FIREARMS LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Conyers, Mann, Danielson, Hughes, and McClory. Also present: Maurice A. Barboza, counsel, and Constantine J. Gekas, associate counsel. Mr. CONYERS. Will the subcommittee come to order for a brief announcement? Today, the House of Representatives is taking its official photograph at 10 a.m. And for that reason, it will probably be best that the subcommittee stand in recess or begin the hearing for this morning at approximately 10:30. So without objection the subcommittee will begin its hearing at 10:30 this morning. [A brief recess was taken.] Mr. CONYERS. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee on crime continues its hearings on firearms legislation. And we are pleased to call as our first witness the president of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy, Mr. James Bennett, accompanied by the executive director, Mr. David Steinberg, and Mr. Harold A. Serr, board member and former Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Department of the Treasury. We are very pleased to have all of you gentlemen before the subcommittee. I particularly welcome Mr. Bennett, who has testified before other subcommittees of the judiciary committee on which I serve. He has spent 27 years as Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and has worked with the bar association and a number of organizations not only on the subject of firearms regulations, but also in the whole area of law enforcement and prison reform. Gentlemen, we welcome you all before the subcommittee. We will insert at this time your prepared statements which we are grateful for, and then free you to begin your comments in your own way. (2617) TESTIMONY OF JAMES V. BENNETT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY; FORMER DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID J. STEINBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY; AND HAROLD A. SERR, BOARD MEMBER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY Mr. BENNETT. May I be permitted first to introduce our executive director who is to testify first, and then I will follow. Mr. STEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief initial statement to make. The National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy, campaigning since 1967 for firm and fair gun-control policies in the overall public interest, has stressed the need for realistic controls that are fully responsive to the imperatives of public safety and fully respective of the rights and privileges of all Americans, those who own guns and those who do not. We urge this Congress to face up squarely to the need for national legislation that, at long last, does two basic things in firearms regulation. First: Requires a license for legal acquisition and possession of usable guns and ammunition-with special priority and special standards for effectively controlling private acquisition, possession, and transfer of handguns. Second: Holds each licensee strictly and legally accountable through gun registration for each gun registered in that person's name, until the gun is legally sold or given away to another licensee or until its loss or theft is properly reported to the police. The watchwords of this kind of gun control are responsibility and accountability. To legally possess a gun, a person must have certain basic credentials for responsible gun ownership, and that person will be held accountable by society for the safe possession, legal use, and legal transfer of that firearm. To translate these principles into national policy at least with respect to handguns, we support the basic principles of the handgun licensing-and-registration bills introduced by Senators Kennedy and Stevenson in the U.S. Senate, and by Congressmen McClory, Drinan, Gude, and others in the House of Representatives. By declaring himself unalterably opposed to licensing and registration, the President of the United States has declared himself unalterably opposed to national mandated rules of personal responsibility and accountability in the ownership, use, and transfer of this most destructive of personal weapons. It is high time the President and the Congress recognized and respended responsibly to the escalating threat to public safety from the easy accessibility of guns to anyone who wants them. The many existing laws at all levels of government are too limited in scope and too easily circumvented. The President has a special role and a special responsibility in mobilizing national resolve to solve this problem. But the gun-control provisions of his crime message fall far short of the mark. They have too little of what we have reason to expect from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and too much. of what we have come to expect from 1600 Rhode Island Avenue— headquarters of the National Rifle Association. We applaud the President's statement that, "it is time for law to concern itself more with the rights of the people it exists to protect." But we lament the failure to recognize that one of those rights is the citizen's right to protection against the possession of guns by persons-whether or not criminals in the usual sense-who by any reasonable standard lack the credentials for responsible gun ownership. Whatever is done to curb the handy handgun that is highly concealable and frequently used in violent crime-the so-called Saturday night special-will fall far short of the kind of handgun control urgently needed for overall public safety. As will staff mandatory sentences for the use of guns in crime, a remedy proposed by many in and out of government as a deterrent and as the only real solution to firearms violence. It has become for too many politicians a simplistic escape hatch to duck a complicated problem. Gun control is itself not the alpha and omega of a solution to violence or to violence with guns. But it is indispensable to the solution that must be found. Those who place overwhelming trust in mandatory sentences fail to appreciate that persons who rationally use guns in crime gamble on getting away with it, and persons who irrationally use guns in "crimes of passion" do not consider the law and the penalty for violating it. There are also legal problems limiting the merits of this remedy. Mandatory sentences have been shown again and again to be self-defeating, resulting only in a distortion of our criminal justice system. To whatever extent mandatory sentences may possible deter future recourse to guns in crime, they are no substitute for mandatory standards governing the legal acquisition and possession of guns and ammunition. Gun control, like overall crime control, is much more than a Federal responsibility. State and local governments, for example, should promulgate codes of responsible gun ownership setting forth the do's and don'ts for the safe possession of guns by those who are authorized to have them. Unless they do promulgate such codes, the States and localities after reasonable notice-should not be eligible for grants from the law enforcement assistance administration or similar programs. In controlling private possession, State and local governments may go as far as they wish beyond the minimum Federal standards established in the proposed Federal licensing system. But a Federal licensing and registration law is basic to effective -control of these lethal devices in our dynamic and highly mobile society. That concludes my initial comments, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. David J. Steinberg follows:] STATEMENT BY DAVID J. STEINBERG, THE COUNCIL'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DIRECTOR The National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy, campaigning since 1967 for firm and fair gun-control policies in the overall public interest, has stressed the need for realistic controls that are fully responsive to the imperatives of public safety and fully respectful of the rights and privileges of all Americans, those who own guns and those who do not. We urge this Con gress to face up squarely to the need for national legislation that, at long last, does two basic things in firearms regulation: 1. Requires a license for legal acquisition and possession of usable guns and ammunition-with special priority and special standards for effectively controlling private acquisition, possession and transfer of handguns. 2. Holds each license strictly and legally accountable (through gun registration) for each gun registered in that person's name, until the gun is legally sold or given away to another licensee or until its loss or theft is properly reported to the police. The watchwords of this kind of gun control are responsibility and accountability. To legally possess a gun, a person must have certain basic credentials for responsible gun ownership, and that person will be held accountable by society for the safe possession, legal use and legal transfer of that firearm. To translate these principles into national policy at least with respect to handguns, we support the basic principles of the handgun licensing-and-registration bills introduced by Senators Kennedy and Stevenson in the United States Senate and by Congressmen McClory, Drinan, Gude and others in the House of Representatives. By declaring himself "unalterably" opposed to licensing and registration, the President of the United States has declared himself unalterably opposed to nationally mandated rules of personal responsibility and accountability in the ownership, use and transfer of this most destructive of personal weapons. It is high time the President and the Congress recognized and responded responsibly to the escalating threat to public safety from the easy accessibility of guns to anyone who wants them. The many existing laws at all levels of government are too limited in scope and too easily circumvented. The President has a special role and a special responsibility in mobilizing national resolve to solve this problem. But the gun-control provisions of his crime message fall far short of the mark. They have too little of what we have reason to expect from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and too much of what we have come to expect from 1600 Rhode Island Avenue (headquarters of the National Rifle Association). We applaud the President's statement that "it is time for law to concern itself more with the rights of the people it exists to protect." But we lament the failure to recognize that one of those rights is the citizen's right to protection against the possession of guns by persons (whether or not criminals in the usual sense) who by any reasonable standard lack the credentials for responsible gun ownership. Whatever is done to curb the handy handgun that is highly concealable and frequently used in violent crime (the so-called "Saturday night special") will fall far short of the kind of handgun control urgently needed for overall public safety. As will stiff mandatory sentences for the use of guns in crime-a remedy proposed by many in and out of government as a deterrent and as the only real solution to firearms violence. It has become for too many politicians a simplistic escape hatch to duck a complicated problem. Gun control is itself not the alpha and omega of a solution. But it is indispensible to the solution that must be found. Those who place overwhelming trust in mandatory sentences fail to appreciate that persons who rationally use guns in crime gamble on getting away with it, and persons who irrationally use guns in "crimes of passion" do not consider the law and the penalty for violating it. There are also legal problems limiting the merits of this remedy. Mandatory sentences have been shown again and again to be self-defeating, resulting only in a distortion of our criminal justice system. To whatever extent mandatory sentences may possibly deter future recourse to guns in crime, they are no substitute for mandatory standards governing the legal acquisition and possession of guns and ammunition. BASIC FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY Gun control, like overall crime control, is much more than a Federal responsibility. State and local governments, for example, should promulgate codes of responsible gun ownership setting forth the do's and don'ts for the safe possession of guns by those who are authorized to have them. Unless do promulgate such codes, the states and localities (after reasonable notice) should not be eligible for grants from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration or similar programs. In controlling private possession, state and local governments may go as far as they wish beyond the minimum Federal standards established |