should do something. Well, the best way we could do it would be to reject whatever it is you are bringing up here, it seems to me.

Now, let me ask you this. Do you have the notion that registration schemes are unpopular in the United States?

Mr. GAINER. I think one could generally perceive that there are many groups in the country with whom such schemes are indeed unpopular. I think probably the unpopularity of such schemes has been grossly overemphasized. I think probably it is less unpopular than is generally—

Mr. CONYERS. Do you know they are popular with more people than they are unpopular?

Mr. GAINER. All the polls over a period of 10 years or so-beyond that indicate that the majority of the American people favor some sort of effective control of handguns, and the majority of gun owners also favor effective controls of handguns.

Mr. CONYERS. I am talking about registration schemes. I am not talking about effective controls of handguns. I am saying, are you aware that there is a popularity among the citizenry for the notion of registering weapons?

Mr. GAINER. I think most of the polls-and I do not know how one ascertains the views of the citizenry as a whole, other than talking to individuals, representative groups and so forth, and by attempting to ascertain what is meant by the result of the polls-most of the polls indicate that people feel something needs to be done. Most of the questions utilized by the polling services are not such as would indicate the particular nature of the scheme that most persons would feel appropriate.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, then you have not seen the registration polls. That is what you are telling me, is that the idea? I mean, have you seen the polls taken by the pollsters on the question of registration?

Mr. GAINER. Í have. I do not recall the specific results frankly. I have seen a dozen or so different polls.

Mr. CONYERS. Let me refresh your memory then: 67 percent of the people favor registration of all guns.

Mr. GAINER. And that is down from a year or so ago.

Mr. CONYERS. Now you recall a little bit more about it. I am happy to know that your memory is being refreshed. Now, is the term "Saturday Night Special" used in this bill?

Mr. GAINER. Yes, it is in the introductory portion.

Mr. CONYERS. But not in the body?

Mr. GAINER. Not in the body of the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Is there some need to persist in the use of this colloquial term, in terms of the legislative process, so that we spend hours upon hours of arguing about what who means by the use of that term?

Mr. GAINER. Not at all. The sporting purpose test I think would be a sufficient means of describing those handguns which fall within or without the category we wish to cover.

Mr. CONYERS. I am glad to hear that because it is a term that has become to me more and more unnecessary in the discussion of firearms regulation. And it has been used quite a bit in this discussion we have had here this morning.

Now, what about a definition of "particularly suitable for sporting purposes"? Is there one on this proposed piece of legislation?

Mr. GAINER. The incorporation of the modified Treasury factoring test is a particularization of factors that would be looked to in evaluating sporting purposes.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, it says, "and that". That sounds additional to me. It does not sound definitive of that phrase that precedes it.

Mr. GAINER. It is not definitive. It is to be made clear that at the very minimum any weapon would have to meet the particular factoring criteria.

Mr. CONYERS. And I would suppose then that the answer to my question whether there is a definition with regard to the phrase, particularly suitable for sporting purposes, the answer would be no? Mr. GAINER. The answer would have to be no.

Mr. CONYERS. And what about a definition with regard to particularly suitable for sporting or valid defensive purposes. Is there a definition contained within the proposed legislation with regard to valid defensive purposes?

Mr. GAINER. There is none at all.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, since you mentioned Zimring, that was one of the criticisms that he pointed out in terms of the 1968 legislation, is it not?

Mr. GAINER. The sporting purpose provision? Yes, in an article on the 1968 act which appeared about a year ago he indicated the problems with that definition. This bill is an attempt to avoid some of the problems that have been occasioned by the current language. It is an attempt to set forth with a little more particularity what is meant by "Saturday Night Specials." There is no doubt there is a great problem in attempting to define what kind of handgun one wishes to exclude from circulation. There are many approaches that can be tried. This is one of them. A regressive tax is another.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, pardon me, but this definition and the factoring criteria did not reduce the number of cheap handguns in the 1968 Gun Control Act, did it?

Mr. GAINER. It reduced the number coming into the country from the outside, but left a gaping loophole that permitted the parts, as opposed to frames and completed weapons, to be imported and assembled and inserted in frames made here. It also left a gaping loophole in that they could be manufactured in their entirety in this

country.

Most of the manufacturers in this country, as you know, do not produce weapons falling in the general class of weapons sought to be excluded. There are some that do, particularly those producing the short nose revolvers made for police detectives and so forth.

Mr. CONYERS. They do now as a result of the 1968 gun law which prohibited the importation of the ones that were coming in from abroad. That was exactly what happened, as a matter of fact. People began making domestically cheap handguns in a greater number than

ever.

Mr. GAINER. There have been a great many manufacturers doing that. One is even employing the handicapped in order to get some local, favorably publicity for his making of "Saturday night spe

58-929-76-19

cials." But Smith & Wesson, Sturn Ruger, High Standard, Colt, and the other reputable manufacturers, simply are not producing guns of this nature.

Mr. CONYERS. Were they in on the discussions and constitute some of the private organizations that were the discussants in the formulation of this legislation?

Mr. Gainer. I talked to representatives from those four manufacturers quite early in the Departments' discussions. It was at their request. We were discussing at that point primarily whether they were against any form of gun control legislation or not. They were all quite clear that they favored some legislation dealing at least with "Saturday night special," and indicated a great willingness to assist the Department of the Treasury in attempting to define what is meant by that colloquialism.

We had talked to them as representatives of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We had talked to several others who are generally opposed to gun controls.

Mr. CONYERS. Who?

Mr. GAINER. The National Rifle Association, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, the National Firearms Abuse Committee, the National Sporting Goods Association, and representatives of individual handgun manufacturers. However, we talked to more groups, because there are more in number which strongly favor some sort of a more effective Federal firearms policy, including the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy, the National Council to Control Handguns, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, the Citizens Alliance for a Safer Community, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the ABA's Criminal Justice Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Police Foundation, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the sponsors of the Massachusetts Barkley-Fox handgun law, the National Urban Coalition, and a variety of others.

We found a great divergence of views.

Mr. CONYERS. What about the importers?

Mr. GAINER. I recall none representing importers.

Mr. CONYERS. Did you mention Smith & Wesson?

Mr. GAINER. Smith & Wesson was one of those in attendance at the meeting with representatives of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Mr. CONYERS. Was Colt present with any representatives?

Mr. GAINER. Colt had two representatives at the meeting I attended. I understand there was a subsequent meeting which another person in our office attended. I think representatives from Colt, Sturn Ruger, Smith & Wesson, High Standard, and maybe one other were present at the time. Those four manufacture roughly 70 percent of the handguns being sold in this Nation, and a much higher percentage of the high quality handguns.

Mr. CONYERS. I am impressed by that. Now, does the National Rifle Association manufacture handguns?

Mr. GAINER. No, of course they do not.

Mr. CONYERS. Are they manufacturers or connected with the manufacturers?

Mr. GAINER. Well, we found that the National Shooting Sports Foundation took great pains to distinguish its views as an institution from those of the National Rifle Association.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, what was the National Rifle Association's concern with this question of criteria and manufacture? These other organizations it seems might have a much more direct relationship.

Mr. GAINER. As I recall in the discussion with representatives from the National Rifle Association, to the extent that the discussion focused upon inexpensive, cheap handguns, it did not go into such detail as to indicate what might be incorporated in a prohibition, but was generally on the overall problems of defining, with sufficient particularity, what is meant.

Mr. CONYERS. Finally, how does the factoring criteria differ from that which is already in existence in the 1968 Gun Control Act?

Mr. GAINER. Well, the 1968 Gun Control Act, of course, has no specific set of factoring criteria governing the importation of weapons. It simply says that they must serve a sporting purpose. The Treasury Department, through regulation, has developed a factoring test to screen these weapons that are to be imported.

What is incorporated in the bill is a modification of the latest version of that factoring test that was worked out with several representatives from the Treasury Department. Basically, it is the version they wish to be using today, with an extension of the barrel length on revolvers from 3 inches to 4 inches. There are a couple of other minor variations from the Treasury draft. There are a couple of changes in the descriptions of handgun caliber because as originally drafted there were a few gaps in between 9 millimeter and 0.357 magnum and 0.38 special and so forth, that technically would not have included all possible calibers under their formulation. It was a matter of a technical variation, for the most part, of their test.

Mr. CONYERS. What was the reasoning behind embodying this factoring criteria into Federal law as opposed to the 1968 Gun Control Act?

Mr. GAINER. The 1968 Gun Control Act approach could be taken. It could simply refer to sporting purpose.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, was there anything that led you to change this pattern?

Mr. GAINER. The pattern was changed only because Treasury seemed to feel it would be of advantage to have the support of a congressional enactment setting forth specific criteria. It could work either way. Mr. CONYERS. Do any of the other members of the subcommittee seek recognition?

Yes, Mr. Danielson?

Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Gainer, I am directing your attention to section 8 of your bill, the one which would provide for a mandatory sentence. This may have been touched upon before, but I want to expand slightly. You provide, starting on line 13, "that whoever uses a firearm to commit any felony for which he may be prosecuted in the court of the United States," et cetera. I am mindful of the fact that probably the use of a firearm in connection with the commission of any crime would make it a felony. I would not want to try to eliminate that one way or another. However, I am also familiar with the fact that oftentimes in

criminal proceedings, a person can bargain to plead guilty to a lesser included offense which would take it out of the category of being a felony and therefore would remove this mandatory imprisonment. I would feel, frankly, that if this is to have a deterrant effect a mandatory sentence should apply any time a person uses a firearm in the commission of a crime which could be prosecuted in a court of the United States.

I would like your comments on that.

Mr. GAINER. You are right in that an offense not charged is not going to be prosecuted, and if it is not prosecuted there is going to be no sentence imposed. This is part of a far broader problem, as you are obviously very well aware. The Attorney General has expressed concern about the general process of plea bargaining, as it is known. Generally Federal prosecutors limit plea negotiations to matters of counts rather than matters of sentence. Nevertheless, it is an area that requires exploration.

Recently the whole area of discretion in the criminal justice process, judicial discretion and prosecutorial discretion, has been coming under a little closer examination. The Attorney General has indicated that he intends to set up a committee to examine carefully the whole problem of plea negotiations. I would anticipate that the utilization of plea negotiations to negate the effect of a statute of his nature would be one of the primary areas that that committee's attention would be focused upon.

Mr. DANIELSON. Well, do you suppose the Department of Justice would oppose-if we get tot his stage in marking up this bill I would certainly endeavor to amend it to include all offenses - would that meet with opposition from the Department of Justice?

Mr. GAINER. To modify the bill in what respect?

Mr. DANIELSON. To have a mandatory sentence to apply to any crime, to the carrying of a firearm, possessing of a firearm in connec tion with any crime which could be prosecuted in the court of the United States: otherwise, a misdemeanor in other words.

Mr. GAINER. The offenses would otherwise have to be felonies.

Mr. DANIELSON. That is what the language says. It would not say that if I drew it. That is why I am asking if you would oppose it at

that time.

Mr. GAINER. Well, there are a tremendous number of Federal misdemeanors. There are about 800 to 1,000 outside title 18 alone. Carrying a weapon in the course of dumping mercury in a stream may be somewhat irrelevant; carrying a weapon in the course of cheating on income taxes might be irrelevant.

Mr. DANIELSON. It might be, but then again, it might not.

Mr. GAINER. I understand that. I am not trying to make light of it. What I am trying to suggest is there are a variety of Federal regulatory provisions that would be encompassed by broader language of that nature. You might wish to consider particularizing it, indicating a misdemeanor in which a potential of violence exists-a misdemeanor involving a lesser form of the offenses against the person category: the property offenses of a nature that also threaten the safety of persons, such as robbery, burglary, arson, and so forth; and other such lesser included offenses.

Mr. DANIELSON. I want you to bear in mind that under the language