this morning. I have another committee meeting dealing with a broader issue of arms control, which I would like to attend, and that is my reason for my request to go first this morning.

I also appreciate the subtle word of warning of need to be appreciative of the schedule you have, and I will attempt to honor it. I do have a statement, and I appreciate that it is being made a part of the record, and I would like to perhaps paraphrase it, if I could for a few minutes, and talk to some of the concerns that I think have engendered my interest.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael J. Harrington follows.]

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss what I consider to be one of the most important issues facing this Congress-the issue of gun control.

Attorney General Levi, in a welcomed statement on the need for stronger gun control measures, was quoted as saying that "the test of our government may lie in its ability to open thoughful discussion on issues marked by deep emotional divisions."

I fully agree with Mr. Levi's statement, but would further suggest that the test of our government may also lie in its ability to meet, head-on, its responsibility to act in the best interest of its citizens.

By the Attorney Generals' standards, our government has clearly proved to be unequal to the challenge-thoughtful and creative discussion has never char acterized Congressional debate on the subject of gun control. If we use effective governmental action as the measure, we may conclude that we have failed to live up to our responsibility to govern in the national interest.

Congressional and Executive failure to institute a realistic gun control program has served as a damning indictment of our avowed willingness to provide effective national leadership in areas of vital importance to the safety and well-being of each and every citizen. The result of our acquiescence in the critical area of gun control is directly reflected in the 25,000 gun deaths that occur in this country each year.

We have, through our inaction, contributed to the institutionalization of violence as a way of life in America.

Clearly, we have not acted alone in this endeavor. Historical factors unique to the United States such as our nostalgia for the American frontier and our reference for self-reliance and rugged individualism have provided the underpinnings upon which our gun culture rests.

Our failure to provide leadership, however, is a direct result of our ability or unwillingness to disregard politically expedient half-measures such as the 1968 Gun Control Act, and directly confront these traditional inclinations which threaten our society.

That is, of course, a difficult route to take. Traditionally, the political pressures which have been brought to bear on wavering legislators have been extremely persuasive. The ability of the pro-gun lobby to elicit letters from its constituency is phenomenal. The fear of becoming a target singled out for political retribution also serves as a major deterrent against bucking the parochial interests of the pro-gun forces

The pro-gun lobby has also effectively used the media to misrepresent the gun control issue and play to fears about race, governmental domination and subversion.

The highly emotional argument most frequently echoed by the pro-gun constituency is the claim to a constitutional "right" to bear arms." This claim is often made in ignorance of the numerous Supreme Court decisions which have consistently held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution refers not to an individual right to bear arms but rather to the right of a state to maintain a well armed militia. The fierce emotional fervor attached to this concern perhaps best illustrates the degree to which the gun lobby has shaped public opinion to serve its goals.

Our uniquely American gun culture has now assumed a tone of immediacy in reaction to the sharp growth in the nations' crime rate. Millions of citizens

pize' fear their neighborhood streets after dark, and their notion of defeeling vdes self and one's family rather than relying solely on the police, has canity gained great appeal, despite the proven impracticality and inđựna 'y of such efforts.

Dere are now approximately 40 million privately owned handguns and an sal 25 million enter circulation each year. Yet, we find ourselves lending pinay to gun control proposals which we know will not address the full fur handgun problem.

ưg satin which would ban the "Saturday Night Special" or mandate ceratin and licensing are measures which have extremely limited applicaMich like the emasculated Gun Control Act of 1968, these provisions will he impact on the numbers of deaths and injuries by handguns each ***s part] "larly true of the "Saturday Night Special" legislation now being iki fered by this Subcommittee. In addition to the difficulties encountered in “ga defnition for "Saturday Night Specials" which is not easily circum1%% by the manufacturer, a wealth of documentary evidence indicates that a. percentage of vollent crimes are committed with these cheap, Pony Pa? „factured handguns

inden son fucted by the New York City Police Department have determined es* at 330 percent of the firearms seized from arrested perpetrators were -'ay Nght Specials", Another study by the same source reports that * ́s a ten day period seven police officers were killed with handguns, vna f the har igurs used in these crimes were identified as "Specials". This

195,banized that while "Saturday Night Specials" are an important f the handgun problem, eliminating them would not come close to fully is the problem in fact, I would suggest that "Saturday Night Special" tim gut in some ways prove counter productive.

at apparent that the major handgun manufacturers in this country Dashing the Special.” This is not totally unexpected since such a i elit itate existing competition from roughly 300 small manufacfer man ifacturers would then be free to totally monopolize the 51 as a result, be financially capable of marketing what are te revolvers and pistols for considerably less. I am firmly convinced or passize of "Saturday Night Special' legislation would not only fail to g amount of violent erine presently being committed, but *1*o the hinds of the major gun manufacturers who share pers of ***p***iicity for the maintenance and cultivation of this counWith goda

ang and registration measures provide a more logical, enfore. Satarsday Night Specials" legislation, they too are silarly Tegation of this nature would require that each go be tered and that each owner be licensed after the completion of a thorough ma. Theœ provisions would of course restrict the availability of hands

are theoretically responsible law it „ding citizens. It has been #1 however that acidents or crimes of passion” between peo fed or a quainted account for anproximately 737% of 1 ardIng and registration leg! Lation is, in the final analysis, 'e iurasure Winich has gained legitimacy in our avoidance of the Der Gerøral Raflsey Clark in his book "Crime în Ameri a” stated

is in spable of keeping guns from the potential criminal g them to law abiding citizens then peräaps government is Lines. The chi'y al’ernative is to rollove guns from the

The Nderittee to avold propoon's which do not go to the and for, w the responsis le precedent set by other nati-ns by 6. the t-rivate jammession of all handguns

nlod three hard, in mor lers in 1973 as emparel

1. In 20at tries that of Távo In Fonard and We»
50 r11 on there were 35 murders committed with fire
! - *1¢ *wxt {u !!! {% !} e 【་!པ། མཇོའངོ་ས

In recognition of the limited legitimate uses of handguns, my bill, the Hardgun Control Act of 1975, provides exception to pistol clubs, antique collectors peace officers, and licensed security guards. The bill also provides for a six month amnesty period in which the owners of handguns could turn in their weapons to the local police for its fair market value.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that our collective efforts to limit the domestic arms race may be misdirected. Perhaps greater emphasis and attention should be directed to the $1.5 billion industry which profits from the proliferation of handguns rather than the individual gun owner who is merely reacting to an environment riddled with fear.

As I noted earlier, the major gun manufacturers play a primary role in fostering the gun mania that pervades this country today. This profitable industry is the financial mainstay of the National Rifle Association and its many constituent organizations. The industry's money also goes directly into the coffers of sympathetic politicians.

It seems to me that there is some legitimacy to the notion that the industry should be held in some way accountable for the violence and sensele-s deaths caused by the destructive tools they manufacture.

In the weeks ahead, I intend to explore the legal possibility of extending the chain of responsibility for violent crimes to the manufacturer. I likewise urge this Subcommittee to explore the potential for the development of legislation which would address the gun control issue in this manner. I am convinced that as long as handgun manufacturers are permitted to market their weapons, violence will continue to be a way of life in America.

Mr. HARRINGTON. There has been an increasing awareness fostered by very visible components of the political structure in this country, most recently Attorney General Levi, all of whom are beginning to appreciate, perceive, and to a degree address the dimensions of the problem presented by the gun culture which we have tolerated, for reasons which are perhaps best explained by psychologists rather than Congressmen.

I am concerned with what appears to be the most promising season we have seen out of the trauma and the tragedy developed over the last generation, that we take full advantage of that heightened awareness in the course of this season and in the course of the forum provided by your own substantial interest in the field. And I am hopeful that whatever may emerge from the efforts which have been orgoing since the beginning of this Congress, that the tendency to go in the direction of the appearance of action, which is something that the Congress institutionally specializes in, will be avoided to the degree that we can address some of the very substantive problems that I still think remain below the surface.

A great deal of expectation has been generated by the hope that if something dealing with the cheaper version handgun can be the net result of congressional activity during the season that it will be a start.

I am not sure that I share the majority of views that such legislative action would constitute a start, and perhaps not an exercise in delusion, and to a degree an avoidance, if that is where the effort ends during the course of the 94th Congress. Much of my concern, and much of the data that would document the growing evidence of handguns as the component part of the homicide rate in this country, has already been developed by both your committee and by witnesses that preceded me.

What I hope might be done with the superior resources we have, and the collective efforts of those that are concerned is to go back further in that cham. In addition to appreciating the very real fear that exists on the part of a segment of this country that do not ho'd

of the National Rifle Association, that do not consider themhers of other types of efforts that are directed toward not g*, - law changed, that runs essentially to a concern that out of rent that increasingly has been the object of distrust, will ve a pet result of any success in this field, a chance to impose a Decatrol over society which these people in their belief and

on of things feel is a likely end result of where we have gm recent years. I do not share that fear, but I think it is 2t mite enough in a number of ways to have the com›lf to it.

at 1 pm most concerned about, and one that I think ental attention is one that I frankly still find my when it comes to ideas about attempting to go to I think a

sated aren of this whole subject, the manufacturing end trani, weete we have a number of people who are in the Ivry successfully for the most part, and male a great ety as a result of the activity which has seen a proliferation and we are industry in this country, many of whom, ironted in my own region, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

marafacturers are far less sympathetic as would corara tice and political concern, than the vast conpv-lus! gun owners, I refer specifically to the question or to popes » l'abaley on the manufacturer in some fashion tara of the law which a ready exists, or attempting td more about the nature and the makeup of this * econotaje leverage to bring about desired reselts e part of the political proces. I think it may provide 6 diet.on to this comtaittee's consideration during on, and perhaps the efforts either at dealing with -or the registration processor any o' e of a number w of which are te fan themselves.

"

I do not wait to demgi, te for a moment the e a maford to in a war t, of infernation provided by the

d Frearns Brinen of the Treasury, or r' forn aþe„dent of that ideate that a fir miester proporis fat on ir are occurring with weapons that do not ry of the cheaper, mexpensive models which are the on t'as veut. And I think it might be useful a- a -trategy to both avoid that rather narrow address to

o avoid getting into wist may very well be a contest og bazed na izons of people, 'oe, ing at the demons * writing, lobbising, und poi tal a tavaly in the to try to addres out »lves to the fin te, and as I have ***ytut at! ti-end of the process tint engem & in the

or fue import of component parts. And whatever n ay 10t very well refect both in terms of the good

ably mit that look, at end e testi in the bien

the chain, and we can begin to think in terms of either the development of theory legally, or other solutions which will involve us in getting at the gun manufacturing industry in this country, and not attempt to address that far more difficult political and numerical end. the actual owner and possessor of the gun, who we have usually had at the cutting edge in a negative way in the course of an effort like this. Mr. CONYERS. Would you indulge in an interruption?

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, that is really the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and I will certainly indulge an interruption.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. While I cannot reach a conclusion at this time, when I get both my friends here I want to clarify the issue so that we can get right into it. Let me put it this way. You suggest that it might be more productive to focus on banning or controlling the manufacture of guns than to try for a law that would control the distribution of guns and thereby run the risk of another onslaught by the traditional gun lobbyists. In effect, you are saying, control the problem at its source.

This is not like the drug problem where illegal, mysterious sources are spreading poison in our society. These are licensed, legitimate business activities that are spawning weapons of destruction at the rate of at least 211⁄2 million per year. My perception so far is that we have an increasing rate of weapons being introduced annually into our society, and the question is how to turn that phenomenon around, how to reduce the availability of weapons. Until we begin to deal with that, everything else to me-is secondary.

We sent out-feeling much the same as you-a letter to the handgun manufacturers which I want you to look at. Question 11 asks:

Annually for each of the fiscal years of 1968 through 1974 the net profits from the sale of each caliber and type of handgun manufactured, imported or assembled by your firm.

And another question asks:

Annually for each of the fiscal years 1968 through 1974 the names and addresses of the major distributors and/or dealers, the number, caliber and type of handguns manufactured, imported or assembled by your firm which each major dealer purchased directly from your firm.

We have had five responses and at least one company has indicated that it would answer in the near future. This letter has gone out to 34 manufacturers around the country.

Now, first of all. the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco unit that is charged with the administration of the 1968 Gun Act, which was the first major law since 1938 on the subject of firearms and the major law in the 20th century on the subject suggests that there has not been much Federal concern about the gun problem. It was not until the thirties that we got into the crime picture, its interstate ramifications and the expansion of FBI jurisdiction. If we could develop ATF which is only really a handful of people supposedly coordinating this problem, and if we could close the wide and obvious loopholes in the 1968 Gun Act we would go a long way, in my judgment, toward solving our present problem.

We might want to consider applying to domestic guns the factoring criteria, which now keep out cheap foreign handguns and notice that I did not use the phrase Saturday night special--and we might consider the Federal licing of all handgun purchasers, the registration