessity that a collector have access to a nationwide market and trade with individuals as well as dealers. Often to fill a key spot, it is necessary to canvass the whole country due to the scarcity of some models. Even then sometimes money will not buy the object and only a mutually agreeable trade would ac complish its acquisition.

We-I and the 25,000 or more sportsmen and collectors whom I represent cannot accept the "findings and declaration" set forth in the premise of S. 1, as amended, that the availability of firearms is a significant factor in crime. To accept such a philosophy, one would have to conclude that the mere possession of a gun would tempt an otherwise law-abiding citizen to commit a crime. Could you seriously think, gentlemen, that the millions of sportsmen, collectors, and war veterans are potential murderers, rapists, and thugs? If you possess a gun—and many of you do, I am sure-does that make you a potential criminal? This basic concept is so erroneous and non-American that, if you struck the whole bill and added only the Golden Rule to the "findings and declarations," which is founded on an unproven premise. it would make whatever follows unacceptable.

A few years ago there was published a book entitled, "How To Lie With Statistics." That this primer has had careful study and use in the debate over firearms is self-evident. We hear a great outcry that in some States with highly restrictive laws on firearms, that murders with firearms have been substantially decreased. Carefully avoided are the equally substantiated statistics that the number of murders, and the percentage of murders per 100,000 residents, have substantially increased. We wonder how much the victim is concerned with whether the weapon be a gun, a knife, or a Molotov cocktail, or a table leg.

If one wishes to seriously consider statistics and will accept Biblical history, there was a time when 25 percent of the world population met violent death at the hand of his brother. The weapon of assault was thr jawbone of an ass, and we are still plagued by that weapon.

Notwithstanding all the statistics and figures being "kicked around." I can find printed evidence of only two serious scientific studies having

been made on the relationship of guns to crime, or more specifically "criminal homicides." One was made on the sociological approach; the other a legal approach.

The sociological study was at the University of Pennsylvania and its results published in the book "Patterns in Criminal Homicide" by Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang. I know the results of this study were placed before this committee in the 89th Congress and I think in this 90th Congress, so I shall touch only on his conclusions reported on page 82.

Several students of homicide have tried to show that the high number of, or easy access to firearms in this country is casually related to our relatively high homicide rate.

May I say parenthetically, gentlemen, that there is a typographical error at line 2 in the printed statement which reads "casually" instead of "causally."

"Such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the Philadelphia data.” Further from page 91:

Hoffman concluded that this type of data conclusively proves that the murder problem in the United States is essentially a problem of the wrongful use of firearms.

The detailed results of the legal study by the South Texas College of Law were published in their "South Texas Law Journal" volume 3, No. 4, summer-fall 1958, under the title "Do Laws Requiring Registration of Privately Owned Firearms Lower Murder Rate?" a tremendous amount of statistical and comparative analysis went into this study, not only from major cities but also from all States and many foreign countries. From this study, I quote only the major conclusions: There is no evidence to indicate that, acting alone, laws requiring the registration of firearms have any effect on the rate at which murders and homicides are committed. It appears that once the homicidal intent is formed the instrument to be used is only incidental. If a firearm is handy, it will be used due to its convenience, but if a gun is not available, then a knife, a board, an ice pick or simply the bare hands will be used. On the punishment side, it would be well to carefully analyze our present enforcement procedures to see if the police, prosecuting attorneys, and the courts are using present laws to the extent possible. I had the privilege of serving in World War II under Gen. George S. Patton who constantly admonished his officers to make their orders so clear that the "dumbest" man in the outfit could understand them and that the smartest man in the outfit could not twist or misuse them for his own benefit and purpose. I would hope that you would apply a similar yardstick to any firearms legislation you favorably consider and ask yourself seriously these questions:

1. If it is enacted, can its stated purpose be accomplished? 2. Can the enforcing agency, through regulations, twist its meaning to serve a purpose not intended by the Congress?

3. Would it inflict upon the law-abiding private citizen a burden of redtape and harassment so obnoxious that it would cause him to abandon, at great personal loss, a perfectly legal and traditional occupation or hobby?

The proponents of this legislation say its purpose is to combat crime, yet there is nothing whatsoever in the bill that could or would prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun, for criminals do not use the normal course of trade. They will steal them, make them, or even rent them from the underworld. In one of Mr. James Bennett's films on this

question, taken I believe, in the Illinois State Penitentiary, one of the prisoners was asked how he obtained a gun for a hijacking. Hreplied that he could rent a gun of any kind in Chicago, including already outlawed submachineguns or sawed-off shotguns, for small fee or a percentage of the "take." This points to one of the real perils of this legislative approach. If you make firearms sufficiently contraband that it is profitable for organized crime to supply guns to the hoodlum, you will create a criminal situation that will make that of the prohibition era look like a Sunday school picnic.

Further, there is little in this bill that would punish the criminal if he did get a gun and used it for a criminal purpose. I point our to you, gentlemen, that we have had a law on the books since 198 making it a Federal offense for a person who has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year to even possess a firearm. By the Government's own statistics, more than 60 percent of criminal arrests are on subjects with criminal records and almost without exception they are armed. In the three jurisdictions which I have had an opportunity to observe closely, I have heard of one arrest under the law and no prosecutions. If the proposed law could be effective, why have those charged with enforcing existing law failed to do so? The U.S. attorneys I have asked have said that they will not make a police court out of a Federal district court. The police chiefs and sheriffs interviewed say it is futile to charge a thug under this act because the U.S. attorney will not prosecute. In all seriousness, I hope you ask yourself why the Department of Justice wants more laws when there is continuing failure to use a crime-combating tool available to them right now.

In answer to my second question, the gun owner, and particularly the collector, has sound reason for real apprehension at the almost blanket regulatory authority proposed for the Secretary of the Treas ury. We have already had extensive experience with the capricios nature of regulations in this field under powers much less broad thu those proposed. There are records of cases where a collector has bee wrongfully arrested and charged with possessing a prohibited weapon. In a case that comes to mind, it was a rather innocent little oddity revolver for which ammunition has not been made since 1916. The case was tried in a Federal court in southern California and the defendant acquitted with the judgment from the court that the firearm involved was a perfectly legal weapon. The Treasury Department ac cepts that ruling in southern California but ignores it and attempts to prosecute owners of the same type of gun in other jurisdictions. I am in the ridiculous position where it is legal for me to buy and sell that oddity gun in southern California but would subject myself to arrest and prosecution for having it or selling it in my place of business r Texas. This, I think, highlights another important issue. If the Treasury Department, charged with administering firearins laws in a just and lawful manner, itself evades the decisions of a Federal cour, what assurance of fair administration can the private citizen expect of vague, broad administrative powers given to that agency as st forth in S. 1?

In another case, humorous if it were not tragic, a Pennsylvania od lector was ordered to submit to the Treasury Department photo graphs of all his guns for a determination of whether or not they m

« PreviousContinue »