Mr. SHIELDS. Therefore, I am especially pleased to comment on Treasury's proposed regulations today because of our submission of similar regulations.

I congratulate the Carter administration for recognizing the serious threat of illegal gun commerce in this Nation and for taking responsible action to address it.

The administration has recognized the previous lack of administrative enforcement of the 1978 Gun Control Act and is now taking the initiative to more fully comply with the original congressional intent, an intent that, unfortunately, other administrations have chosen to

ignore.

You will recall that in 1968 the 90th Congress stated that the purpose of the Act was to help the law enforcement community in its fight against crime and violence.

That Act clearly gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to promulgate these regulations. It charges him with administering an Act that prohibits the sales of handguns across State lines; that prohibits such sales to minors, felons, or fugitives from justice; and that prohibits interstate shipment and transportation of stolen guns in an obvious attempt to help law enforcement personnel curtail the underground black market in guns.

To implement and monitor these controls, the 90th Congress required all federally licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers to maintain and submit to the Treasury such records as the Secretary may prescribe, an obvious control and accounting measure that any good businessman would require of any dispersed business operation. The only difference is that most businesses do so as a means of controlling and curtailing their own economic loss, while Congress required it of the gun industry as a means of curtailing illicit gun trafficking and the consequent loss of human life and property.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that these modest regulations conform to the intent of the Congress. I would like to offer for the record a legal memorandum prepared by our law firm, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering on the statutory authority of the Treasury Department under the 1968 Gun Control Act. You have this memorandum in your material.

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that we believe that the Treasury Department also has the authority to implement many other regulations that have been discussed here today that will address the crime problem such as a waiting period, a ban on multiple sales, and stricter constraints on the importation of certain types of handguns.

They also conform to the desires of the majority of the American public who for the last 40 years have consistently favored stronger Federal controls over historical laissez-faire handgun commerce.

You have heard from one police organization today, the IACP, which together with the Police Executive Forum have endorsed these regulations. Why then have these modest recommendations stirred the wrath of the extreme members of the gun lobby?

For years, Mr. Chairman, we have heard responsible gun owners and elected officials urge the Federal Government to crack down on the criminal without inconveniencing the law-abiding citizen. I think the testimony today shows, and members of this committee know firsthand from the Department of Treasury, that these regulations will do just that and nothing more.

Yet, in recent days we have witnessed the hysterical reaction of the National Rifle Association and certain of its congressional supporters. In fighting these modest regulations, the National Rifle Association has issued a "legislative alert" to hundreds of thousands of gun owners. This alert contains distortions, exaggerations, and misinformation.

For example, the alert told its members that Treasury was issuing these proposed regulations "with no specific congressional authority. That statement is clearly inaccurate and a distortion of law. To quote from the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The Act requires licensees to "identify, by means of a serial number . . . in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured." The Act also requires licensees to "maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other dispositions of fireas the Secretary may by regulations prescribe" and to "submit to the Secretary such reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof as he shall by regulations prescribe."

arms.

The NRA has also told its members that Treasury was proposing "a massive system of centralized national registration."

In my opinion, this statement is misleading. The information that Treasury will require under its proposed regulations will not identify private gun owners or provide their addresses. Neither will it require private persons selling to one another to register these transactions. Nor will it permit the Government to identify gun owners, or permit the Government to identify who owns a specific gun.

In short, the proposed regulations do not call for the type of registration that Congress apparently rejected in 1968, nor registration as that term is understood by the public. To suggest that it does is terribly misleading.

Mr. Chairman, we would expect that responsible members of the gun industry would welcome these regulations and the help of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can provide them in preventing the theft and loss of their firearms. In any event, the cost of implementing these regulations will be more than offset by the benefits to society in diminishing the source of guns to the criminal.

It is interesting that today I have heard a lot of discussion about the economic cost of Government. I have heard very little about the social cost of death and injury to the citizenry of this country.

The gun lobby should also support these regulations by heeding their own words which urge a crackdown on the criminal.

Members of this committee are doubtless aware of other efforts by their colleagues to stop the implementation of these regulations and, in fact, punish the Bureau for even suggesting them. There is a resolution before the Congress that would characterize the 1968 act as not giving Treasury the authority to issue these regulations. As I already noted, however, in quoting from the act, there is clearly authority for these regulations. While the joint resolution may state the views of its sponsors, it certainly does not speak for the intent of the Congress 10 years ago in enacting the Gun Control Act. It is that intent that Treasury is obligated to carry out until that act is changed.

For many years the law had not been fully enforced. Now that we have for the first time an administration committed to enforcing the law, pro-gun groups and their supporters in Congress would throttle

law enforcement efforts. I urge this committee to resist all such attempts to subvert such enforcement.

In this regard, I note that there is a rider attached to the Treasury Department's appropriations bill. This "handgun crime rider" would withhold funds from Treasury to implement these regulations. This "handgun crime rider" would also delete $4.2 million from the 1979 Treasury Department's budget. Acceptance of this rider or of the aforementioned resolution is a "vote for the criminal." Acceptance would mean the curtailing of Treasury's authority to combat the criminal and take agents off the streets who are now enforcing the law. Acceptance would mean the beginning of a backdoor effort to repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act.

We meet here today, during the 10th anniversary of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Ten years ago Congress took a step in addressing the perceived gun threat. In the last 10 years, we have repeatedly seen the criminal add to his list of victims of handgun violence; 80,000 handgun murders and countless millions who have been assaulted, robbed, and raped by culprits wielding handguns.

It is 10 years too late for these victims. Fortunately, a new administration has turned its attention to the gun problem. These regulations are the first sign of a commitment by the President to addressing the handgun crime and violence problem in this Nation. He has the support of the American people. I hope he will have the support of the Congress.

Thus, I urge the Congress to endorse Treasury's recommended regulations now, and then move jointly with the President on subsequent legislative efforts. These actions now will surely save the lives of many Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. We very much appreciate your statement, Mr. Shields, and know the insight and conviction which enables you to make that very forceful presentation.

The next witness is Mr. David Steinberg, executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. Welcome to the subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steinberg follows:]

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY, INC.,

Washington, D.C., May 4, 1978.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED NEW FIREARMS REGULATIONS

(By David J. Steinberg, Executive Director, NCRFP)

The National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy supports the Treasury department's proposed new firearms regulations, whose major provisions would(Through the requirement of a new system of manufacturers' marking of the guns they produce, and through the central computerization of the quarterly reports which gun manufacturers, importers and dealers would be required to make on their sales of firearms entering the market for the first time) permit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to identify more quickly, efficiently and effectively persons who have used guns for criminal purposes, and to get a clearer picture of the volume and geographic distribution of firearms shipments by gun manufacturers, the better to carry out the Bureau's law enforcement responsibilities;

(Through the required reporting of thefts and losses of firearms from commercial channels) enable ATF to investigate the stealing and loss of firearms from commercial channels;

Secure tighter control of firearms imports so as, among other purposes, to ensure that firearms brought into the United States by military personnel do not violate the laws of the states and localities to which these guns are brought; and Simplify the controls governing the return of firearms to manufacturers for repair or replacement.

Opponents of the Treasury proposals argue that these regulations would cost an excessive amount of money, and that the computerization of licensed shipments and sales of new firearms (including the final transaction between the dealer and the consumer) amounts to the gun registration which these opponents are determined to prevent. Opposition for cost reasons cannot properly be evaluated unless the cost being considered is net cost-that is, the cost of instituting and maintaining the new system less the savings these regulations would bring (a) in more expeditious and more effective ATF operations, and (b) in reducing the cost of firearms violence to the American people in medical and other terms.

The proposed regulations are so far from what real, effective gun registration is all about that the "back-door registration" which these proposals are dubbed in anti-gun-control circles is a misguided, misleading misnomer. Calling these proposals gun registration is a “red herring" dragged across the path of rational public discussion.

Our Council knows something about the meaning and purpose of gun registration. We have been the nation's most active, most consistent and most credible advocate of gun registration (and of licensing for legal gun possession). Gun registration is the means of holding each legal owner of a firearm-new or used, whether obtained from a licensed dealer or from another source strictly accountable for that firearm until it has been legally sold or until its loss or theft has been properly reported to the police. Nothing in the Treasury proposals creates accountability of this scope and meaning, desirable as we think such a regulatory system would be.

The computerization which the Treasury proposes, confined to the disposition of firearms entering the market for the first time, is no more-advanced form of registration than the present regulation requiring duly executed federal forms with respect to dealer sales of any firearms, new or used. Treasury has stated that its contemplated computerization of the transactions listed in the proposed quarterly reports applies only to the numbers marked on these newly manufactured firearms and does not extend to the names and addresses of the consumers who buy them. Those who contend that ATF could obtain these names by contacting the dealers are correct. ATF can do it now and does it now as needs arise for authorized purposes, and we see nothing wrong in this possibility. We take the Treasury at its word that the proposed computerization does not encompass a registry of the names of those who buy the newly manufactured guns from licensed dealers.

We urge Treasury to keep the proposed regulations as simple as possible, and their cost as low as possible. We also recommend that Treasury issue a public report, one year after the effective date of these regulations, on their cost and usefulness.

These proposed regulations provide an opportunity to express our concern over the absence of a coherent, comprehensive Administration policy with respect to the private possession and transfer of firearms in this country. Nothing about the Treasury's proposed regulations, and nothing the Administration has said or done on other aspects of firearms policy, gives the country a clear view of the Administration's real and total intentions in this policy area. So long as the Administration fails to put all its cards on the table "face up" (as our Council has consistently done in stating its own principles and goals), and fails to come forward (even on just handguns alone) with the total, once-and-for-all policy the nation urgently needs, a great deal of uncertainty, confusion and in some quarters fear will surround whatever piecemeal steps may from time to time be attempted. What step is next, and what step after that? What is the rest of the government's firearms policy, and when will it be made known? Will the Treasury's proposed regulations set the stage for administrative innovations in gun control not yet revealed? How will the possession of firearms by skilled, responsible, law-abiding persons ultimately be affected? Even many of the more reasonable and rational of the nation's gun owners wonder and worry. Such uncertainties about future gun control efforts tend to block even moderate but isolated steps toward more effective firearms regulation in the overall public interest.

The Administration, and the gun-control movement, must end this uncertainty, confusion and fear by stating clearly, convincingly and credibly that a government ban on the private possession of guns (even handguns alone) regardless of

personal credentials and qualifications is not the goal of the gun-control campaign, either long or short-term. Rather, the reasonable limitation of legal firearms possession to individuals who possess the crucial qualifications for responsible possession and use is what the gun-control campaign is all about. Let's get on with this objective as quickly as possible-no hidden meanings, no ulterior motives.

We urge Congress to reject efforts to scuttle these Treasury proposals. And we hope the Administration and Congress will soon show a readiness and determination to give the country the kind of firearms legislation that has far too long been so sadly lacking.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. STEINBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY, ACCOMPANIED BY HAROLD A. SERR, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND FORMER DIRECTOR OF ATF

Mr. STEINBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I am David J. Steinberg, executive director of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy.

Our council supports the proposed new Treasury regulations.

In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a few brief oral comments.

We urge the Treasury Department to keep the regulations as simple as possible and the cost as low as possible. We notice that opponents of these regulations object to what they call the excessive costs of these proposed regulations.

These objections merit little attention, and cannot be effectively evaluated unless these objections take account of the savings in greater ATF effectiveness and reducing the cost of firearms violence to the American people in medical terms and in other terms.

There is also the serious objection that these regulations amount to gun registration. Mr. Chairman, our council knows a great deal about. gun registration. For the past decade I believe it is fair to say that our council has been the most active, the most consistent supporter, the most active and most consistent advocate of licensing and registration with respect to the legal possession of firearms.

There is indeed some degree of registration in these proposals to the extent that the new serial numbers will be put on computers and the disposition made of these guns through commercial channels will be computerized.

This is no more registration than the requirement in 1968 that Federal form 4473 be properly executed for the legal acquisition of firearms from licensed dealers.

Registration, in our council's view, in the true sense means a government policy that holds every legal owner of a firearm strictly responsible and strictly accountable for that firearm until that firearm has been legally transferred or its loss or theft has been properly reported to the police.

Now, this system of accountability is not what the Treasury is talking about and, therefore, the objection that these regulations amount to registration is in our view a misguided, misleading misnomer; indeed, we believe it is a red herring drawn across the path of rational public discussion of this issue.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we must confess considerable disappointment that, after 10 years of operation under the hopelessly