able from the earliest periods of recorded history, we strongly contend that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms in this country is at least as old as is our very freedom. We have some further statements from the Founding Fathers to substantiate this, which I will not read because it is quite similar to material Senator McClure submitted to this committee when he testified earlier this year. I would like to point out though that the second amendment to the Constitution is complemented by 75 percent of the constitutions of the States which recognize an individual right of citizens of the State to keep and bear arms. We feel that this language is extremely important. The great majority of State constitutions guaranteeing to individuals the right to keep and bear arms do so for purposes of the individual's self-defense and often that of his family and property as well as for the protection of the State. Thus it can be inferred from these State constitutional provisions, so often structured so as to be in harmony with the Constitution of the United States, have from the earliest times of our history to the present day provided us with some compelling insights into how the second amendment has has been perceived and implemented. Now, we followed that statement up with some reference to case law which I will simply leave for the record. But departing for a moment from the statement, we maintain that our position finds further justification in the ordinary course of recent events. Day after day newspapers throughout the United States report numerous instances in which the presence of privately owned firearms helped prevent murder, rape, or assault upon gun owners or others or the theft of their property. Nevertheless, despite the obvious crime deterrence of private firearms ownership by lawabiding citizens and the dissauding effect of some would-be criminals of the possibility of meeting a law-abiding armed citizen during the perpetration of a criminal act, advocates of restrictive gun control efforts such as firearms registration, gun owner licensing, Government confiscation of privately owned firearms, continually barrage the public with the fallacy that privately owned firearms are a causal factor of the crime problem. At this particular time, most attention is being given to handguns. We are frequently told over half the murders in the United States are committed with the use of handguns and that the fact that there are at least 40 million handguns in private hands in the United States is a sad commentary on the state of our American society. However, impartial scrutiny of relevant statistics does not confirm the validity of this unending parade of horribles. The F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports for 1973, the most recent year of official record, indicates that of the estimated 19,510 criminal homicides in the United States, 53 percent were committed with the use of handguns. This represents an actual figure of 10,340. Incredibly, therefore, of all the handguns in the Nation, only .000259 percent were involved in a criminal homicide. In other words, approximately 99.999741 percent of the 40 million handguns were not. One cannot help but remark that the American automobile appears to constitute a more clear and present danger. In a speech delivered on April 6, 1975, by the Hon. Edward M. Levi, Attorney General of the United States, to the Law Enforcement Executives Conference in Washington, D.C., it was pointed out that the number of handguns in the United States increases at the rate of 2.5 million per year. Given the annual rates of increase of criminal homicides in recent years, the percentage of handguns used in criminal homicide is constantly decreasing. Furthermore, assuming the annual increases in handguns posited by the Attorney General, criminal homicides committed with handguns would have to increase 411 percent or to an actual figure of 42,500 to have involved .001 percent of the handguns in the United States in such homicides. Mr. CONYERS. Pardon me, Mr. Snyder, let me say that I appreciate your testimony. Would you be able to summarize it briefly? Mr. SNYDER. Yes, I intend to leave the rest of the statistical material just for your perusal because it is too long and detailed for presentation at this time. But the statistics to come further substantiate the positions that I have been trying to make here. Mr. CONYERS. And your committee still takes the position that the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed? Mr. SNYDER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons that I gave. We feel that since that act was passed, that crime has not decreased, but has increased. Therefore we cannot say that this has been effective. We should not be taxing people to pay for the administration of this type of thing. Mr. CONYERS. Do you have 71 Members of Congress still on your National Advisory Council? Mr. SNYDER. I believe it is now 81. Mr. CONYERS. Well I don't know if Dr. Corbett is here or not, but I didn't put that question to him and I want to———— Mr. SNYDER. I believe there are 78 Members of the House and I think three Members of the Senate. Mr. CONYERS. I see. Well then if you are for the repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act, there is probably no legislation that you would endorse in its place? Mr. SNYDER. Well as I pointed out, I think that some parts in it. like the parts against preventing the sales of firearms to felons and minors and mental incompetents and people of that nature, is okay. I also do not object to the idea of a waiting period between the purchase and delivery, but the burden should be on the dealer in checking with law enforcement to see what is the situation with regard to Mr. CONYERS. Do you have any views about any parts of the President's proposed legislation in this area that you would subscribe to? Mr. SNYDER. Well I was writing down as Mr. Macdonald was speaking here and there was one proposal there in which he said something to the effect of making it more difficult for felons to obtain guns and I would definitely support that. I would not support the ban on Saturday night specials. I don't really know what he has in mind when he is talking about limiting the number of federal licensees. So I support his point on mandatory sentencing certainly. But the rest of it I feel I would have to analyze further. But I would feel, just in giving you a cursory answer, that we would have to say that we would not. Mr. CONYERS. Well I am reserving judgment just like you are. I have noticed that the President has not been able to secure any sponsors so far. I hope my statement doesn't spur someone to redress that situation. But I yield now for any questions or observations from the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. Mr. CONYERS. Then I would ask the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, if he has any questions or observations he would like to raise at this point. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Snyder, do you believe that the second amendment discriminates through a nondiscriminatory tax levied against the manufacturer? Mr. SNYDER. I didn't hear all of that. A nondiscriminatory tax? Mr. SNYDER. Would you be a little more clear, sir? Mr. WIGGINS. Do you believe that the second amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a tax to be levied against the manufacturer? Mr. SNYDER. Well again I would have to study that question. I haven't studied it, but I would suppose not. Mr. WIGGINS. Attorney General Levi has said that we are turning out roughly 2.8 million new handguns into the system every year. If there were, let us say, $100 tax on every handgun manufactured in the United States and that was levied upon the manufacturer, what impact do you think that would have on the sale of new handguns? Mr. SNYDER. It would decrease the sale. Mr. WIGGINS. Do you think it would be a significant decrease? Mr. SNYDER. I do not know because I haven't seen any projects. that have been done on this so I don't really know, but it would seem to me that it would be rather serious. Mr. WIGGINS. And you do not believe off hand that that raises a Constitutional issue? Mr. SNYDER. It might. It might, depending on just how serious the effect was. Mr. WIGGINS. Well if you would like to reflect upon the question and submit your views after more consideration, I for one would be most interested in reading them. Thank you. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Snyder, we are grateful to you for your coming before the committee and we appreciate the continuing concern as evidenced by your joining with us in so many of the hearings that we have held here in Washington. The subcommittee stands in adjournment. [Whereupon at 4:10 p.m. the subcommittee recessed. subject to the call of the Chair.] 58-929-76- -14 FIREARMS LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Conyers, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Conyers, Mann, Danielson, Hughes, McClory, and Ashbrook. Also present: Maurice A. Barboza, counsel. Mr. CONYERS. The subcommittee will come to order. We are delighted to welcome back again the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. David R. Macdonald, accompanied, of course, by Mr. Rex Davis, the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. James Featherstone. We welcome you gentlemen. Before you begin, I would like to indicate that yesterday I introduced H.R. 9780, a bill that results from my own review of the question we have been investigating for some 7 months. It is a bill that essentially bans the handgun, in an attempt to save 10,000 persons each year from handgun deaths. It is the result of careful study on my part, and a great deal of advice from many of the experts who have appeared before this subcommittee. We welcome you back, Mr. Secretary. We have your statement that you brought with you this morning, and it will appear in the record at this point. We have invited you back to continue the discussion that we were engaged in when you were last here. Before you commence, however, I would like to ask you to indicate to this subcommittee what measures, if any, are being reviewed, in connection with providing additional protection to the President of the United States, as well as to the Presidential candidates who are already out and running and those who will be entering the race later? [The prepared statement of David R. Macdonald follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID R. MACDONALD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (ENFORCEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND TARIFF AFFAIRS) Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to appear before this Subcommittee to continue a dialogue that has ranged from the philosophy of statutory enactment as a means of effecting moral change, to the size of ATF's budget. I understand that today's testimony is to be closer to the latter than the former. I do think it appropriate, however, to classify one ambiguity contained in the letter from the Subcommittee inviting me to testify. In your letter, Mr. Chairman, it is stated: |