Page images
PDF
EPUB

fense within the States is what the courts have said is the intent of the second amendment.

I refer

Mr. WHITENER. Well, you are familiar, I am sure, with the position that the, I believe it is the National Rifle Association, and other groups have taken about general legislation which has been introduced in the Congress on this same subject, and their contention that it would violate the language of the second amendment?

Mr. GIMBEL. I would respectfully disagree with that contention. Mr. WHITENER. I am sure you would, but I say you are familiar with these two groups?

Mr. GIMBEL. Yes. I would refer the committee to U.S. v. Miller, which is the leading Supreme Court case on the matter. That is 307 U.S. 174, a 1939 case which had to do with the enforcement of the National Firearms Act. And in that case the Court stated that the purpose and the intent of the second amendment was to insure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the militia by the States. And unless there is a showing that the possession of a sawedoff shotgun, as I believe was the case in Miller, was part of the effectiveness of maintaining the State militia, the statute was all right.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, you say that the second amendment says that the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed, that that refers back to the opening language of the amendment when they refer to a well regulated militia?

Mr. GIMBEL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

And the Miller case goes into the history of the maintenance of a militia and the intent of the militia; that at the time of the founding of the Nation, there was a suspicion of maintaining a standing army by the National Government, and the militia was considered to be the strong arm of continuing the common defense.

Mr. WHITENER. Of course, this was General Washington's theory too. He was a very strong advocate of the local militia as opposed to a big national force, was he not-Gen. George Washington?

Mr. GIMBEL. You are a better military historian than I am, Mr. Chairman.

But I would say that, in reading that case, which does give a very good historical discussion, that the local militia was considered the primary source of national defense.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a question?
Mr. WHITENER. Yes. Mr. Harsha.

Mr. HARSHA. I have very grave reservations about this Registration Act. I fail to see where it is going to stop the people who are actually using these weapons to the detriment of the general public from obtaining them through some means. I think all it is going to do is stop the lawabiding citizens from owning and possessing firearms. It is going to make it extremely difficult for the law-abiding citizen to get a permit, and the chances are he would not bother with it.

The felon, who acquires a gun, is not concerned with the law anyway, and he will find ways and means of obtaining a weapon. I do not see what you hope to accomplish by it.

Mr. GIMBEL. In this way, if I may answer, sir.

What the Commissioners intend here is by no means to take away weapons from the law-abiding citizen who wishes to protect his property or his business. It is very clearly laid out in the bill itself that, as I stated earlier, it is mandatory, under the language of this bill, for the Commissioners to authorize the permit to possess a gun in your home or in your place of business, following the standards that have been laid down, which are standards of good moral character and responsibility.

Now

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Harsha, would you yield to me there?
Mr. HARSHA. Certainly.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Gimbel, we have here a letter, which I will make a part of the record, following your testimony, from Judge Hilliard Comstock of Santa Rosa, Calif., with reference to H.R. 5608. Judge Comstock says:

I am a superior court judge of 34 years' experience on the trial bench, a retired lieutenant colonel of infantry * *

And bearing upon what Mr. Harsha said, this is what he said in one paragraph:

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.

Now, that is what Mr. Harsha was getting at.

Mr. GIMBEL. I would answer it this way, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I think if the criminal element in this city feels that because of the passage of this bill that the law-abiding people of the city are going to be disarmed, they are going to be in for a sad shock, because that is not going to be the case, the way we have developed this bill.

I would like to make this comment for the record.

Chief Murray was in contact with Police Commissioner Michael J. Murphy, of New York City, with regard to the effectiveness of the law in New York. He sent Chief Murray a letter, which I would like to read briefly just a couple of paragraphs and enter into the record, if I may.

Mr. WHITENER. All right, sir.

Mr. GIMBEL (reading):

We have had very little opposition from law-abiding businessmen and citizens of the city concerning the enforcement of these provisions relative to the possession and carrying of concealable weapons. We have consistently reduced the number of permits we issue and at this time there are only 17,207 in force.

We feel that this law is very desirable as it does keep guns out of the hands of criminal elements to a certain extent. Its effectiveness is undermined by the ease with which pistols and revolvers can be obtained in other jurisdictions *

End of Commissioner Murphy's letter.

Mr. WHITENER. Will you make that a part of the record at this point?

Mr. GIMBEL. I will.

(The full text of the letter, dated March 13, 1963, from Police Commissioner Michael J. Murphy follows:)

THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,

CITY OF NEW YORK,

March 13, 1963.

Mr. ROBERT V. MURRAY,

Chief of Police,

Government of the District of Columbia,
Metropolitan Police Department,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR BOB: I am enclosing herewith a copy of the penal law of the State of New York, in response to your request relative to the subject of dangerous weapons. Article 172 entitled "Public Safety" beginning with section 1894 through 1899 relates to the so-called Sullivan law. On page 260 there are amendments to some of these sections, which were passed in the legislative session of 1961.

We have had very little opposition from law-abiding businessmen and citizens of the city concerning the enforcement of these provisions relative to the possession and carrying of concealable weapons. We have consistently reduced the number of permits we issue and at this time there are only 17,207 in force.

We feel that this law is very desirable as it does keep guns out of the hands of criminal elements to a certain extent. Its effectiveness is undermined by the ease with which pistols and revolvers can be obtained in other jurisdictions. I am sure that the most effective method of control would be through a Federal statute.

It was a great pleasure to see you in Chicago and I am looking forward to seeing you again soon.

Sincerely,

Mike,
MICHAEL J. MURPHY,
Police Commissioner.

Mr. GIMBEL. I would like to add that what we feel, in regard to the imposition upon the law-abiding people by requiring the permit, under the bill the Commissioners are given the broad authority as to the nature of the permit, the form and the duration of the permit and the fee for obtaining a permit, up to $5.

Now, what we envision-and this has not developed, but this has been going around in our minds as we developed the bill-and that is the possibility of establishing the permit so that the gun collector, who may have 20 guns which he keeps in his gun case or in his home, would have a permit that listed 20 guns. This permit could gocould have a duration of a lifetime, subject to revocation for reason. On the other hand, the man who wants to keep a gun in his store could have a permit that might last as long as 3 years, like your automobile permit. I do not think this would be any more difficult, frankly, for the law-abiding citizen than obtaining an automobile permit. It would probably be a lot less troublesome. Now

Mr. WHITENER. Well, in my State, to get a permit to purchase a weapon you get it from the clerk of superior court, and you must carry with you an affidavit from two law-abiding citizens attesting to your character, and it is a very simple procedure for one who is a lawabiding citizen; because very few of us ever bother to do that. If one wants a pistol, he generally buys it without a permit.

Mr. HARSHA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WHITENER. Yes.

Mr. HARSIIA. In contradiction of the situation in your State, Mr. Chairman, of it being a simple matter, as I read this bill section 6 says that the Commissioners may issue a permit:

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 *

and apparently you are going to go into his entire history, medical and otherwise, and if the Commissioners are satisfied that the applicant has a need for a pistol.

Now, what do you have to do to satisfy them that you have a need? Do you have to be threatened on one occasion, or is the applicant's statement that he or she was threatened one night sufficient, or do you have to come in and offer other proof that you were threatened?

Mr. GIMBEL. Sir, the standard that you refer to there is the standard for carrying a concealed weapon on your person anywhere within the District.

Now, we feel that there should be a showing of a need to have to carry a sidearm in the city of Washington, wherever you wish to go. Mr. HARSHA. All you have to do is pick up the paper, and that establishes the need for carrying one right now.

Mr. GIMBEL. As far as the possession of a pistol in your home and in your business to protect yourself, there is no showing of a need; merely the showing of good moral character and responsibility, and the Commissioners would have to issue it.

Mr. HARSHA. What do you call responsibility?

Mr. GIMBEL. The same standards would apply-employment; age; reputation, which includes a criminal record; medical history, which includes your mental history.

Mr. HARSHA. And experience with firearms or other relevant

matters.

I mean this permit is not as simple to obtain as you are painting, is what I am trying to get at. I mean it is going to be rather difficult. I say well, excuse me. You go ahead with your statement.

Mr. GIMBEL. I would like to say that what the intent of the bill has been throughout in the development of this bill is not to inconvenience the gun club members and the hobbyists and the persons who engage in the wholesome recreation of shooting. We are not trying to inconvenience the law-abiding public who desires to have a gun in his home. What we are trying to do is tighten up this easy availability of hand guns so that they will not continue to get into the hands of the criminal elements.

Now, the Commissioners have been informed that over about the past 3 years, police have confiscated something like more than 1,200 hand guns. Taken from

Mr. WHITNER. How many years?

Mr. GIMBEL. About 3 years.

Now, in 90 percent of these cases the persons who had the guns were charged, half of them, in 50 percent they were charged withthis is estimates-assault with a dangerous weapon, armed robbery, and homicide.

Senator Dodd, during the hearings before the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, reported that 800 to a 1,000

guns of all types are confiscated by District police yearly in the District.

Now, this is the easy availability that-this points to the easy availability that we are trying to tighten up on here in the District.

Under our language right now, the existing law, police have 48 hours following the filing of an application to purchase a pistol, which is required under existing law-under existing law a person must apply to purchase a pistol.

Mr. WHITENER. Suppose he moves up here from North Carolina, Texas, or South Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and brings a pistol with him that he has had around his home for years?

Mr. GIMBEL. Well, if he is not a convicted felon or drug addict or other prohibited person, he may keep that gun in his home or place of business.

Mr. WHITENER. He does not report to anybody?

Mr. GIMBEL. That is correct. No requirement-we have a voluntary registration the police maintain, but there is no requirement that he report the possession of his gun.

Mr. DowDY. Will the chairman yield to me a moment?
Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Dowdy.

Mr. Dowdy. I know of an instance that came to my office; a friend of mine down in my district-his son in the armed services of the United States was a collector of firearms. He had been transferred, and he had a few of his collector's items, worth several hundred dollars, in the trunk of his car. He was travelling through the State of Massachusetts, and I do not know whether he was speeding or what, but, anyway, he was stopped, and his collector's items, guns, were confiscated by the police in Massachusetts.

Now, I do not know what their law is up there, but I think that is a matter we should consider in these things, whether to use a law to take valuable items from an innocent person.

Mr. GIMBEL. To answer that, sir, I do not believe we would confiscate his arms here in the District. But under existing law, the gun club member, for instance, may not carry his pistol with him to a range, under the strict language of the law. You may not have a gun without a permit to carry it concealed on your person outside of your home or place of business. That is the law.

What we have in mind in this bill is to establish forms of permits and regulations which would allow a man to come from Virginia through the District to go to a place of recreation, where you can use, you know, a shooting range or that sort of thing, authorized place of recreation, and be permitted to carry his gun back and forth. But, actually, under the District interpretation of the law, he would be in violation right now.

Mr. Downy. I wrote to the Massachusetts officials about the matter, and they were wholly unconcerned about it; it was all right to take a man's property away from him, and would not do anything about it. There is one other question I have about this bill.

It appears to me that this would be very helpful to the criminals. If they are figuring on burglarizing somebodys' home, they can go down and find out whether the resident there has a permit to keep a gun in his house and know they do not have to look out for a man

« PreviousContinue »