hand of his brother. The weapon of assault was the jaw bone of an ass, and we are still plagued by that weapon.

Not withstanding 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 hig number of. or easy access to firearms in this country is causally related to our relatively high homicide rate. 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" Vol. 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 regis tration 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 General George S. Patton who constantly administered 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 mis-use 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 red tapes 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 hi-jacking. He replied that he could rent a gun of any kind in Chicago, including already outlawed sub-machine guns or sawed-off shotguns, for a 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 out to you, Gentlemen, that we have had a law on the books since 1938 making it a Federal offense for a person who has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one 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 thos charged with enforcing existing law failed to do so? The United States Attorney®

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 United States 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 Treasury. We have already had extensive experience with the capricious nature of regulations in this field under powers much less broad than those proposed. There are records of cases where a collector has been 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 accepts 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 in Texas. This, I think, highlights another important issue. If the Treasury Department, charged with administering firearms laws in a just and lawful manner, itself evades the decisions of a Federal Court, what assurance of fair administration can the private citizen expect of vague, broad administrative powers given to that agency as set forth in S-1?

In another case, humorous if it were not tragic, a Pennsylvania collector was ordered to submit to the Treasury Department photographs of all his guns for a determination of whether or not they must be registered. Two pictures of the same gun-a flintlock blunderbuss, 200 years old-were submitted but the pictures taken from opposite sides of the weapon. The Department rule that it must be registered on one side, but it was not subject to registration on the other side. Many of you were in the Congress when the Department rewrote the Federal Firearms Act under the guise of new regulations and published it in the Federal Register in 1957. Only after lengthy hearings and vigorous protest from the sportsmen and many members of Congress were these regulations withdrawn. The clinching argument seemed to be that the Congress would not tolerate legislation by regulation.

I would expect you to ask me why collectors object where there is an exception in the proposed bill for antique guns and I would answer that the definition of antique firearms in S-1 (Sub Paragraph (15) Section 921) is completely unrealistic. The date 1870 is not a transition date in the development of firearms and the exception would only apply to arms not capable of firing fixed ammunition. In the years immediately preceding and including the years of the Civil War, there was a rapid development of breech loading arms firing fixed ammunition. Included in this group was the Spencer Carbine which President Lincoln himself tested and ordered adopted for the Cavalry. It fires a completely obsolete and almost unobtainable cartridge. I understand that the gun Lincoln used and the target he fired is in the Smithsonian Institution. This is the gun about which it was originally said that it could be loaded on Sunday and fired all week. Yet Mr. Lincoln's gun would not be an exception under this definition. The same is true of the Volcanic pistol of the early 1850's which was the lineal ancestor of both the Smith & Wesson handgun and the Winchester rifle. There are dozens of other arms of Civil War and pre-Civil War vintage that I could name that would also fall into this category; I cite these only as examples: The famed Sharps rifle the key arms of the Buffalo Hunter and the Western ploneer-would also lose its identity as a weapon of our heritage and be treated as a modern firearm. The arms carried by General Custer through the Civil War and in the Battle of the Little Big Horn are treated the same in this bill as a modern .44 Magnum.

The collectors have repeatedly offered language which we think would correctly define antique arms and obsolete arms of legitimate collector interest, which I now quote: "The term 'Antique Arm' means any firearm which was designed for use with loose powder and ball or which is incapable of being fired with selfcontained, primed cartridges; and shall also include a firearm held as a curiosity or decoration, manufactured prior to 1898 which by its design would require cartridges of obsolete pattern no longer manufactured nor readily available through commercial channels."

There are two reasons for the selection of 1898 as the transition date. First there is already a precedent in Federal Law. That is the date used in Section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, Title 22, Paragraph 123.51 which reac and I quote, "Obsolete Small Arms: Subject to the provisions of ParagraTM 123.03 collectors of customs are authorized to permit the importation or exportsetion without a license of small arms covered by Category I of the United StateMunitions List, which were manufactured prior to 1898, on presentation of satifactory evidence of age."

Secondly, the date 1898 is the approximate date of transition in ignition froc black powder to the current modern smokeless powder.

One could argue that these interesting transitional arms from the 1850's to 1898 could conceivably be used to commit a crime, and I'm sure they could. Þre it would be a risky, expensive maneuver on the part of the criminal. As .. example, I have here a self-contained cartridge for the Colt 36 caliber Polic Thuer Conversion made in the period of 1868 to 1872. The cartridge alone hita market value of $60 to $75 and at this age probably would not fire. You wa have to admit that this is too expensive for the average hi-jacker. Seriously, ir thirty-five years of study and contact with collecting, I have heard of only antique gun being used in a crime. It has been stated that the purpose of this bill is to control the type of arms prevalently used in crime and I submit to you, Gentlemen, that these obsolete arms have not been so used.

The language of S-1853-Section 1, Sub Paragraph (4), which specifically excludes these arms made in 1898 or earlier, would solve this problem.

From an entirely different viewpoint, what would you be doing to the cir rights and property rights of the gun collector, whose collection included such obsolete cartridge arms, if you deny him access to a national market for thei disposition either by himself or his estate? Without a market there can be no economic value. Interested collectors of many of these arms are so widely spread geographically as to make reasonable sale only in his home state vira ally impossible. Collectors interests vary. One man may collect United States military pistols which range from the Revolution to the Vietnam conflict. Somhe of the obsolete cartridge models are so scarce that it would take a nation-wide search and possibly a trade of another gun to persuade the owner to part with it These would include such arms as the Remington 1865 single shot Navy pistič and the Smith & Wesson Model 1869 American, of which less than 1.000 of each were used by the armed forces. Furthermore, under the definition of a destructive device in S-1 (Sub Paragraph 4 Section 921), the old 1865 Remingtor would be a "destructive device" since it fired a .50 caliber cartridge which in itself is to rare that it is now a collector's item. A collector restricted to state lines would have little, if any, chance to complete a collection along the lines of his interests.

While the exception in the bill for antique arms would imply that these could be imported as museum pieces or curios, the language applying to their import in Section 925 Sub Paragraph (d)(2) is not re-assuring. It permits the importation of an unserviceable firearm, other than a machine gun as defined by 5848 (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954-"not readily restorable to firing condition imported or brought in as a curio or museum piece". We feel that no restriction whatsoever should be placed on museum pieces, and I certainly know no museums or serious collectors who would want an unserviceable piece not restorable to firing condition.

The inclusion of "destructive devices" in this bill is not understood. Their no in crime certainly has not been documented other than one vault burglary i New York where firearms already are strictly controlled and which itself was a stolen weapon. No doubt there may be a few people who collect this type of ordnance, but it is certainly not true of the vast majority. If it is necessary to regulate the procurement, ownership and transfer of bazookas, mortars, rockers. grenades and crew served ordnance, the appropriate place for such regulation is in the National Firearms Act as a Category IV weapon. The National Firearms Act has, with reasonable effectiveness, controlled machine guns, sawed off shotguns and other fully automatic weapons, since 1934. Senator Roman Hruska's bill, S-1854, would adequately serve this purpose, assuming that af legislation at all was needed. The definitive caliber .78 rather than 50 as offers 1 in S-1 would be more nearly in line with Defense Department definitions of "smal larms" and "crew served weapons".

In the matter of license fees there are two areas which deserve your careful study and consideration. Individual craftsmen do make an occasional gun of original design, and in many cases they are really works of art. A crafter"

of this type might not produce more than a gun in a year or two. Secondly, there are many small dealers of which I myself am an example-who occasionally import high quality sporting arms; for example, a fine English shotgun of a style not obtainable in this country. To charge these small gun makers and occasional importers the same fee as the great industrial manufacturer or the boat-load importer-a $500 annual license is beyond question a discriminatory fee.

It was my privilege to have as a personal friend and frequent visitor in the last five or six years of his life, the late Honorable Hatton W. Sumners who was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives from the 72nd through the 79th Congress (1931-1946), and was generally recognized as one of the great constitutional authorities of this country. Mr. Sumners told me on more than one occasion that when the National and Federal Firearms Acts were first proposed in the 1930's that the Judiciary Committee of the House refused to consider them because in his words "on their face they were unconstitutional". He further expressed the opinion that their passage, one as a taxation measure, the other as an interstate commerce regulatory measure, were evasions of doubtful constitutionality.

The sportsmen and collectors I represent and, I believe, sportsmen and collectors in general, feel that S. 1 and its counterpart H.R. 5384 in the House are entirely too restrictive and discriminatory against the law abiding gun owner with no compensating possibility of reducing criminal mis-use of firearms. Therefore it is recommended:

(1) That S. 1 not be favorably reported;

(2) That a person purchasing a handgun by mail-which is not an antiquebe required to submit a sworn statement as to his age and eligibility under his state law to receive the same legally. Further, that the form of this statement and penalties for violation be the same as that applied in the case of a citizen signing an income tax return, i.e. under penalty of perjury.

(3) If any handgun is prevalently used in crime, it is the cheap, foreign, small caliber pistol or revolver which cannot conceivably serve any collector or sporting purpose. While the State Department now has the power to restrict these imports, if further legislation is necessary we recommend a tariff law change.

(4) If legislative "window dressing" to control bazookas, grenades, mortars and cannon are deemed necessary and advisable, we urge that it be made as an amendment to the National Firearms Act in the form of S. 1854. In that event, we urge that all sporting type firearms, not just shotguns, be specifically excluded from the definition of "destructive device".

(5) If it is the intent of the Congress to take some action against crime and the criminal rather than an inanimate object which might incidentally be used, we recommend the consideration of H.R. 6137 by the Honorable Bob Casey of Texas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen. The collectors and legitimate sportsmen of this country are ready and willing to support and assist in the passage of meaningful legislation directed at crime and the criminal. They will continue to resist any infringement on their long-established right to acquire and possess conventional small arms.

Senator HRUSKA. Our next witness will be Mr. Joe McCracken III. He represents and will testify on behalf of the National Skeet Shooting Association.

STATEMENT OF JOE H. McCRACKEN III, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL SKEET SHOOTING ASSOCIATION, THE AMATEUR TRAPSHOOTING ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE TEXAS SKEET SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY BETTEY ANN FOXWORTHY, EDITOR, TRAP AND FIELD MAGAZINE

Mr. MCCRACKEN. Mr. Chairman.

Senator HRUSKA. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCRACKEN. Before I am seated, I ask permission of the Chair o have Mrs. Bettey Ann Foxworthy accompany me. She is the editor

of Trap and Field magazine, one of the organizations that we here represent.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, that would be fine.

Mr. MCCRACKEN. Thank you, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Now, Mr. McCracken, you may consider that your statement will be placed in the record in its entirety, and if you want to skip-read it or summarize it, that would be very acceptable.

Mr. MCCRACKEN. In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I believe I will just make certain references to it here and there.

(The prepared statement of Mr. McCracken follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOE H. MCCRACKEN III, DALLAS TEX., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL SKEET SHOOTING ASSOCIATION, THE AMATEUR TRAPSHOOTING ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE TEXAS SKEET SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Senate committee, may I express to you my appreciation for the privilege of being heard in connection with S. 1. I reside at 4401 Highland Drive, Dallas, Texas, and am a practicing Attorney-at-Law in that city.

As a prelude, Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention a few words about the National Skeet Shooting Association and the Amateur Trapshooting Associati, u. the two National organizations in whose behalf I appear today. These organiza tions have existed for a generation and more, and at this time have over 50,000 members on every continent of the globe. They are the parent and governing orga nizations of the tournament skeet and trap shooting world and have affiliated wit! them almost 600 NSSA clubs and 730 ATA clubs, throughout the United States, Canada and overseas, with a combined membership of over 150,000. In addition 1 have been officially designated to represent the Texas Skeet Shooters Associate .. made up of approximately 1200 members, with over 40 affiliated gun clubs.

The National organizations sponsored and recorded 2,300 registered sk shoots and 3,300 registered trap shoots in the year 1966, and I am happy to add that the registered tournaments held and scheduled so far this year give expe tion that the number of tournaments in 1967 will far exceed 1966. The majority of the serious tournament shooters travel as far as 3,000 miles across the United States for major tournaments, and, if my personal experience as a competitive shooter is any indication of the facts, I would judge that from one-half to threefourths of the membership of the organizations shoot in tournaments in states surrounding their home states. With such activity in mind, it should be apparent to this Committee that there is considerable travel by inestimable thousands of tournament shooters throughout the states during the course of a year, wherein their highly-prized shotguns are carried either by automobile, train, or airplaze. both public and private. These facts should give you gentlemen some conception of the tremendous activity of the shooting public and the popularity of the shooting sports.

The NSSA and ATA publish monthly magazines, The Skeet Shooting Rerves and Trap and Field, which average approximately fifty pages in length. These magazines, of course, contain news of tournament activities such as the pub lishing of registered scores in past tournaments and a calendar of future events In addition these magazines carry small classified advertising pages, and copies these are attached to the original of this statement for perusal by the Committee If the Committee will examine these copies, you will see that there are here adver tised for sale various makes and gauges of tournament shotguns, as well as felt guns and other equipment necessarily used by skeet and field shooters. It is ex tremely useful and necessary for skeet and trap shooters to have this source of parchase of fire arms of a very highly-specialized kind and nature. Tournament guns are not easily obtained or modified, and as frequently occurs, a shooter w l be on the lookout for a particular make and gauge of tournament gun. I m'zM add that a great many of the more popular tournament shotguns have not be manufactured for years-some not for 25 and 30 years. One of a shooter's best sources is the classified directories in The Skeet Shooting Review and Trap and Field and similar magazines. Once he locates such a gun, perhaps three or fra states distant, he will contact that advertiser by mail, perhaps desiring a more specific description, and if acceptable, that gun will be shipped to him by pare post or express for his use to see if it fits, etc. If the gun is acceptable to the prospective purchaser, the money will be paid to the seller.