who would have a gun with which to defend himself and his property against robbery and burglary.

Mr. GIMBEL. I am not so sure these records would be open to the general public to scrutinize. This would not necessarily be public records to that extent.

Mr. Dowdy. If someone asked for a permit to have a gun in the house, do you not reckon it would be published in the newspapers?

Mr. GIMBEL. I do not believe so. I have never seen an article in the newspaper concerning a man's request to get a license to carry a gun concealed on his person.

Mr. DowDY. If you had this law it would, would it not?

Mr. GIMBEL. Well, I speak with some experience along that line, being a former newspaperman, and I do not see too much news in it myself, unless he should be a rather prominent character. I am second-guessing the city editors back here now.

Mr. WHITENER. Your draft says that the property seized be a dangerous article declared to be a nuisance by section 17 of the act approved July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 654, as amended), such article shall be disposed of pursuant to section 17.

Does not section 17 provide that, if the accused be discharged, the property or other things seized shall be returned to him?

Mr. GIMBEL. If he should be found not to be in violation of a criminal act.

Mr. WHITENER. Yes, of course.

Mr. GIMBEL. The purpose of this amendment in the bill is to enable police, if they have knowledge; for instance, not too long ago, police did make a raid and gather up quite an arsenal. But the purpose of this is to permit the police to get a warrant to enter a home where they have cause to believe an arsenal or cache of prohibited weapons is being kept.

Mr. WHITENER. I see.

Do you have any more questions, Mr. Harsha?

Mr. HARSHA. No.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Dowdy?

Mr. DOWDY. No, thanks.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Gimbel, thank you very much for being with us, and if you have a prepared statement that you would like to file, we would be happy to do it.

Mr. GIMBEL. I would like to put in the record only the Commissioners' letter of transmittal with regard to the two bills.

Mr. WHITENER. All right, sir. That has already been done. (The letter from Judge Hilliard Comstock is as follows:)

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Santa Rosa, Calif.

Re H.R. 5608.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,

House of Representatives Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I wish to most respectfully express my emphatic disapproval of and opposition to the above-numbered bill.

If passed in the District, it would have a most disastrous effect as influencing legislation in the several States.

This type of antifirearms legislation has for many years been strenuously op posed by sportsmen and target shooters, the moving picture and television industries, arms collectors, and, to a large extent, law enforcement agencies and the military. It has no counterpart, so far as I know, in any State, except in New York where the notorious Sullivan law has been a dismal failure so far as its effect in reducing crime is concerned.

Such a law imposes on the law-abiding citizen burdens of taxation and complicated procedures which amount to confiscation and never deter the activities of the criminal element; in fact, the criminal would be encouraged by the assurance that the ordinary citizen would be effectually disarmed.

Anyone with the slightest mechanical skill can put together a crude pistol with little effort; if shoulder-fired arms are not outlawed, the potential criminal can obtain a rifle or shotgun and in a few minutes convert it to a pistol by shortening the stock and barrel.

The disastrous effect of such a law on the moving picture and television industries, as well as on collectors and museums must be readily apparent.

The bill in its present form would purport to authorize the Commissioners, in their discretion, to exempt those engaging in shooting matches at "duly authorized" target ranges but would afford no protection to the shooter at home or between home and range. No protection is afforded the duly licensed hunter while engaging in his sport.

The definition of "machinegun" in the bill would include many commercial semiautomatic 22 rifles in common use. Also, (a particularly objectionable feature) it would include, when fitted with a multiple-shot magazine, the M-1 service rifle, the M-14 service rifle, and the M-1 carbine, all of which are encouraged and authorized for civilian use in the program of the National Board for Promotion of Rifle Practice and in the national matches, and many of which have been sold to NRA members by the Government through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship.

The Commissioners are given highly objectionable arbitrary powers in connection with otherwise almost insurmountable regulations for registration and licensing.

I am a superior court judge of 34 years experience on the trial bench, a retired lieutenant colonel of infantry, and a sportsman and marksman with experience as a five-time shooting member of national match State rifle teams. I have made a lifetime study of this matter of firearms as related to the suppression of crime and to public safety and national defense. I am deeply sincere in my belief that the benefits of ownership and skill in the use of firearms of all sorts by law-abiding adult persons far outweigh the objections.

As an example of the undue stress laid upon firearms as instruments of death, I quote from the 1962 annual report of the coroner of my county of Sonoma (population approximately 155,000 within less than an hour's drive from San Francisco) which gives the following causes of death in certain typical cases: Motor vehicle fatalities__

72

17

19

The firearms item includes deaths in the commission of crime, in law enforce ment, in self-defense, and in hunting and other firearms accidents.

1

In my judgment the proper answer is in better enforcement of our existing reasonable regulations with respect to the use of concealable and gangster-type weapons.

Respectfully yours,

HILLIARD COMSTOCK, Judge.

Mr. WHITENER. We have with us our colleague, Congressman John D. Dingell, who also wants to be heard on the last category of bills on our agenda.

But before doing so, I think it would be well to put in the record a full-page advertisement which appeared in today's Washington Post, entitled "Is This My City?"

Is this really my city?

A pregnant woman assaulted in her home?

A police officer gunned down in the streets?
Workmen robbed of their wages daily?

Riots and assaults at District of Columbia Stadium?

Is this my city?

Where the coming of darkness signals the start of violence?
Where women walk with fear and terror?

Where tension explodes without even a spark?

Where decent people reside and work in constant anxiety?

Is this really my city?

And the voices cry, "protect the criminal."

Why aren't these same voices raised in horror and protest at the senseless brutality of these crimes?

Why aren't tears shed for the victims of these vicious attacks?

Who can help my city?

The Police Department? They claim their hands are tied.
The Commissioners? They look to Congress.

The Congress? They sit, but they don't stir.

The courts. They administer "justice".

The official organizations and "spokesmen"? They're so busy arguing for special interest and special privilege that the means destroy the ends.

Who can help my city?

This city of trees and parks, magnificent monuments and broad avenues.
This city of culture and citizenship.

This city where doors and hearts used to be unlocked.

Today, this city is the most dangerous of its size in the Nation.

First in criminal assaults.

Second in robberies.

Fourth in murders.

Is this my city?

And a post script:

We speak with special concern. Within the past 60 days two of our hardworking employees were attacked by juvenile hoodlums. One was with his pregnant wife, who was knocked down and injured to such an extent that she was required to spend 3 days in the hospital.

We heard no one speak out against this despicable act. We saw no sympathy expressed for her.

Answers? We don't have them. But if all of the groups involved stopped working for the Negro community or the white community, and became concerned instead with the Washington community-we believe progress can be made. And I think this should be made a part of the record. Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, in what paper did that appear!

Mr. WHITENER. This is a paid advertisement in the Washington Post, full-page ad, today.

Mr. WHITENER. We now recognize our colleague, Hon. John D. Dingell, from the State of Michigan, who has a statement he would like to make with reference to the weapons legislation, H.R. 5608 and H.R. 678.

Mr. Dingell, we are delighted that you came over.

H.R. 678 AND H.R. 5608

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful to the committee for the courtesy that it has accorded me this morning, and I wish to express my gratitude to the chairman and to each member for the opportunity to be here briefly.

I am aware of the fact that the committee has a very pressing schedule, and shall try to hold my comments to a very bare minimum.

Mr. Chairman, I arrive this morning to protest, in the strongest way possible, on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the law-abiding citizens of the city of Washington, D.C., the misguided efforts by a few people to take away from them the right to possess, in a lawful manner, firearms for the defense of their persons and for legitimate sporting

uses.

I think we should look at these bills to ascertain what they do.

The first bill is a measure which says that the simple possession of any weapon referred to in this subsection by any person shall be presumptive evidence of intent to use such weapon unlawfuly against another. This is H.R. 678.

I am sure the chairman of this subcommittee and the other members, most of whom are distinguished attorneys, will recognize the tremendous distortion of the use of a presumption in the law and will recognize the inherent vice and evil of applying presumptive evidence of this kind to an otherwise innocent act.

Mr. WHITENER. I believe the gentleman is probably aware of the attitude that all of the members of this subcommittee have heretofore taken on the floor of the House on presumptive evidence. And some of our colleagues did not agree with us at that time, and we welcome your vote.

Mr. DINGELL. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I am very delighted to be with the chairman of the committee on this subject.

Interestingly enough, the other bill, which was touched on by Mr. Harsha-and I think he struck at perhaps one of the roots of the inherent evils of the bill-it was said by a previous witness that the measure and I refer to H.R. 5608-requires the issuance of a firearm to a law-abiding citizen.

On the contrary, H.R. 5608, as I read it, vests in the Commissioners of the District of Columbia the authorization, by whim and caprice, to allow or to deny virtually, in my opinion, without any possibility of court review, the right to any citizen to own a firearm.

Mr. WHITENER. How could you satisfy anyone that you had a specific need to have a pistol? How would you go about it?"

Mr. DINGELL. I think if the individual had a closed mind or if he were apprehensive in the slightest way that the firearm might be used