Mr. Blondes was instrumental in having statewide firearms controls enacted in Maryland.

For all these reasons, I speak for all of us when I say we welcome you, we welcome those associated with you.

I see Mr. James Bennett, a distinguished former Director of the Bureau of Prisons, who has taken such an active and helpful interest in this overall national problem.

You go right ahead, Mr. Blondes. I know that I have read your statement with great interest. I'm sure every member of the committee will, even though they cannot all be here.

STATEMENT OF LEONARD S. BLONDES, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BENNETT, PRESIDENT, DR. J. ELLIOTT CORBETT, SECRETARY, AND DAVID STEINBERG, TREASURER

Mr. BLONDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, if I might, I would like to introduce the gentlemen who have joined me at the table. I am here in the capacity mainly as vice president of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. With me is our president, Mr. James Bennett, our secretary, Dr. J. Elliott Corbett, and our treasurer, Mr. David Steinberg.

It is our first opportunity as a national council to appear in this capacity.

I'm very honored to have the privilege to be here today, Senator. I would like, if I can, just to open without my formal remarks by saying that I am amazed to hear the type of testimony and comments made by those in opposition to S. 1, that there are over 200 million firearms in the hands of people throughout the country, and therefore implying that because of this what is the need of legislation, what good will legislation do, since there are these many weapons in people's hands already. I would suggest

Senator KENNEDY. Before you get into the thrust of your testimony-and regrettably I won't be able to stay all the way throughI am wondering whether you could tell us just a little bit about the organization, how it was formulated. I think it would be very helpful-whether you have duespaying members, and any special interest in this. Because I've been deeply impressed by the membership of it, and the sincerity of its purpose and responsibility with which it has undergone its undertakings and its representations. I think it would be helpful, just for the record, with the indulgence of the chairman, if you could tell us about its development and the kind of membership. Mr. BLONDES. Senator, I'd be very happy to do so. If I can just name a few of those who are now on our board of directors -Judge Bazelon, James Bennett, Erwin Canham, Dr. Corbett, Dr. Lowell R. Ditson, David Lanham, Mayor John Lindsay, Dr. John Wesley Lord, Paul McCardle, who is president of the American Bar Association, Dr. Carl Menninger, Dr. William R. Morse, David Steinberg, Charles P. Taft, the former Governor of the State of Maryland, J. Millard Tawes.

The national council was formed just a few months ago. It's a group of us who have gathered together throughout the country-there are about 50 of us now-who are trying to formulate, work together bro

chures and information to pass on to the people of our country to explain to them the problems-not that we are antiguns or antifirearms, but that it's important to have a responsible firearms policy. In my prepared remarks I think you will note some of our principles and policies that we are propounding.

We are in the baby stages now. We are hoping to have a nationa! drive very shortly, with our literature and applications for membership.

We've had a great deal of interest in it.

Chairman DODD. I wish you would hurry that up.

Mr. BLONDES. Senator, we are as anxious as you, if not more so. As I say, it's a group of people from different parts of the country. We recognize that there is nothing that can be accomplished on a national basis, whether it's dealing with firearms or any other type of subject, without an organization-whether it is a fraternity, a council or an association. It's difficult to start.

We feel we have the go-ahead, we feel we have the inspiration, those who are willing to work. I think within the next few months you will be hearing a great deal more of our national council.

Chairman DODD. I have referred to Mr. Blondes' activity in sponsorship of the Maryland gun bill.

Mr. BLONDES. Thank you, Senator. I might further state that none of us are, again, antiguns, nor are we interested in restricting the rights of individuals, nor are we trying to combine for any selfish or business

reasons.

We are only interested in trying to gain a responsible firearms policy. And we feel that S. 1 can help gain this-to help create this situation of a responsible policy.

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Blondes. I know I have read your statement. Senator Kennedy is going to read it. I believe Senator Hruska has read it. We certainly will put in your statement just as you have prepared it, with your remarks as just made. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF LEONARD S. BLONDES ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL

FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREMANS POLICY

Mr. Chairman, I am Leonard S. Blondes, an attorney and a member of the Maryland General Assembly, appearing here in support of S. 1 as vice predent of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. In all these capacities, and as a citizen of my community, I am deeply concerned with the dreadful and alarming effects of overly permissive federal, state, and local law on the sale of firearms.

The National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy is a nonprofit orgarization established in February 1967 to help focus national attention on the need for firearms laws that effectively serve the total national interest. The Council urges action to bring the sale, transfer, and possession of firearms under reasonable and effective control. The public deserves as much protection as can feasibly and fairly be provided against the danger of guns falling into the hands of those not qualified to have such weapons.

The Council respects the rights of responsible, law-abiding persons to purchase. possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes and in accordance with starŻards required for public safety. But it urges adequate protection of the rights of the American people as a whole, whose safety-whose right to life itself-bas been threatened by the easy availability of firearms to irresponsible persons. The seriousness of the problem is demonstrated by the large and rising numbers of robberies, riots, murders, suicides and assaults in which guns are used. The Council contends that the persistent possibility that other tools of crime and

violence will be found does not mean that the most lethal, most easily used instruments should be left readily accessible by the laws of a responsible society. Opposition to more effective firearms regulation on grounds that criminals will find ways to get around such controls is illogical and unrealistic. For this would be like saying that laws to prevent fraud, murder, dangerous drugs, bank robbery or any other type of crime are not useful and necessary because ways will be found to violate them.

Without the Federal controls of S. 1 on interstate commerce of firearms, Senator Hruska's proposed legislation and the new pistol law in Maryland become ineffective and useless. The effect and enforcement of Maryland's pistol law under the condition of a free flow of weapons in interstate commerce renders our law a hoax and fraud upon the citizens of Maryland. Those of us who successfully worked for such legislation had hoped and expected that adequate interstate regulation would soon be enacted.

How can controls over the firearms traffic in one state be effective if purchases can be made by mail order or by frequent visits to neighborhing states?

Those who oppose S. 1 and comparable proposals of previous years surely cannot take pride in their successful opposition to measures that would make as effective as possible the interest I believe all of us have in preventing the sale of firearms to mentally defectives, criminals and juveniles either through the mails or by purchases across state lines. Would you believe that during the first year of the Maryland law there were 16,638 sales of pistols to Maryland residents? But would you believe that the Maryland law is virtually worthless-that Maryland residents, not being bound by any effective interstate controls are purchasing arsenals of weapons from the District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania? A sampling conducted with dealers across the line in the District of Columbia showed that the three dealers checked sold 446 handguns to Maryland residents. Three dealers checked in Virginia sold 274 handguns to Maryland residents. Five dealers checked in Pennsylvania sold 20 handguns to Maryland residents. And finally in Delaware, 21 dealers were found to have sold 87 handguns to Maryland residents.

The Maryland laws are diluted further by the $1.00 dealer whose dealership is nothing more than a front to escape the restrictions applying to the sale of firearms.

The reports of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shows that the 18,000 dealers inspected during the first seven months of fiscal 1967 made 16,658 sales to out-of-state purchasers. This eloquently pinpoints the need for tighter controls over interstate traffic in firearms. It was established that at least 454 of the purchasers had criminal records. Since many of the purchasers could not be found, it is likely that fictitious names and addresses were used. Hence, a much larger percentage may have had criminal records, or were juveniles or mental defectives.

Under present law almost anyone can obtain a dealer's license by paying the $1-license fee and filling out a brief application. No other conditions are stated in the law. Over 100,000 dealer licenses have been issued each year. The Commissioner's report concludes, on the basis of a survey, that at least 25% of these persons were not really dealers. By getting licenses, for only $1.00, collectors and other individuals add substantially to the virtually unregulated interstate shipment of fire arms by mail order. Some dealers conceal their operations through "answering services" and "mail drops."

Present law has no effective control over the importation of firearms (except the National Act control over machine guns). The result is that the country has been flooded with foreign surplus military weapons and cheap pistols. These bave largely been circulated in this country by mail order. They have appealed especially to juveniles. More effective controls over this traffic is desperately needed.

The National Rifle Association alleges that such controls would channel interstate shipments between licensed dealers and would favor a small number of large manufacturers and over-the-counter dealers.

There is no substance to this argument. The opposite result is probable. The thousands of local hardware dealers and sporting goods stores can engage in the firearms business without competition from mail order dealers, many of whom cannot or will not comply with local law or reasonable standards. This is the normal artery of trade for hardware goods in general.

The National Rifle Association alleges that the restriction of interstate shipments to Federal licensees would impose a hardship on many rural and semirural Americans who do not have ready access to licensed outlets.

This complaint is more imaginary than real. No instance has been cited of the "farmer or rancher being unable to obtain a firearm locally."

1. The farmer orders other hardware goods from his local dealer. He ge to town often enough to be able to patronize his local merchants.

2. Companies such as Sears Roebuck & Co., Montgomery Ward, etc., have thousands of local stores throughout the country and in every state. These outlets carry large stocks of firearms and could undoubtedly satisfy any individuals needs. It is a good guess that at the present time most people obtain their firearms from intrastate sources.

3. It should also be noted that the proposed legislation does not prohit: interstate mail order shipments to dealers.

The National Rifle Association asks, "Why should a law-abiding citizen be deprived of obtaining a handgun while in another State?" The simple answer is that it is the only way a state can be assured that its firearms laws wil te enforced. If a person in State A purchases a handgun in State B and brits it back to State A, there is no way for the authorities in State A to control te transaction.

Failure to pass S. 1 legislation now will: 1) contribute to a further increase in the crime rate; 2) cause further breakdown in law enforcement; 3) maar violent city riots more likely; and 4) cumulatively lead to more stringent legistion, including registration of firearms.

For the above reasons the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Poly strongly supports the Administration bill, S. 1.

LOOSE GUN CONTROLS ESCALATE URBAN RIOTS

A statement by the Executive Committee of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy

Weak firearms laws at the national level and in most of the states escalate the violence of urban riots, just as they have long been magnifying the problem of crime across the nation.

Riots in the cities may be for the most part a matter of internal combustion. but the easy availability of guns, which our country seems on the whole determined to bring under reasonable control, contributes dangerously to the igniting of these explosions and to the level and duration of their violence. It some cases, the particular states themselves lack adequate gun control laws In all cases, the serious shortcomings of federal law have magnified the nezirgence of state and local governments which lack adequate controls. They have also provided wide loophoues in interstate commerce which nullify or serionsly weaken the gun control efforts of those states and localities that have attempted to act responsibly in this matter.

How much more gun violence, in city riots or anywhere else, will convin❤ the nation's legislators at all levels of government-that the most responsive and effective control of gun availability is an urgent necessity? Placing the ri problem in proper prospective, it should be recognized that adequate firear measures should be motivated not by vindicative reaction to racial uprisings but by an earnest effort to cope effectively with the overall problems of erine and violence facing the nation. Most firearms deaths are due to murder, suicide. and other causes not associated with rioting.

We are amazed that those who oppose such measures fail to comprehend the dimensions of the public interest with respect to this issue. Those who supe port such measures appear to have greater respect for the gun and its poté Dtialities than do those who identify themselves as rifle and gun enthusia

Mr. BLONDES. We hope to educate. We hope that through our re search and education of ourselves as well as that which we are going to do, that we can disseminate information to the American puble, Senator, as to why a responsible gun policy is necessary.

Chairman DODD. You were primarily responsible for the Maryland gun law enacted in 1966. Can you tell us what effect it has had in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and crime-prone individuals, if I may put it that way?

Mr. BLONDES. Unfortunately, Senator, I don't feel that it has done too well. I am very disappointed-as one of those who fought so dearly for the legislation in Maryland. We had hoped at that time that there would be Federal legislation to curb the mail-order practice which floods the State of Maryland as well as elsewhere.

Might I just mention that I made some comment in my prepared statement as to really what is happening in the State of Maryland. Chairman DODD. I know you did.

Mr. BLONDES. My point is I want to emphasize that regardless of the fact that we have a law in the State of Maryland, it's no good if a Maryland resident can go elsewhere in the country and purchase their pistols.

Chairman DODD. That's why I wanted to ask you: Why hasn't it been as effective as you hoped and expected it would be?

Mr. BLONDES. Over 800 pistols have been purchased-there may be thousands-but only a spot check has shown-which was made of several dealers in the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, I believe, and just these spot checks of a few dealers in each of these States, over 800 pistols have already been purchased just from those few dealers.

Now, what good is self-help, what good is it, Senator, saying to the State of Maryland and others in the other States-legislate, pass your laws, give us the right to pass laws-and unless the Federal Government does something immediately about interstate commerce of these weapons and the mail order- there's no sense to us wasting our time in passing legislation. I feel now that we have bilked the people of the State of Maryland. I know I fought for it, I fought in my own campaigns, as well as on the floors of the houses in Maryland. And I feel I have let the people down because the people in Maryland think we have legislation, that we have a law. But it's completely ineffective, because if anyone-if they don't want to file an application because they are a known criminal, all they have to do is go to the District, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and they can buy the pistols. Chairman DODD. Yes, I'm sure that's true.

Mr. BLONDES. Mr. Chairman if I might

Chairman DODD. I was going to ask you one other question.

Do you know whether those residents in Maryland who have purchased firearms in other jurisdictions, other States to which you referred in your statement, would have been able to purchase a gun in Maryland?

Mr. BLONDES. NO. I'll say this, though. I've had several talks with our new commissioner of State police, who now has instituted new procedures. I think that our State police, and throughout the State of Maryland now, will check every time a gun or firearm of any kind is used in some crime-they will try to determine where it was purchased, under what circumstances, when and so forth.

We are also trying to obtain that information from the sales that have been made outside the State of Maryland. But as of this time, these records just have not been

Chairman DODD. That points up what you are talking about. That will be after the fact.

Mr. BLONDES. Always after the fact. And I suggest, Senator--this little document that I consider it a document-in the Washington