JACK BROOKS, Texas COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, Missouri ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan KF 27 J858 1975 CONTENTS IV Arrington, Marvin, councilman, Atlanta City Council, prepared McDonald, Hon. Larry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, prepared statement.. McLeod, Daniel R., attorney general of South Carolina, letter dated July 18, 1975, to William N. Griffin, regional director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Atlanta, Ga_. Rich, General Maxwell E., executive vice president, National Rifle "State Crime Commission Position Statement on 'Handgun Control'," 2082 FIREARMS LEGISLATION MONDAY, JULY 21, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Atlanta, Ga. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in studio A, WETV-TV, channel 30, 740 Bismark Road, Atlanta, Ga.; Hon. John Conyers, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Conyers and Mann. Also present: Maurice A. Barboza, counsel; Timothy J. Hart, assistant counsel; and Constantine J. Gekas, associate counsel. Mr. CONYERS. The subcommittee will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committtee of the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, meets in the city of Atlanta, Ga., to continue hearings on firearms legislation. We are very pleased to be in the city, we have had tremendous cooperation on the part of the mayor of the city of Atlanta, the police commissioner, and channel 30 television. We are pleased that these hearings will be viewed by many who would not otherwise have access to these proceedings. We come to this city in the second last of a series of regional hearings which have moved from one end of the country to the other. We are here in Atlanta to examine several very important questions. The first question is the amount of crime and accidents that occur involving firearms. The Atlanta homicide rate, which will be discussed by the mayor of the city, is one of the highest in the country. But more than that, Georgia is one of four Southern States that apparently is the source for many of the handguns that have been recovered in New York. There is almost a southern connection that has become very important to the investigations that have been condicted by the staff of this subcommittee. In addition, there are some other fundamental questions that seem to be as overriding here as they were to the hearings conducted throughout the United States. First and foremost, what is the impact of this increased amount of weaponry, almost like an arms race, that is going on within the United States. Second, what does that have to do with the question of increasing violence that characterizes life in America in the 1970's. It is out of these concerns that Congress has been moved to reexamine its Federal legislation. Attempts are being made to relate to the State. (1889) and local law enforcement authorities who have important responsibilities in coordinating firearms regulation and the safety of its citizens with the various governmental agencies and localities. And, so, we think that the time has come for perhaps new legislation at the national level. When we leave Atlanta, we are going to be privileged to hear from the Attorney General of the United States, the head of the Justice Department, Hon. Edward H. Levy. We will hear also from General Maxwell Rich of the National Rifle Association, and a number of others as we move toward a legislative result in the House of Representatives. Here in Atlanta, we were privileged to have received the testimony of Hon. Larry McDonald, a member of Congress from the State of Georgia. That testimony will be incorporated into the record. Our leadoff witness is one of the outstanding Mayors of the United States, and a personal friend of mine, Hon. Maynard Jackson, who since 1974, has headed up list after list of firsts. He is well known in terms of developing an articulate and sympathetic view toward the relationship of major city problems with the Federal Government and, on the question of firearms regulation, he has indeed distinguished himself with his precise understanding of this problem that is before us. So, I am very honored to say hello again to the Mayor of the city of Atlanta. We have Mayor Jackson, your prepared statement, and it will be incorporated to the record at this point. That will allow you to proceed in your own way. [The prepared statements of Hon. Larry McDonald and Hon. Maynard Jackson follow:] STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY MCDONALD (D.-Ga.) Those who would disarm America, right down to the last target pistol, are once more in full cry through the halls of Congress. This is a determined campaign, already more than ten years old, and it is aimed at destroying one of the most important guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Those of us fighting federal gun-control proposals are continually confronted by opponents who want either to ignore or deliberately misinterpret the clear meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is important to remember that the first Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were added because many Americans, even back in 1789, were concerned lest the federal government become too powerful. The Bill of Rights not only affirms certain rights of the people, and of the states, which shall not be infringed by the federal government, but through the Ninth Amendment it stands as a reminder that "the enumeration . . . of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The point here is that these rights existed before the Constitution was written. They are not rights which are granted to us by the federal government, but rights with which the Constitution forbids the federal government to interfere. Thus the Second Amendment does not "grant" the right to keep and bear arms, but protects it from usurpation, declaring: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note that the Amendment doesn't say this right may not be abolished. It goes farther. It says it may not even be infringed. That is, this right is so important it may not be tampered with, or trespassed upon, or transgressed, or chiseled away by any method or means Washington might devise. The Constitution is unequivocal on this point. The right to keep and bear arms has deep roots in English common law. As an individual right, it is obviously related to the common-law right of self |