Mr. SCHOOLEY. I think they probably are a little more strict with all of their criminals than we are here, and that is why they do not have the crime rate. They have a little more respect for law than we do. Mr. PERIAN. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator THURMOND. All right.

The hearings will resume tomorrow, August 1, at 2 p.m., in room

5110.

The witnesses who are scheduled will be Mr. Quinn Tamm, executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; Dr. Halbert Fillinger, president of the Pennsylvania Antique Gun Collectors Association, and Mr. David Cohen, president of the New York City Pawnbrokers Association.

We will now stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Thank you again, Mr. Schooley, for your testimony.

Mr. SCHOOLEY. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 2 p.m., Tuesday, August 1, 1967.)

FIREARMS CONTROL LEGISLATION

TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
OF THE COMMISSION ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee (composed of Senators Dodd, Hart, Bayh, Burdick, Tydings, Kennedy of Massachusetts, Hruska, Fong, and Thurmond) met, pursuant to recess, at 2 p.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Tydings, and Hruska.

Also present: Carl L. Perian, staff director; Richard W. Velde, minority counsel; William C. Mooney, chief investigator; Eugene W. Gleason, editorial director; Peter Freivalds, research director; and Richard C. Sheridan, assistant minority counsel.

Chairman DODD. The hearing will be in order.

Our first witness is the Honorable Richard J. Hughes, the Governor, the well-known Governor of the State of New Jersey.

Governor Hughes in his own right is a man of great ability, great experience. He was a distinguished U.S. attorney at an early age, a member of the superior court in New Jersey. He is a distinguished lawyer, a distinguished judge. And he has been Governor of the State of New Jersey since 1962. He is now in his second term of office.

We are very pleased-and I think I speak for all of us-I am sure we are all pleased that you took the time to come here and tell us your views on this legislation, particularly in light of your experiences in Newark, New Jersey, recently.

I welcome you on behalf of the committee. Go right ahead with your statement.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman-I would like to just make a very brief comment, Mr. Chairman, relative to the New Jersey situation. I do not want to trespass on the time of the committee. But I would appreciate the indulgence of the Chair and members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, at the start of these hearings, I said that I thought that they would duplicate the very extensive hearings we had already held on the subject of gun control legislation. To the extent that I meant that we would hear nothing new in the way of arguments against the State Firearms Control Assistance Act, I think my prediction has proven true. But I will be the first to admit that I was wrong insofar as I may have meant that we would receive no new information supporting the already amply clear need for this legislation. While it is certainly unfortunate that we should have to find our most dramatic proof in the tragedies which have befallen Newark and

Detroit and dozens of other American cities, the fact is that never have we had more direct and insistent evidence of the need for effective Federal firearms controls than we have had this summer.

Some Members of the Senate have said, over and over again, perhaps in hopes that if they repeated it enough, it might seem true, that we have not had it demonstrated to us that Amendment 90 would help to prevent any deaths or any violent crime. While it is clear and obvious to me that we have already had this fact demonstrated to us, time and time again, by witnesses of the greatest integrity, experience, and judgment, I hope these members will listen especially carefully today to what Governor Hughes has to say.

For over a year now his State, New Jersey, has had probably the most comprehensive and effective firearms controls of any State in the Nation. The New Jersey Legislature exercised its best judgment in the interests of the citizens of that State and formulated weapons regulations designed to provide them with the protection and safety they deserve.

As a result of the Newark riot we now have decisive evidence of what the absence of a Federal means to a State where the elected officials have done their best to protect the citizens. I, myself, have been cor responding with Governor Hughes and Attorney General Sills since early this spring to see what their experience has been with the New Jersey gun laws. I am sure we will hear in some detail today what their conclusions are. But my most recent letter from Mr. Sills is such an eloquent expression of the need for Federal legislation that I would like to have it printed in the record at this point.

Chairman DODD. Without objection.

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 137" and is as follows:)

Senator EDWARD M. KENNEDY,

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.

EXHIBIT No. 137

JULY 19, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: This is in response to your letter of July 10, 1967 requesting an appraisal of the New Jersey weapons control law. Specifically, you are interested in the relationship we have found between crime and the ava ability of guns; the effect the New Jersey law has had on the number of armed crimes; the problems of enforcing the law; and the reception of the law by the people of New Jersey. Recent events in the City of Newark and elsewhere have given us a new perspective in this area, and I will discuss this in conjunction with your third question.

Your first two points, I believe, can be treated together. Heretofore, we have had to accept the conclusions of the F.B.I. that the incidence of firearms in the commission of crime is substantially lower in those jurisdictions with gun esttrols. The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin of October, 1966 points out, for example, that during the period 1962-65, the Northeastern states, where g controls generally exist, reported 36 per cent of their murders were committed with guns. It was 64 per cent in the Southern states where controls are lax.

Under the State's new Uniform Crime Reporting System, which took effect c January 1, 1967, we now have more detailed statistics for the first three month• of the year. While these statistics are by no means conclusive, they seem to st stantiate the position that there is a direct relationship between the stringency of gun controls and the use of firearms in the commission of crime.

As you are aware, the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report for 1965 shows that per cent of all murders, 17 per cent of all aggravated assaults, and 38 percent of all robberies were committed with firearms that year. Of the firearms murders 30 per cent involved rifles or shotguns.

During the first quarter of 1967 in New Jersey, 23 of 60 murders were committed with firearms. In three cases a shotgun was the lethal weapon. No one was murdered with a rifle. Longarms, therefore, were used in only 13 per cent of all firearms murders and 5 per cent of all murders. Of the 1,501 atrocious assaults committed during this period, 172 or 11 per cent were committed with guns. Guns were used in three per cent of all assaults, including 4,190 not atrocious. Of the 1,358 robbery cases, 773 or 56 per cent were committed with weapons, but reports for this crime do not indicate the type of weapon used (e.g., guns, knives, etc.). The precise degree to which the New Jersey gun law has prevented crime will always be open to speculation. But we do know that the law has been effective in preventing certain unfit persons from buying firearms legally in this State. As of July 1, 1966, our Division of State Police had processed 42,151 sets of fingerprints which accompany individual applications. Of this total, State Police files disclosed 2,246 criminal arrest records and F.B.I. files disclosed 823 criminal arrest records. The 3,069 arrest records represent 7.3 per cent of the fingerprints processed. Arrest records call for further investigation of the applicants involved. A total of 38,983 applications were submitted for I.D. cards to purchase rifles and shotguns and permits to purchase handguns. I.D. cards were denied in 547 cases and permits to purchase were denied in 249 cases. While we are still gathering information on reasons for denial by municipal police departments, I can report the 85 State Police denials for the following reasons: 50 I.D. cards were denied because of criminal records, 1 for falsifying the application, 11 for medical reasons, and 7 where the issuance would not be in the public safety, health or welfare. With respect to permits to purchase 10 were denied because of criminal records, 1 for medical reasons, and 5 where the issuance would not be in the public health, safety, or welfare.

With respect to enforcing the law, our experience has been twofold. On the one hand, we have had virtually no difficulty in administering the law with respect to the purchase or sale of firearms within the borders of our State. It is legally impossible for someone to purchase or sell a gun in New Jersey without the purchaser first obtaining a permit to purchase or an I.D. card, as the case may be. I personally am unaware of any instance of this occurring the first 11 months of the law's operation.

On the other hand, we are faced with the very serious problem posed by the easy accessibility of firearms to New Jersey residents from out-of-State sources. While it is illegal for a New Jersey resident to purchase firearms through the mails without first obtaining an I.D. card or purchase permit, I am sure you recognize that it is virtually impossible to detect such illegal purchases. We have also found that many New Jersey residents, who prefer to avoid the requirements of our law, are making inperson purchases from gun dealers in neighboring states. The extent of this problem and whether or not the purchasers are unfit within the meaning of our law are again matters of speculation. We do know, however, that New Jersey dealers located in proximity to the borders of the State have claimed heavy financial losses, while dealers across the border have reported substantial increases in the sale of rifles and shotguns. Furthermore, only 38,983 applications were submitted as of July 1, 1966. Since there are more than 150,000 hunting licenses sold each year, and since it is claimed by the gun lobby that most sportsmen buy, sell, or swap firearms at least once during the year, one can surmise that a great many rifles and shotguns have been purchased by New Jersey residents from out-of-State dealers. Certainly the devastation wreaked upon the City of Newark in recent days is conclusive testimony to the ineffectiveness of our law in preventing the importation of firearms into New Jersey by persons with criminal intent. We know that many of the weapons used by snipers and rioters during these catastrophic days could not have been purchased legally in New Jersey. In one case, the vehicle of an admitted member of the N.R.A. was found to contain an arsenal of weapons, including a 30-06 rifle with telescopic sight, 2 Browning Automatic Rifles, 3 other rifles, shotguns, and ammunition for all of the firearms. Scores of out-of-State vehicles containing weapons for suspected violent use were also intercepted while attempting to enter Newark.

The gun lobby, of course, purports to be interested in limiting the interstate flow of handguns. This, indeed, is commendable. But the riots in Newark and elsewhere have made it emphatically clear that the primary weapons of those who perpetrate and feed the flames of mass disorder are rifles and shotguns. To condone the easy accessibility of these weapons to everyone is to show a total disregard for the decent citizens of our communities who have a right to walk the streets without looking over their shoulders for an assassin's bullet. 82-646-67-64