For example, the administration proposal would eliminate from consideration any weapon that did not have for its merit under the existing factor criteria, that is a 3-inch barrel, so that since the proposal would apply to both domestic manufacture and sale as well as importation, then it would be tougher on imported weapons. Mr. McCLORY. I would just like to say this for the record: I was not provided the opportunity earlier, but I think the point should be made in response to some of the comments and questions by my colleague, Mr. Ashbrook, and that is the purpose of this proceeding is to help correct the deficiencies in the existing law and to have the Congress act in response to what the existing defects are of the socalled loopholes, and it is my hope that your agency and others in the Government, in the Department of Justice and the administration Domestic Council can work and cooperate with the Congress to help articulate what I think is needed and what popular opinion today is indicating we should do, and what in my opinion society today requires. I would finally like to recommend to you, Mr. Chairman, that you set the hearing today, if possible, for mark-up of legislation. As a matter of fact, I deferred the introductions of my bill which I introduced on Monday and which I think-and certainly is an effort to put together in one package what appears to be the sentiments of a number of members of the committee in order that the committee can now, after these long months of hearings, can compose our ideas on legislation to present to the full committee and to the Congress. And I would ask, first of all, if you will set a hearing for next week or the week after next for that purpose and fix a date when we can get down to business of getting out a bill. I do not think this is precipitant in any way by events in the last few weeks. This is something we have been studying and working on for a long time, you and I, and I know you have your views embodied in a measure which is before the committee, and I would like to consider that piece of legislation and my legislation and the administration's proposal and see if we can get a bill out in this session of this year, which I think would be the ultimate goal of this committee. Mr. CONYERS. I would be happy to talk with you about it. Let us excuse the witnesses. They have been here many, many hours. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your presence. The Director, and the Assistant Counsel, you have been very helpful in at least helping us pinpoint some of the very important issues that are in controversy, in an attempt to pass some updated gun control legislation. Mr. MCCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to be taking advantage Mr. CONYERS. I just want to remind you that you are proceeding out of order, but if you insist on speaking as usual, I will allow you. Mr. MCCLORY. This is a public hearing, and the public is interested when are we going to get down to the business of marking up that bill, and I would just like us to have a date set today if we can. I would be individually interested, and many people have asked me about that, and I do not know any way to get a commitment which is available to the public except in this kind of discussion. Mr. CONYERS. There is nothing which is going to preclude a discussion of this which, I certainly intend to do, but I choose to excuse the witnesses, if you do not mind. Mr. McCLORY. I do not mind. Mr. MACDONALD. As always, it is a honing experience for us to come up here and answer your questions, and we walk away a little sharper always than we were before. [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] FIREARMS LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 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. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to order. We are very pleased to have as our first witness, Attorney Ronald Gainer, Acting Director of the Office of Policy and Planning, the U.S. Department of Justice, accompanied by Attorney Karen Skrivseth. Mr. Gainer has distinguished himself in a great deal of activity in connection with the Department of Justice in the Appellate Division. And he served as Deputy Chief and now Chief of the Legislative and Special Projects Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and he has been very instrumental in working on the formulation of firearms regulation legislation. It is on the assumption that he is the principal draftsman of this administration proposal H.R. 9022, that we welcome him before the subcommittee and hope to learn everything that it is possible to determine in connection with the thinking that has gone into this proposal. We should note before we begin that this represents the culmination of any number of attempts to get the Attorney General here in person. And, in view of the fact that it is apparent that we are not going to have the chief law enforcement officer before the subcommittee, we move toward our present witness. We have your prepared statement. We thank you for submitting it in advance of your appearance. It will be put into the record at this point and that will free you to begin your discussion with this subcommittee. [The prepared statement of Ronald Gainer follows:] STATEMENT OF RONALD L. GAINER Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I have been requested to discuss with you today the provisions of H.R. 9022, a bill introduced by Congressman McClory on behalf of the Administration. The bill would amend the Gun Control Act of 1968. I need not recite to you the statistics concerning the proportion of violent crime that is accomplished through the use of handguns. At this stage of your hearings, you gentlemen are keenly aware of the extent of the problem. You are also aware of the difficulties in attempting to achieve a solution. While there appears to be a developing consensus that something must be done by the Congress about the criminal misuse of handguns, the form that such action should take remains in issue. H.R. 9022 does not propose a ban on the possession of handguns. Nor does it propose a system of licensing owners of handguns or of registering the handguns in private possession. It does contain, however, a series of provisions which in themselves constitute relatively minor extensions of the existing federal laws, yet which, in combination, afford a realistic hope of achieving a significant reduction in the scope of the problem. H.R. 9022 is designed to help reduce the problem of criminal use of handguns through a combination of four general measures: first, by assuring that dealers' licenses may be obtained only by bona fide firearms dealers; second, by requiring that dealers take certain steps before selling a handgun in order to assure that persons seeking to purchase handguns are lawfully entitled to do so; third, by prohibiting absolutely the manufacture and sale of cheap, unreliable handguns commonly known as Saturday Night Specials; and fourth, by undertaking measures to increase the effectiveness of enforcement efforts. The first of the four measures is intended to restrict dealers' licenses to those actually conducting a firearms business and to assure that their business is conducted lawfully. Today, anyone with ten dollars and a felony-free record can become a federally licensed firearms dealer. Moreover, those licensees who choose to do so may then operate in violation of the law with little realistic chance of being detected. Given the fact that there are now approximately 150,000 federally licensed firearms dealers, the likelihood of an unlawful dealer's being discovered through routine inspections is minimal. Treasury agents are able to visit each dealer's place of business approximately once every ten years, and during that visit have time to review an average of only four or five randomly-selected sets of records. Part of the problem is that today there is only one class of federal firearms dealers' license, Yet many dealers wish simply to sell ammunition as a service to their customers. Others are interested only in handling long guns for hunters and marksmen. The current law does not even require that the licensee really be in the business of buying and selling firearms. Indeed, many persons presently obtain license as a convenient means of circumventing some of the general purposes of the 1968 Act, and they may do so lawfully. The 1968 Act was not intended to be a voluntary licensing system for anyone willing to pay a ten dollar fee for the privilege of purchasing weapons from persons in another state. It was designed to require certain conduct by persons in the business of buying and selling firearms, and it was intended as a strict limitation on interstate sales. The Treasury Department has emphasized in the past the need for a change in the requirements for obtaining a dealers' license so that only a bona fide dealer may obtain one. H.R. 9022 includes a series of provisions that will accomplish the Treasury Department's objective. Specifically, the bill would establish various classes of licenses and would impose a scale of fees calibrated to the need for routine inspections of those holding particular kinds of licenses. The dealers' fees would range from a high of $500 for a pawnbroker dealing in handguns as well as long guns, to a low of $25 for a retailer selling only ammunition. The Secretary of the Treasury, prior to issuing a license, would be required to review the genuineness of the applicant's intent to engage in a bona fide business, the capitalization of the business, the applicant's business experience, and other factors relevant to establishing that the applicant is in fact intending to engage in the firearms business. Such provisions are similar to those currently enforced with regard to applicant's desiring to engage in commerce involving alcoholic beverages. These provisions should enable the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms more carefully to screen applicants for firearms licenses, particularly those who wish to deal in handguns, and the increased fees should provide a source of revenue that will more closely approximate the actual administrative and inspection costs of an adequate supervisory program. |