use of a firearm, not against a law-abiding citizen. Indeed, I would like to have a law-abiding citizen, especially the law-abiding gun owner, to cooperate in support of this legislation.

For one reason, I am very interested in expanding the existing registration system. We do have-all firearms that are manufactured are registered with the manufacturer, are they not?

Mr. CARTER. They are registered with the manufacturer, yes. Mr. McCLORY. And they keep a registration of the dealers to whom they sell the firearms.

Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLORY. And then the dealers in turn, the licensed dealers, they also keep a register which they are required to keep indefinitely of all of the firearms that they sell to the first purchaser.

Mr. CARTER. That is correct.

Mr. McCLORY. Now, with respect to tracing a firearm which is used in connection with a crime, as you know, we have a tracing system which requires the tracing authority of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division to go first to the manufacturer with respect to a gun that has been identified as one used or suspected of being used in connection with a crime, and then trace it to the dealer, and then try to find out who was using that gun.

Now, what would be wrong with having multiple places where such information might be more readily available in trying to identify and apprehend the criminal, once a crime is committed and they have the gun?

Mr. CARTER. I think the thing that is wrong with it is this, that there are applications complete with fingerprints and photographs and fees, which presuppose approval of a police authority.

Mr. McCLORY. No, no. I am just talking about the registration of the gun and the name of the person with whom it is registered. I am not talking about any fingerprints or anything.

Mr. CARTER. I do not know how you would operate a registration Mr. McCLORY. Instead of the dealer just keeping that information himself, what if the dealer just gave the information to the city clerk or to the State, the Secretary of State or something like that. Then it would be readily available.

Mr. CARTER. May I say this? In the first place, it is a central filing; it is a computerized dossier on law-abiding citizens. No one expects the criminal to insert himself in the process. It is a tremendously expensive thing, and we feel like that money ought to be spent better. Mr. McCLORY. That would be the main difference. Instead of being a pencil and paper operation, it would be a computerized operation. Mr. CARTER. Well, I think that we have seen a great deal of things in government the last 2 or 3 years that alarm good citizens about Government record-keeping on decent and law-abiding people by the tens of millions. Government should not be concerned with the 99 and a fraction percent of the people who do not commit crimes.

Mr. McCLORY. Let me say that, in thinking of gun control legislation-and I think my proposal is a very moderate one; I am not thinking of this as being the catchall of all criminal activity or the solution to crime. I am thinking about it only as being a small part of trying to identify and get the criminal.

But when the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division ascertains from a survey that they made that, with regard to the tracing system, 70 percent of the tracings lead to the apprehension of the criminal and 40 percent are effectively used in connection with the prosecution of the criminals, do you not think that is rather persuasive evidence that an improved tracing system would help us to get at the criminal.

Mr. CARTER. Now, Mr. McClory, I thought you were talking about registration. I did not want to leave that subject too soon, because there is another thing about registration. It simply does not have anything to do with crime.

Mr. McCLORY. But, what about answering my question now?

Mr. CARTER. Well, now tracing is another subject entirely and, frankly, I have not yet come to grips with the subject because I see some absurdities in connection with it. For instance, one of the cases cited as an example of good tracing is the Bremer attempt on the life of Governor Wallace. His gun was right there; he was caught there, and his gun was seized there, and I cannot see where tracing, although that was credited as an achievement for tracing, I cannot see where it had anything to do with it.

Now, that was doubtlessly one of the figures which entered into the success figure which you just gave me, and these are self-serving figures from the bureaucracy, and having spent a good many years with the bureaucracy myself, I seriously question the validity of those figures.

Mr. McCLORY. Apparently, they did not know who Mr. Bremer was until they traced it, but, anyway, you did cite an example which really disturbs me, and that is the fact that the police were on strike in Albuquerque, but they had a reduction in crime because the citizens were armed.

Do you think it would be a good policy for us to either get the police off the streets or disarm them and arm all the citizens and try to have our law enforcement done by citizens or citizen vigilantes, instead of law enforcement?

Mr. CARTER. I do not recommend that at all. As a matter of fact, I think that governments, traditionally and historically, owe more to the people in terms of protection for the people than our people are getting.

Mr. McCLORY. You certainly do not have any objection to any law which would prohibit the sale of guns to children and to dope addicts and to alcoholics and to felons, do you?

Mr. CARTER. No, sir. As a matter of fact, the National Rifle Association supports a rather broad

Mr. MCCLORY. You do not have any objection to registration law which does require registration of machine guns and other kinds of automatic weapons like that, do you?

Mr. CARTER. I think the point there is that all of these things are covered already by law.

Mr. McCLORY. Right. Now, we also have a law against the importation of the so-called "Saturday night special" and this has reduced the number of these cheap, really nonsporting type guns into this country. Do you still approve of the importation of these parts and having them assembled here, or having that identical weapon

manufactured here, which we prohibit insofar as its importation is concerned?

Mr. CARTER. As I said a while ago, the "Saturday night special" issue is really nonexistent. Anyone can take a long-barrel gun and make a short-barrel gun out of it in 15 minutes.

Mr. McCLORY. Do you think we ought to repeal the law which prohibits the importation of the "Saturday night special"?

Mr. CARTER. I did not think that was the matter-I did not think that proposal was before us.

Mr. McCLORY. If you oppose the "Saturday night special" do you oppose the importation?

Mr. CARTER. Pardon me?

Mr. McCLORY. You oppose the-you oppose any restriction on the "Saturday night special." I just want to know whether you oppose the importation of the "Saturday night special" which is covered in existing law?

Mr. CORRIGAN. Mr. McClory, may I answer that?

Mr. McCLORY. Would you favor the repeal of it?

Mr. CORRIGAN. May I answer the question in the way that I think will best enlighten you in the broad sense of the question you asked? Mr. McCLORY. The best advice I could give would be either you do favor the repeal or you do not favor the repeal.

Mr. CORRIGAN. May I answer it and, if my response does not answer your question, would you sharpen it?

Mr. McCLORY. Sure.

Mr. CORRIGAN. In 1968 Congress intended to prohibit the importation of certain types of firearms. Apparently it is stated in the law that certain classes of firearms would not be imported. I think you, yourself, in testimony or questioning of witnesses in the course of the hearings here, have asked, or other members of the panel have asked, whether Congress did not intend whether these firearms would be prohibited from importation, either in whole or in part, and I believe it was Congressman Mann who asked that question directly to representatives of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, whether they had made any attempt whatsoever to use their administrative authority to test, at least, whether it was the intent of Congress to prohibit the importation of these firearms, either in whole or in part.

Mr. McCLORY. Well, then you think we just need some clarification in order to prohibit the importation of the parts, do you not?

Mr. CORRIGAN. My response is that if Congress did, indeed, intend to preclude the closure of importation of certain kinds of firearms in 1968, apparently a loophole has been found by some to defy the intent of Congress.

Mr. McCLORY. And you would support closing up that loophole, would you not? I am having a terribly hard time getting an answer to this question from you.

Mr. CARTER. I would not recommend it because it incurs a terrible expense without any achievement whatsoever, and I will tell you why. I had some reports in the last few days from American manufacturers of firearms of the type which you described and which I cannot describe, but commonly called "Saturday night specials," and these gentlemen were showing how all of their parts were made here in the United States.

The gun is assembled here in the United States, and I think that American manufacturers will find a way to supply the trade no matter what kind of legislation you pass with respect to the procurement of parts.

I just do not think there is anything there that you can cope with. Mr. McCLORY. So, you, I gather would support repeal of the existing law against importing "Saturday night specials," would you not? The answer is yes, is it not?

Mr. PARKER. Mr. McClory, without going into whether we would support a repeal or not, I think I would be willing to say this, that I do not think it would make a great deal of difference, one way or the other.

Mr. McCLORY. OK.

Mr. PARKER. The real issue that this committee is considering is as to all handguns. That is the chairman's position on it, and I think Mr. Carter indicated earlier that there is no real distinction between them.

Mr. McCLORY. Oh, we have a variety of measures before us. My measure does not prohibit the ownership of

Mr. PARKER. I did not mean to slight yours.

Mr. CARTER. I do not have any preference under the law for one handgun or another, or one type of handgun in preference to another. I think that there is not anything you can deal with in terms of legislation which will make a distinction between one gun and another.

Mr. McCLORY. If I may just add this, Mr. Chairman, I think we should make a distinction between gun control and gun confiscation because I am not supporting gun confiscation in any way at all, and a great deal of the testimony indicates that the improved, the closing up of the loopholes, and the other measures intended to get at the criminal misuse of the handgun gets confused with confiscating guns, and I hope that this moderate approach will ultimately get the support of the law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun. Thank you.

Mr. CARTER. I think, if I may, I would just like to emphasize that our position is that you should do something to the people who commit crimes and leave those of us alone who do not commit crimes.

Mr. DANIELSON. At this time, the Chair notes there is a quorum call requiring our attendance on the floor. I am informed that this quorum call is probably the predecessor to a vote on an important amendment, I would like to request the members of the subcommittee to return as promptly as possible after performing our duty. My apologies. We do not run those bells.

And we will now recess to return as soon as possible after casting our vote.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Mr. CONYERS (presiding). The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. Mr. Carter, on page 8 of your statement you refer to the

Mr. CARTER. I am sorry, Mr. Mann. I did not hear you.
Mr. MANN. Well, I haven't said much.

You referred to the mindless, cold-blooded people who commit unspeakable violence. Of course, I know that is a reference to the criminal. Do you agree that it is appropriate, as now attempted to be done

in the 1968 act and attempted to be improved in the administration bill at the moment on the waiting period for example, that it is appropriate for the Government to try to restrict the access to guns to the criminal through prescreening, waiting periods, and what not? Mr. CARTER. Prescreening waiting periods, Mr. Mann, these are things that are effective only in terms of the amount of information that the Government has on tens of millions of law-abiding citizens and we feel this is simply fundamentally wrong. We feel that it is wrong for there to be centralized records here in Washington on tens of millions of people who have committed no crime. They have done no wrong, they should not be suspect and the Government should leave them alone.

Mr. MANN. Well, let us assume that we are talking about felons. alone. And it is true that there is a central record kept, at least on index cards for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assuming that local law enforcement agencies has reported the arrest and depositions on the Federal fingerprint form and the various reports that go into making up the Federal Bureau of Investigation's records on felons throughout the country.

Do you see anything wrong with that record being checked by dealers before making a sale?

Mr. CARTER. I am not an expert in these things, but I feel like we have a situation wherein, as far as I know, the FBI records are on criminal classes. But the purchaser of a firearm now already executes a form from the Department of the Treasury on which he makes a sworn statement that he is not a criminal.

And, by having made this statement, he has put himself in a position of being a law-abiding citizen or else having made a false statement. Mr. MANN. Well, in the meantime, the horse is out of the barn door and the criminal has the gun.

Mr. CARTER. The experience of law-enforcement agencies in the report we have, which have to do with crime and registered guns, is that criminals don't expose themselves to this process anyway. And a minute number, an insignificant number of guns percentagewise, of guns found in crime go through this process at all.

Mr. MANN. Well, you do go along with the idea, don't you, of making it illegal for a felon to own or possess a gun, a handgun? Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir. That is one of the NRA's policies.

Mr. MANN. But you apparently see no way to get at that unless it is found in the routine enforcement of the law with reference to the possession and ownership of guns, which as you and I know, is accidental, when someone is caught with the gun.

Mr. CARTER. Law enforcement is the product of doing something to people who violate the law and not the process of doing things to those of us who do not violate the law.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Gainer testified this morning, and as a matter of fact his written statement on page 9 says it has been determined that on multiple gun sales through federally licensed dealers, that approximately 58 percent of the multiple purchases by single buyers who go and buy more than one gun are in violation of the law, meaning, primarily, that they are being bought for an illegal purpose or for a person who is otherwise unqualified to own or purchase a gun. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Mann, could I comment on that?