a licensed manufacturer or dealer in any state the laws of which require that a license be obtained for the purchase of such firearm, unless such license is exhibited to such manufacturer or dealer by the prospective purchaser.

Now, have you had any prosecutions under section 902 (c) which I just read?

Mr. COHEN. That section applies to only eight States, sir. I don't recall whether we have had any specific prosecutions under that law or not. I would have to check it.

Senator HRUSKA. My question is how many prosecutions have you had under that section of the law?

Mr. COHEN. We can supply that information.

Senator HRUSKA. You have referred in your statement to

Mr. COHEN. We have two prosecutions pending now, Mr. Shaw informs me.

Senator HRUSKA. On page 11, for example:

It was found during the period February, 1966 to 1967 approximately 5,000 persons who gave a residence address in the city or county of St. Louis, Missouri, purchased firearms, primarily handguns, in the neighboring state of Illinois. which has no permit requirement.

Presumably there have been shipments.

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. As I indicated to you, because of the Tot case, we cannot presume that they crossed the line with that gun, and, therefore, the mere purchase of that gun in Illinois is not a violation. We have to prove that the felon bought the gun in Illinois and carried it across that line.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, to prosecute successfully under 902 (c) that involves shipment. That doesn't involve personal carriage, does it? Mr. COHEN. 2(c) does not apply to personal carriage.

Senator HRUSKA. It applies to shipment. My question was in the light of that and this great volume of personal violence, it is to be presumed, is it not, that there were a great many shipments into Missouri by licensed dealers.

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. They are going over the counter to purchasers. Senator HRUSKA. Well, these 5,000 were. Do you want to say to us that it is your opinion that there were no shipments made into Missouri from other

Mr. COHEN. Well, we get the same thing, Senator, in Senator Kennedy's home State. The people up in the Boston area who want a firearm don't write to Maine to ask for the shipment; they go to Maine or they go to New Hampshire.

Senator HRUSKA. I understand, but that is not my question. I understand that and I so said, I hope you act by differentiating between personal purchases of guns and those which are shipped.

My question is: To your knowledge or from or in your records, is there anything to show that there are shipments from States like Illinois into a State having a gun law like Missouri?

Mr. COHEN. As I indicated, we have at least two cases pending at the moment. I don't know what our statistics might be for a longer period.

Senator HRUSKA. In the 1965 hearings before this subcommittee. Chief Brostron of St. Louis testified that numerous citizens of his city had obtained firearms through the mail from out-of-State dealers.

Now, in order to avoid violation of the section 902 (c), those dealers should be able to prove that they had exhibited to them the Missouri license which such purchaser had before he would be qualified to buy the gun; is that not true?

Chairman DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Senator HRUSKA. Surely.

Chairman DODD. Just to clarify the record, is the Senator referring to mail order purchases?

Senator HRUSKA. I am referring to mail order; yes. Mail order would result in shipment.

Mr. COHEN. That is correct.

Senator HRUSKA. And it is shipment which is proscribed by 902 (c). Mr. COHEN. That is correct.

Senator HRUSKA. And that is what Chief Brostron is talking about. He said "numerous." Now, you have only two cases that you know of that have violated

Mr. COHEN. They are pending at the moment. I don't know how many others there might be, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Have you or any of you, your front line agents or your back line agents, gone in there and gone through the books and asked that licensed dealer for proof of exhibition to him of a required Missouri license?

Mr. COHEN. I would have to get that for you, sir. I don't know.

Senator HRUSKA. I would think that would be quite important. I would like to have the time to check it, because that is pretty important. The same provision will carry forward into this new bill, whether it is S. 1 or Amendment 90 or S. 1853, will it not?

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. The handgun situation, there would be no ship

ment at all.

Senator HRUSKA. But shipment of longarms would be allowed under S. 1853. Before shipment could be made, there would have to be a compliance with the law and an exhibition of either a State permit or license; isn't that true?

Mr. COHEN. It is true. It is the same requirement, the exhibition of license.

Senator HRUSKA. The same requirement. One of the witnesses before the House Ways and Means Committee, was a man, the attorney general, I believe, from New Jersey.

Mr. COHEN. I have just been handed a copy of the criminal records check. When we do check those files of the shipments, they are checked out as to the method of delivery and the description of the firearm and whether the name was properly recorded and whether there was proper authorization for receipt of the firearm.

Senator HRUSKA. Does that include some record of the number of the license that the buyer had given him the legal right to purchase that gun?

Mr. COHEN. If it was in the State that required it; yes, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Talk about Missouri or New Jersey. They both have such laws, and so does New York, and so does Massachusetts. Is that included in the routine check that you make?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. And were any violations found?
Mr. COHEN. I don't have the statistics.

Senator HRUSKA. You don't have the statistics. You do have them on file, don't you?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. You keep such statistics?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. May I request that you furnish these statistics for the record of figures extending over the last 5 years or so and covering violations under section 902 (c)?

Mr. COHEN. We will get you what we can; yes, sir.

(The information supplied for the record by Mr. Cohen was marked "Exhibit No. 11" and is as follows:)

To: Commissioner.

EXHIBIT No. 11

[U.S. Government memorandum, Aug. 11, 1967]

From: Director, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. Subject: Criminal cases arising from violations of section 2(c) of Federal Firearms Act (15 U.S.C. 902 (c)).

It is understood that you have been asked to furnish information relative to section 2(c) violations for inclusion with your July 10 testimony before the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This Division does not categorize firearms cases by statutory sections in compiling violation statistics. Consequently, it is not possible to furnish data on the number of Federal Firearms Act Cases involving violations of section 2(c) which were prepared during the last five years.

It has been our experience that section 2(c) does not readily lend itself to the development of successful criminal cases. There are two basic reasons why this is true. In the first place, it has a very limited application. The prohibition on dealer shipment of guns to out-of-state buyers without state permits is applicable only if the buyer's state law requires a permit to purchase a gun. Only nine of the fifty states have such laws and only one of these nine requires permits for the purchase of rifles or shotguns.

Even as to the nine states where permits are required, our experience has demonstrated that section 2(c) is not likely to be violated. There are two ways by which its provisions may be easily avoided.

First, section 2(c) is most commonly circumvented by the simple expedient of going into another state, purchasing the weapon, and taking it home with you. There is no provision in the present law which precludes such a practice. The section 2(c) requirement imposes sanctions with respect to shipment, but does not preclude sale and delivery over-the-counter to a purchaser who will take the gun back with him into his home state, even though he could not buy it there without a permit.

Secondly, as you know, persons who hold Federal Fireams Act licenses are exempt from the state purchase-permit requirement of section 2(e). Many mailorder dealers seeking to avoid the section 2(c) provisions advertise that they sell handguns only to holders of Federal Fireams Act licenses. Others request customers to furnish their dealer license number. Influenced by these practices, many buyers obtain the $1.00 license in order to have guns shipped to them even though they are not actually engaged in the firearms business.

HAROLD A. SERE

Senator KENNEDY. May I ask a question on that point? Senator HRUSKA. Surely. I will be happy to yield. Senator KENNEDY. Wouldn't it be very difficult to ascertain really how many violations there had really been of 902 (c), because it is very difficult as I understand it, even under the present law, for the dealers to know who is sending in the various requests or applications for mail orders?

Mr. COHEN. That is correct, sir, and of course many of the dealers even suggest that the purchaser acquire a license so they avoid the whole requirement of the statute that the Senator quoted.

Senator KENNEDY. So even under the kind of survey that might be done, or even under effective enforcement procedures, unless you really, unless there was some means of arresting these people, perhaps for some other crime, you would have a very difficult time in ascertaining really if there has been such a violation?

Mr. COHEN. That is correct. For $1 a person can avoid, obviate the whole problem that Senator Hruska has raised here. If I have a license which I can get for $1 almost automatically, I can receive a gun through the mail without regard to the permit require

ment.

Senator KENNEDY (continuing). That go through that procedure. Mr. COHEN. It is obviated, sir.

Senator KENNEDY (continuing). That go through that procedure. Mr. COHEN. Well, we figure that there are at least 25,000 people in the United States who have those licenses solely for the purpose of their own convenience.

Senator KENNEDY. But the point that I was reaching is even under the most effective kind of enforcement by your people, that it would seem to me extremely difficult for them, unless there was going to be some kind of at least arrest for some other crime, to really make a determination, an accurate determination of how much abuse there is, particularly under the respect given it of even the eight States

Mr. COHEN. As you recognize, it is a most laborious process to try and determine crime this way, to go at it from this voluminous file, this tremendous record, to try to sift through 25,000, 50,000, whatever number of transactions there might be for the few criminal transactions that are within them. A law enforcement officer has got to have infinite patience to be able to go through this kind of thing.

Senator KENNEDY. As I understand it, you feel that with the consideration of the other, of someone, with modifications of the other amendments, that procedure would be vastly simplified?

Mr. COHEN. That would. Now, it is true that S. 1853 procedure here is better, is much better than we presently have. There is a clear identification, and there is a clear notification to local authorities that Mr. Doakes is the fellow who is buying this gun from out of State, and there is some method of identifying Mr. Doakes, and whether he is the type of person who is qualified, of age and so forth, in this State, so that any one of these bills, in this regard, is superior to present law. Senator KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Chairman DODD. May I ask one question?

Senator HRUSKA. Surely.

Chairman DODD. Senator Kennedy has pointed out the difficulties are very great in this area, but in the area where an individual goes across the State line and buys a weapon in a neighboring State and then carries it back to his own State, there is almost no way of knowing, unless a crime is committed or something takes place.

Mr. COHEN. Likewise, Senator, the point is well taken in that there is no requirement today that when he goes across that State line, that

he identify himself in any particular way. When the seller asks him "your name" I could say my name is Joseph W. Barr, and the seller need not ask me for anything further. If I say it in a convincing fashion, that is good enough under today's law.

Senator HRUSKA. Under the pending bill, would that be sufficient to say that he had no reasonable cause to believe that you are not Joe Barr or Joe Doakes or anybody else?

Mr. COHEN. We would contemplate that under the pending bill that at least he would undergo those items that I mentioned before, that he would go through if he were cashing a check for Joseph W. Barr. He would want to see a driver's license or some other type; if he were a military person, a military I.D. card, some valid type of identification. Senator HRUSKA. Of course there is a little diversional tactic in asking about the conviction of crime. My line of questioning had to do with a very simple easily detectable offense. Missouri requires a permit. There are dealer records which under present law the dealer has to keep, and if he doesn't he should get hauled into the courts and disciplined for that. You could segregate the orders that were shipped into Missouri. You could ask the dealer where are the permit numbers. It is a very simple thing. You couldn't find anything more simple than section 902(c) of the present Act, even the very highly meritorious Hruska act. I don't think you could find anything more simple. That is what I am asking about, not this nebulous thing of whether he had a conviction or whether he is a hoodlum or not. This is what I had in mind. You suggested it would be a very voluminous and laborious thing. That would hamper enforcement, wouldn't it?

Mr. COHEN. There is no requirement under present law that the dealer keep records as to how he ships guns. We don't know necessarily whether Mr. Joseph W. Barr or Mr. Joe Doakes got the weapon by mail, necessarily, unless the dealer happens to keep those records. The law does not require it.

Senator HRUSKA. There is no requirement for the keeping of any records?

Mr. COHEN. Not for the keeping of that specific record.

Senator HRUSKA. Is there anything to stop you in your regulations from asking for it? Do you ask for it in your regulations? Mr. COHEN. I don't believe we do now, Senator.

Senator HRUSKA. Why not? Why not? It is so simple. He should have evidence that he complied with the law, and you could ask for it. Mr. COHEN. A number of years ago I understand a regulations project of that nature was gotten up, and there was a great hue and cry from a number of people that this was leading to all of the horrors that many people say these bills will lead to. Chairman DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Senator HRUSKA. Surely.

Chairman DODD. I missed the first part of your statement. Didn't your department ask for such a regulation in 1958?

Mr. COHEN. A number of years ago it was proposed. It was long before I arrived on the scene, sir.

Chairman DODD. And the people who are opposing Amendment 90 objected then and said this would be a terrible thing to do? Mr. COHEN. That is right, sir.

Chairman DODD. And I think that is why you didn't get it.