for the commission of a crime, whether it was founded in fact, or simply suspicious; or, founded simply a frivolous or capricious thought, I would find this burden impossible to bear.

So I would point out that the comments of the previous witnesses with regard to the requirement that an ordinary law-abiding citizen shall be able to buy a firearm to possess in his household for the protection of his home, his family, his children and his wife, is completely unfounded in fact; and, as a matter of fact, it says the Commissioners shall issue such permit only if they are satisfied that the applicant is a person of good moral character and is a responsible person, in the light of his age, reputation, employment, medical history, experience with firearms, or other relevant matters. This as I read it is absolute discretion, untrammeled by review.

And now, what are these "or other relevant matters" that become a device for the denial of a citizen to hold and enjoy the possession of a firearm within his home for lawful purposes?

It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, to note that the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its Uniform Crime Reports for the United States has listed a number of factors which, in its opinion, affect the crime rate in any community. These factors are:

Population of the city, composition of the population of the city, particularly with regard to age, sex, and race; economic status and activities of the population; climate, educational, recreational, and religious facilities; the number of police employees per unit of population; standards governing appointment to the police force; the policies governing the prosecuting officials and the courts.

And I say, Mr. Chairman, that this, perhaps, may be the most important of them all. And I would say that Mr. Acheson and others, who have been pushing toward this kind of iniquitous legislation, should look for a sty in their own eye before they look for a mote in their brother's eye, and should uphold the laws which this Congress has already provided but which they have not been upholding.

The attitude of the city toward law enforcement problems and the degree of efficiency of the law enforcement agencies, these are the criteria which the Department of Justice says are important in ascertaining whether or not the level of crime shall be high or low in a particular city. And I say there is no mention of the incidence of possession of firearms by either law-abiding citizens or by criminal elements in these criteria which are set forth.

I think it is interesting to place the proposed statute in perspective. I think we should look, first of all, at the existing firearms law, with which I am sure the committee is more familiar than I. Under District of Columbia law, no person shall possess a pistol or firearm if he is a drug addict, a convicted felon, has been convicted under the law for the unlawful possession of firearms or unlawful carrying of firearms, or is not a licensed dealer, or has been convicted of violating any provisions of the weapons statutes.

A very complete section.

No person without a license from the police shall carry, either openly or concealed or on or about his person, a pistol or revolver, except in his home or place of business.

And, Mr. Chairman, the question here is simply whether or not a citizen is able to lawfully possess in his home or place of business a

★ 99-951 O-63-5

firearm which he would use for the protection of his hearthstone and of his family.

Persons

Persons of unsound mind are forbidden to own firearms. under the age of 21 years, with very stringent exceptions, are prohibited from the possession of firearms. No pistol or revolver may be acquired by an individual by purchase within the District, unless 48 hours' notice is given to the police to check.

If the committee chooses, an increase in this time might be desirable to 72 hours or perhaps 5 days, or even such a reasonably longer time as the committee would deem it well in its wisdom.

No retail dealer may sell unless he first procures a dealer's license to peddle firearms.

No person may possess a machinegun, sawed-off shotgun, silencer, blackjack, sandbag, switchblade knife, a pocketknife, a poker, or metal knuckles. Any no person may possess and a long list of weapons-imitation pistol, dagger, dirk, razor, stiletto, and so forth, in his possession.

Perhaps the committee in its wisdom would choose to increase the amount of the penalty either as to fine or imprisonment.

Mr. HARSHA. Would the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. HARSHA. Would you tell me how long this particular statute has been in effect?

Mr. DINGELL. I do not have the date on that. I would be happy to submit that information to the committee. I am sure this is a very old statute.

Mr. HARSHA. I think it bears out my point, that this proposed law is not going to have any effect on the criminal element at all, because here is a law that has been in effect some 25 years and has little or no effect on the criminal obtaining and illegally using these malicious

weapons.

Mr. DINGELL. Well, the gentleman is absolutely right.

What this says is that the criminal, in defiance of the law, can continue to carry the firearm or the knife or poker or the sandbag or the blackjack to do violence to a law-abiding citizen either on the street or in his home, but it says that the law-abiding citizen is compelled to come as a mendicant to a bureaucrat to receive, at the grace and whim and caprice of the bureaucrat, or to be denied by the same standards, the right to possess and to own a firearm to be used in and for the protection of the individual's home.

This is what this statute really says.

Mr. HARSHA. Well, this statute has been on the books for 30 years, since 1932.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

It is interesting to note the statistics that I was able to get on criminals. During 1962, 93 murders were committed in the District. Of these 26 involved the use of a handgun.

Now, remember, a handgun in the home is one thing and a handgun on the street is an altogether different thing.

For fiscal 1962, 2,985 cases of assault with a dangerous weapon were reported. In these, 393 handguns were used for a total of 13 percent of the criminal acts reported.

I think perhaps an interesting thing would be to analyze what the courts and what the law enforcement agencies have done under circumstances of this kind.

A survey of the court of general sessions in the District indicates that in 1962, less than half of the 236 persons found guilty of illegally carrying a concealed hand gun received a jail sentence-less than half, gentlemen.

Among these, 56 percent-or, rather, among these, 50 percent were permitted to pay a fine, 62 were placed on probation and 88 charges were nolle prossed by the U.S. attorney's office.

It appears perhaps if the U.S. attorney is so interested in doing something about the criminal effects of illegal handgun owning and operation, he might perhaps look into the operation of his own office.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Dingell, I just noticed that they have a very unusual statute here in title 22, section 3202, bearing on what you say about the courts. It says this:

If any person shall commit a crime of violence in the District of Columbia when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm he may, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime, be punished by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

For the second conviction of a crime of violence so committed he may, in addition to the punishment provided by the crime, be imprisoned for a term of not more than ten years.

Upon a third conviction of a crime of violence so committed he may, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime, be punished by imprisonment for a term of not more than fifteen years.

Upon a fourth, or subsequent, conviction for a crime of violence so committed he may, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime, be punished by imprisonment for an additional period of not more than thirty years.

Well, now, it seems to me that what you are saying about courtsif a man commits an assault with a deadly weapon against someone and it is a pistol or other firearms, the judge can give him the limit for the crime he committed and 5 more years; or if he does it four times, he can give him 30 years in addition. So it seems to me that there are some legal weapons which are not being used.

Mr. DINGELL. As a matter of fact

Mr. WHITENER. This act was passed on July 8, 1932, at the same time as the one you referred to.

Mr. DINGELL. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very interesting to find out whether or not Mr. Acheson and the other do-gooders who seek to deny an honest citizen the right to own a firearm have ever invoked this particular statute.

And may I say, Mr. Chairman, as I noted the reading of the statute, I was impressed that the weapon does not have to be even used in the crime of violence.

Mr. WHITENER. Readily available.

Mr. DINGELL. It has to be simply on the person of the individual or readily available, which would mean in the immediate environment. Mr. WHITENER. If I assault you with a razor and I have a pistol in my pocket, they can bring this statute into play.

Mr. DINGELL. That is right. Or simply to assault me with bare fists. Mr. WHITENER. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. I think that, under the statute, would be abundantly adequate.

I think another interesting statistic that this committee would be interested in is the fact that 153 assaults on police officers were committed by 163 persons in the District in 1962. In the District, an assault upon a police officer while engaged on duty is a felony which carries, upon conviction, a fine of $5,000 or a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years, or both.

Of these, 71 cases were reduced to misdemeanors and referred to the municipal court. Twenty-three were held for grand jury, 12 were nolle prossed and no papers were issued to 10. Twenty-four were turned over to juvenile authorities.

Now, this, I think, is still more interesting: Of the 23 cases which went to the grand jury, Mr. Chairman, 11 received a fine or jail sentence. Of those receiving punishment, only one was for over 2 years. The remainder were for 4 months up to 2 years.

In one case in which an officer was stabbed in the abdomen with a knife, the defendant was sentenced to 30 days.

In another case in which a policeman was deliberately run down by an automobile and received injuries requiring hospitalization, the sentence was reduced to simple assault, and the defendant given a fine of $25 or 30 days in jail.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of law enforcement we are having in the District of Columbia.

And I say, if the District of Columbia authorities want to protect the safety of the people, they should dedicate themselves to using the tools, the very stringent and very forceful tools which they have available, and that they should prosecute these violators to the limit of the law.

Now, in another law in which an officer was deliberately run down by an automobile, the offense was changed to disorderly conduct and the defendant fined $50 or 30 days in jail.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is part, I think of a deliberate plan by the officials of the District of Columbia to deny a citizen the right to have firearms. Now, why they are up to this kind of rascality, I have no way of knowing, but they sent a letter to the National Rifle Association, over the signature of the U.S. attorney, in which he says, and I quote:

We are determined to reduce the number of pistols that are in the ownership or possession of residents of the District of Columbia, and we would have to reject the philosophy that is opposed to that.

Now, remember, Mr. Chairman, this bill vests in the officials of the District of Columbia determined to reduce the number of firearms in possession of law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia with almost absolute discretion over whether those citizens will achieve possession or not, and whether or not they will have a permit which will permit them to lawfully own these firearms, or to otherwise compel them to turn them over to be destroyed.

Over and above this, Mr. Chairman, I think we should just take a brief look at the Sullivan Act. And I made some study of the Sullivan Act, and from what I can ascertain--and I quote here from a distinguished lawyer of the city of New York, who says as follows

on this:

We look in vain for evidence of any instance where the Sullivan law has prevented the commission of a crime of violence. We all know that the criminal does not live by the limitations of this or any other law which would frustrate

his purpose. There are so many places where guns can readily be obtained by the dozens that no criminal need long go unarmed. The good citizens are the people who suffer the hardships of antigun legislation.

Further, Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang, professor of sociology of the University of Pennsylvania, says:

It is probably safe to contend that many homicides occur only because there is sufficient motivation or provocation and that the type of method used to kill is merely an accident of availability.

In other words, what he is saying that, if there is not a gun handy, they will use a switch-blade knife, a pocketknife, a poker, a sandbag, or paint brush, or lady's pointed heel, or whatever else might come to hand.

The point is in New York, where they have had the Sullivan Act and have had it for a number of years, it was found that handguns accounted for 22 percent of the total number of homicides inside New York City-22 percent. There were only 17,000 out of 8 million people authorized to possess handguns.

And by the way, Mr. Chairman, to give you a further illustration of the number of people who were authorized to possess handguns, it would be interesting to note that one of the previous witnesses indicated the number of people who are authorized to possess handguns. An article in the "Letters to the Editor" of the Washington Post said the other day there are only 25 persons in the District of Columbia who may legally carry a gun. Note that 17 of these are special police. And this letter was signed by Rev. D. E. Brumbach, of Silver Spring.

So, Mr. Chairman, I submit to the committee that, on the basis of the record, on the basis of the nonfeasance, malfeasance and misfeasance by the law-enforcement authorities of the District of Columbia, there is no need for this legislation.

Furthermore, the function of this legislation will be simply to disarm the lawful, honest, and law-abiding citizen and to continue in the criminal element, of which we hear so much, the power to commit crimes of violence against the person of these law-abiding citizens, undeterred by the thought that there might be a firearm in the home to protect the home and the family from violence and injury by this type of person.

Mr. WHITENER. We certainly thank you, Mr. Dingell.

I might say the chairman of the full committee is present.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Michigan for taking his valuable time to come before our committee this morning and give us the benefit of his mature opinion on this proposed legislation.

I happen to know that Mr. Dingell has given this type of legislation more study than any other one man that I know of in Congress. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Gentlemen, any questions?

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Yes. Mr. Harsha.

Mr. HARSHA. I would like to say to the gentleman that I want to commend him for coming here and giving us the benefit of his thoughts.