lator, and every American. The only people against such a law would be professional criminals and "occasional criminals." Such a law would be so easy to pass and so effective, you would note a decrease in homicide and a decrease in armed robbery of over 1,000% overnight, and every American would appreciate it. I note some valid reasons for such a law "rather than a law to ban guns and/ or ammunition" in a recent letter I wrote to the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Please look over these reasons I have listed as well as the underlined comments by Robert J. Kukla, whose article I have also enclosed. It is a very complete, enlightening discussion of the uselessness if gun abolition. Again, I would like to say that every American, every sportsman, every Legislator-every law abiding citizen would whole heartedly support such a proposal for Mandatory Federal Minimum Penalties to commit a crime with a gun. If guns themselves are the object of Legislation, I believe the result would be a terrible Pandora's Box. Again, I appreciate your time in reading this letter and would encourage you to read the next couple of pages of information enclosed. It is quite enlightening and quite complete and factual. Thank you very much. ROBERT G. DILLION, M.D. ENGLEWOOD, FLA., July 3, 1975. Hon. PETER RODINO, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.O. DEAR SIR: As a Regular Officer of the United States Army I was unaccustomed to writing letters to Congressmen. Since my retirement everything "American" seems to be collapsing so generally, rapidly, and continuously that it is imperative to open a dialogue with my representatives in the national government. In over 28 years of Federal service I know that I have acquired a great amount of specialized education and experience in several fields which very few Americans, even Congressmen, ever have the opportunity to develop. As the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee you have a serious responsibility in influencing certain proposed legislation which is passed to the House for action. In this capacity, you could play a major role in affecting legislation which is best for the long-range interests of the United States to enable it to remain strong, free, and an independent Constitutional Republic, rather than continuing to drift leftward toward a socialist welfare state which we are too rapidly becoming. At the present time a veritable avalanche of anti-gun and "gun control" legislation, primarily against handguns, has been launched in the Congress, all of which are ill-considered, fallaciously based in unreasoning rationale, and would be highly detrimental to the future freedom of the people of this country if enacted. These laws, which would definitely infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, would also deny to the individual law-abiding citizen the right to defend himself and his home or property against criminal, mob, or subversive para-military action. The proposed anti-handgun laws, also including in some cases handgun ammunition, strike at the law-abiding citizen and disarm him, threatening the basic strength of America, without touching the armed criminal. For example, these laws further assume, in their fundamental premises, that the ownership of firearms is illegal or evil, and would thus condemn the innocent, law-abiding gun-owner as "criminal" only for that reason! This is a ridiculous position. The ownership of a gun does not cause crime! The over 100 million gun-owning citizens of the United States are those who are, nearly without exception, the heart of the law-abiding, patriotic, citizenry of the nation, whose concern about the increase of crime even exceeds that of most Congressmen. Their major problem is that, being law-abiding, by definition, they are not using their guns effectively against the armed criminal who, by definition, will have guns whether their owenrship is or is not legal. The existence of so many restrictive laws on the use of guns already has nearly prohibited the effective control of armed criminal activity, by either the public or the police. This has destroyed the "balance of power" between the public and the criminal, all in the criminal's favor. The Sullivan Law and other grossly restrictive laws of New York have served only to prove that this approach to crime control is useless. Crime in New York has increased ten-fold since the Sullivan Law, and has resulted in the criminal's assurance that his potential victim will not be armed to oppose him! The fault does not lie with the guns themselves, nor the availability nor numbers of guns extant among the citizenry. The majority of stolen crime weaponscome from Government arsenals anyway. This attempt to control a means is not the answer. The answer must be in tougher legislation to control the criminal person. It is the misuse of guns which creates crime, because the criminal wills it so! Thus, legislation to impose severe mandatory sentences on the criminal misuse of firearms is the proper solution, providing the present court system is instructed to use such legal authority! Such laws must also contain safeguards to insure that the law-abiding armed citizen who might shoot a criminal in the course of a felony is protected and not considered guilty of using a firearm for self-defense! In fact, this is the effect that some of the proposed bans and confiscations of handguns would have! The bans on handguns and ammunition proposed by such suggested legislation as that of Representatives Mikva, Drinan, Harrington and others would also affect the use of .22 caliber rifles, inasmuch as .22 caliber ammunition is also used in handguns, which would deny the millions of American sportsmen one of the most popular competitive and sporting/practice calibers available. This is total infringement! The effect if such a law would disarm about one-third of the numbers of law-abiding citizens of the country, which is also one-third of our armed national defense ultimate potential. Is this the intent of these legislators? Therefore, I urge you to oppose and discourage all such anti-gun proposals, and to support the several bills which would promote the proper ownership and use of all guns, repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968, penalize the use of firearms in felonious acts, prevent the Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning handgun ammunition, prohibit a ban on the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting, remove .22 caliber ammunition from the restrictions of controls under the GCA '68, and other similar proposed legislation sponsored by Representatives Bafalis, Symms, Runnels and others. Respectfully, HIRAM M. WOLFE III. SCURRY CLINIC, Greenwood, S.C., August 9, 1975. Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CONYERS: I was alarmed to read in the paper this morning about the handgun legislation that your Judiciary Subcommittee is considering. I realize that you and your associates have spent many hours and interviewed many people during the course of your investigation, but I think that there are some very serious questions that need to be answered honestly and frankly. Here are a few of them: 1. How many criminals and persons of criminal intent are going to register their guns? We all know the answer: NONE! 2. How many decent and otherwise honest citizens are going to be made criminals because they honestly do not feel that registering their guns will be in their own best interest? A recent poll conducted by the American Assn. of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers estimated up to 93% would not. 3. Can you imagine the consequences of these registration lists falling into the hands of the wrong persons such as criminals, or even subversives? Nearly every secret that the United States has ever had has been uncovered by someone of malevolent intent. This registration list will be no exception. I tremble to think that my home would be earmarked for larceny or confiscation. 4. Would the identification card costing $25 every two years cover all guns owned by a single person, or would this charge be made for each handgun? Collectors would be hard hit if it applied to each gun. 5. Since only honest persons are going to register their guns, can you justify spending $160,000,000 the first two years just to keep track of honest persons who own 99.98% of all the handguns that will not be used to commit crimes of violence? Could this money be better spent in attempting to control the other 0.02% of guns owned by criminal elements? Thanks for listening to me. I think that these questions are worthy of thoughtful consideration before recommending legislation. Sincerely, R. E. HUNTON, M.D. BEAUFORT, S.C., April 9, 1975. Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Crime, SIR: It has been brought to my attention that several bills have been introduced which are directed toward further gun control. Never having voiced my opinion to any government official before, I felt that this was a good time to do so, in view of the importance of the matter. As a layman, it has been my impression that we are now plagued with a conglomeration of legislation aimed at the control of the manufacture, transportation, sale and use of firearms. Yet in spite of the various laws, the illegal use of firearms continues to rise. It then becomes quite apparent, to me at least, that more laws, more regulations, and even more restrictions on firearms is not going to alter, or reverse this trend. The only effect of any further regulation on firearms would be to further restrict the use of firearms by the law-abiding segment of society. But the law-abiding segment of society consisting of millions of Americans who are sportsman shooters are not the problem. Why then do you continuously, and seriously, consider legislation which would effect only those who obey the law? It is, after all, the law-abiding citizens who are the victims of the illegal use of firearms. Is it not enough that we suffer at the hands of the criminally inclined? Why must we also suffer at the hands of our legislators, who persist in restricting the recreational and legal use of firearms? What did we do to deserve such treatment when we have done nothing wrong? It has always been my understanding that it is the duty of the judicial branch to protect (not punish) the victims of crime, and punish (not protect) the perpetrators of those crimes. Yet the judicial system has repeatedly expanded the rights of criminals, to the extent that-if put on paper-would far outnumber the rights given the common citizen. At the same time, the rights and privileges of the law-abiding citizen, as set forth in the constitution, have been eroded, reduced, and infringed upon in legislation limiting the use of firearms. The dismal failure of the judicial branch to administer justice to those convicted of crimes involving firearms is a major factor contributing to the increase in crime involving guns. The individual contemplating any crime knows that the punishment for use of a firearm is probably going to be light-IF he is punished at all. In essence, then, further legislation would serve no purpose in restricting the criminal, but, as previously stated, would only serve to impose more restrictions on the rights of the individual citizen who has done nothing wrong. This nation was founded in protest over unjust and unreasonable laws and taxes imposed by a political power out of touch with the people they pretended to represent. The struggle for freedom and individual liberties that resulted from that protest was based in large part on individually owned firearms. In fact, we owe our very existence to those patriots who, through their skill and resourcefulness with a firearm, earned a victory over oppressive government. The authors of our constitution recognized the contribution of the citizen and his rifle, and in their wisdom, saw fit to establish the right to keep and bear arms as one of our fundamental rights. Any legislation limiting, lessening, restricting or controlling firearms by a law-abiding citizen is an encroachment on that right, and one that most Americans-including myself, will not tolerate. I feel that many Americans are rapidly approaching the limit of their tolerance on government controls, restrictions, and taxation. In this respect it appears we may have come full circle, for the situation was much the same two hundred years ago. We have heard too much talk from almost all departments of the government-all voicing concern over the increase in crime and use of firearms in the commission of crimes. It is time the rhetoric, proliferation of legislation, and all foot-dragging stop. It is time the judicial branch of this government started to rigorously Enforce the laws now on the books, and Punish those guilty of crimes involving guns. The courts have been disgracefully lax in the enforcement of present laws. By what magic formula do you propose to accomplish the enforcement of any new law? I respectfully ask that you desist from enacting any more gun-control legislation unless and until the present laws are enforced by our courts. I especially ask that you not consider any legislation that would restrict the peaceful and recreational use of firearms by those citizens who are guilty of no crime. I would, on the other hand, support any responsible legislation aimed at the criminal use of firearms. Sincerely, W. M. DAVIDSON. SPARTANBURG, S.C., March 19, 1975. Hon. JAMES R. MANN, The House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MANN: As my elected representative in Washington and also a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I would like you to know my views on the subject of gun control. This subject has been belabored by the two extremes and by anything in between. However, it seems all too few take an honest, common sense attitude. At least, not many in this category reach the public through our media. I am in favor of honest, law abiding citizens owning guns for the sake of collecting for hobby, recreation, such as hunting, target, trap and skeet shooting and for self-defense. I am not in favor of dishonest people having guns for unlawful reasons. Those who own guns and obey the law should not be made to suffer for those who don't. Those who use and/or deal in guns unlawfully should be penalized to the maximum extent according to their crime. In my opinion guns should be subject to safety regulations to the extent such regulations would remove from the market the cheap, junk guns which are a hazard in themselves, regardless of the intended use. I am for gun instruction in our education system no less than I am for driver education. It is a fact, we have far more damn fools running around in automobiles than we do with guns. I am against the extremes of "those for" and "those against”. I am not negative to sane, common sense restrictions, i.e., waiting periods. I am against inane piece-meal regulations that are obvious stepping stones to total gun control. I am for a reasonable approach to a problem which does exist, that will penalize the guilty and leave the innocent alone. For the sake of brevity, I will not discuss, now, those approaches I consider to be sane and of common sense. I will say that my ideas on the subject are of a normal nature and not extreme. If you, as a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, are active in your research on the subject of gun control and are interested, I will be pleased to go further as to my opinions. I, and a vast number of other voters, observe with keen interest the individual opinions and actions taken on this subject. Therefore, I wait your reply to this letter, expressing, in some detail, your attitudes and intentions as regards gun control. Yours very truly, DOUGLAS M. AUDSLEY. WAYNESBORO, GA., March 18, 1975. Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., HONORABLE SIR: In news items I note that some persons including a "Cop" has appeared before your committee and advocated their being in favor of more gun control laws and the possibility of making it unlawful to manufacture what I call, "pistols." Before your committee takes final action on this matter I wish you would consider the other side of the question, for instance mine. 1. I am 78 years old and my wife 71. We are former teachers, now retired on a small pension. I had to build up social security with part time employment after retiring from teaching therefore I began at minimum. Because of low income our social activities are limited as we do not have the money to pay our way in many activities. 2. We decided to take up fishing and hunting for recreation. At present my hunting is not threatened as I use "long guns". Where we fish we have a lot of moccasins and a few rattlesnakes. This is on creek and one pond with lot of willow bushes. A rifle is cumberson in boat with our other "Junk" and old people have a lot. 3. At present I am using a 22 pistol, 4 inch barrel, with shot cartridges to shoot these snakes. I killed two yesterday and let a hugh one get away. As soon as my license to carry this gun expires I will take out a license to carry a 38 special (S&W). They are manufacturing shot cartridges for this caliber gun now. I use shot cartridges because they are not dangerous but for a short distance and I cannot see well enough to aim and hit with bullets. 4. The first gun (22) was shipped thru the sheriffs department and the 38 was bought in Lavonia. The dealer took my name, address, drivers license description of gun and number and usual questions. I buy a license to carry the gun I use, will be 38 soon, while fishing, at our Ordinarys office. License good for three years. They record number etc. 5. I feel that the records on these guns are sufficient for them to be identified any time. They are kept locked in cabinet in room we seldom use. 6. In our state a college coed stayed in prison longer than two of three people who pleaded guilty to robbing a business of about $28,000. If I recall correctly, they "restituted" $21,000 of the money and drew a probated sentence. The girl took a rocking chair off of the porch of an abandoned tenant house. 7. I feel that any person using a gun in the commission of a crime should be forced to serve a prison sentence when and if convicted. Thanks. JOHN L. BOLTON. AUGUSTA, GA., March 24, 1975. Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I respectfully call your attention to the matter of handgun controls which I believe are being heard by the House Subcommitteee on Crime at the present time. I wish to make it clear that I am Opposed To Any Ban, Registration or Licensing of handguns or any other guns. This letter is perhaps a bit lengthy however I will appreciate if you or one of your aids will read this letter in its entirety so you will know how I feel about this matter and why. As I wrote to our Georgia Legislators a short time ago on the same issue, I think it is very unfortunate the current trend is to hop on the handgun control bandwagon whenever the crime rate increases instead of getting at the heart of the matter that is enforcing the laws we now have on crime or strengthening them so they will have more teeth. This I believe will deter the criminal or would-be criminal and at the same time leave the handguns in the hands of the law abiding citizens where they belong. After all a handgun is an inanimate object-its the heart of the shooter behind the gun that is to blame for any wrong doing. I realize that a number of people in this country including some Police Chiefs are calling for some restrictions on handguns up to a total ban. Frankly I do not agree with them nor can I see the reasoning behind their thinking. This is not a case of keeping the criminals from acquiring handguns for the criminals already have them (and full automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns which have been outlawed for years). All a ban or further restrictions on handguns would do would be to hurt "Old John Q. Citizen" like myself. Under these adverse conditions, it would be difficult for a man to protect his own family just because of the wrong deeds of a few. And what about the 2nd Amendment? I thought this gave every law abiding citizen the right to bear arms. Oh yes, I know some of our courts have interpreted this as meaning a well regulated militia but somehow I just don't believe this is what our founding fathers meant. A few years ago, a citizen from Ireland wrote an article in a well read magazine in this country and he stated this: "If you want to see the United States in the same condition that Ireland is in, just take away the guns from the citizen." I will greatly appreciate any help you can render in assisting the law abiding citizen to bear arms and without the imposing of any further restrictions. Let's place the burden where it belongs-square on the shoulders of the criminal. In addition, many of us consider the handgun a hobby. They are used for hunting |