Chairman DODD. It ought to be noted, it's true and the cases that you have cited here for the record are very impressive. Of course, there are those who said that this was a weak law and wouldn't work and wouldn't amount to anything, but it did amount to something because of the way it has been enforced. Of course, and I know you will agree, we didn't think that the passage would solve every gun problem overnight. It was never intended to do that.

I think we are moving in the right direction and it is being accomplished because of the work under your office by you and your

associates.

Mr. THROWER. Thank you.

I am sure members of this subcommittee have also received a large volume of correspondence on this subject. It appears to be a constant source of irritation to the sportsmen of the country.

The full value of the new gun law is not yet subject to complete evaluation and, therefore, postponement of any additional legislation would appear to be appropriate, especially in view of the fact that our resources are being fully used to implement this new law and tremendous expense and manpower which would be involved in implementing the bills proposing registration and licensing.

I urge you to give us an opportunity to see how effective the new law is before proposing additional legislation expanding the Federal role in gun control. I assure you that where we find deficiencies in the present laws we will come to you for remedial legislation.

Again, let me say in conclusion that I strongly believe the new gun law is an effective law enforcement tool which will go a long way in assisting local law enforcement authorities in coping with the crime problem within their own borders. Therefore, it may be appropriate to give the Gun Control Act of 1968 a chance to operate before we seek additional legislation.

:

Chairman DODD. I thank you very much, as all members of the committee do.

Once again, I say this is very fine testimony. I appreciate your views on the situation with respect to the gun law and giving it a chance to work. I feared we might rush ahead too fast without proper opportunity to weigh things as they should be weighed.

I am in a dilemma. I knew this, or I think I did. I am torn between the rise in crime rate and the impasse which tells me, as you voiced it, to not rush off without knowing what direction we are headed in. That is a problem for all of us. I hope that we can balance this and proceed as we should.

Most of the complaints that I-or this subcommittee-get about the ammunition regulations comes from the manufacturers of ammunition. We have received maybe 10 letters from individual sportsmen. That, however, doesn't mean it isn't a valid complaint, and certainly the manufacturers are interpreting this. We haven't heard from many individual sportsmen or others.

In addition, the two bills having to do with the ammunition problem, which were to be heard by us at the sessions next week, have been

withdrawn from our consideration by both Senator Bennett and Senator Byrd. So they will not be before us and I take it they will not be before this Senate.

Anyway, your advice is certainly going to be given great weight and consideration. Your advice, as I am sure you would say, represents the views of your associates who have been laboring on this a long time. Mr. THROWER. We were simply undertaking to give a full and pertinent report on our operations, and that was part of the problem we had encountered.

Chairman DODD. I am not saying that is not right. I am simply trying to make clear for the record that we all do have a problem on this and it is tough.

The other point I would like to make is the fact that the 1968 has been described as a weak bill. Your testimony certainly did not have that allegation. I don't know why people put this bill in the unique category. It has been hammered, it has been hurt by the extremists on one side and the extremists on the other. This seems to be a common occurrence. Anyway, nowadays the rabid, almost unreasonable gun people are still attacking the law; but of course, that was under attack from the beginning. It was embraced by others and then denounced as being weak and inadequate. Neither position is right.

I think the more moderate one is the right one. The law isn't a cureall. It isn't going to solve everything. None of us ever thought so, but I think your report substantiates your viewpoint that it has helped. It has worked pretty well.

Mr. THROWER. We think, Senator, that there is a great need for public understanding, and with that appreciation of the significance of these provisions as well as understanding within the enforcing agencies, State and local police forces. I think that simply takes some time to accomplish.

Chairman DODD. The other problem Senator Hart and I tried to suggest is this: You and I know that there are, I guess, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million firearms at large in this country.

So what do we do about them, that is the problem; how do you go about controlling guns already owned?

Of course, the gun critics prophesied that we will confiscate these guns. Many of these guns must be in the hands of people who should never be allowed to have firearms. They won't come forth voluntarily because their backgrounds and records are so bad it is practically a certainty that they will never come forward themselves. It is a problem of great discussion in the Senate, the crime fight with guns.

We do have that gun problem all the time. That was what you said about a certification bill, hoping that this would perhaps in some way solve that problem. Like all of these things, it is not perfect.

I hope that you will study it. I made it as simple as I could, $1 for a lifetime certificate covering any number of guns. It seemed to me, as I worked on it, and it seems to me now that it goes to the heart of the problem, which is the character of the gun owner, the possessor.

The other matter I would like to have your view on is the matter of the mandatory additional penalty for those who have committed a felony within the Federal sphere.

Senator Mansfield was here yesterday and urged the passage of his own bill which would make mandatory the imposition of an additional

penalty for those convicted of a felony with a gun. I always have been very reticent to put it mildly, about mandatory sentences for anything. Under general principles I think that it is unwise from a jurisprudence standpoint. My experience has been that cases are never the same, nor are individuals, and of course I could conjure up a bill that would make a mandatory sentence. But that is usually cruelty and miscarriage of justice.

At the same time, I am aware, too, that public temper is understandably such in this country that something pretty tough has got to be done to get at these people who insist on using guns in robberies, assaults, and other crimes.

I would like your views on that, if you care to give them. I think we all have to think it out very carefully.

Mr. THROWER. Senator, certainly I would agree wholeheartedly with the general principles that you stated there as to the propriety or disirability of making exceptions to mandatory minimums in this particular case. I think we would defer to the Department of Justice on this, which has the broader responsibility.

Chairman DODD. I am very impressed with the record and we place high value on your views, but I understand your position.

I do not really question you about it because your testimony is so well presented here. I am trying to ask some views on these observations. This has to do with the importation of guns. I have noted that the problem may be reduced to the "Saturday night special." But as you point out, we are now running into this domestic production on a very broad scale.

We have some thoughts about that, and we are trying to work it out, but we haven't drafted it yet. We have talked about it among the staff, so I won't try to go into it now.

I would like you to give us your views on this.

Mr. THROWER. I would be happy to, Senator. You and your staff may be interested in some statistics amplifying my remarks that I made in my formal statement.

According to our best estimates, the number of small, cheap, concealable weapons, commonly known as "Saturday night specials"as you expressed them-produced in the United States in the calendar year 1968 is between 60,000 and 75,000. We estimate that the number of these weapons that will be produced in the United States in 1969 will approximate 700,000 and that that would be increased probably to in the neighbrohood of 750,000 to a million in the calendar year 1970. I think those figures somewhat speak for themselves. We do not presently have a recommendation.

Chairman DODD. They do speak for themselves.

I thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. It has been very helpful testimony. I appreciate your taking your time.

I am sure you understand we are trying to move ahead on these bills. We don't have too many, about four or five, and the two of the ammunition bills have been withdrawn.

Thank you again.

Mr. THROWER. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman DODD. Unless you have something else.

Mr. Santarelli, we are very glad to welcome you.

He is Associate Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice. He has a distinguished background.

I might point out, among his distinctions is the fact that he was associated with the Congress; he was special counsel of one of the impor tant Senate subcommittees, and was minority counsel of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

He has had full experience, and we are very glad you can take the time to come here this morning.

The biographical sketch follows:)

BIOGRAPHY OF DONALD E. SANTARELLI, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Santarelli was appointed to this newly created position in January of this year. Previously he served as Special Counsel to the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee and as Minority Counsel for the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Santarelli's new office will be responsible for developing, coordinating and implementing the Administration's program for crime control.

STATEMENT OF DONALD E. SANTARELLI, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. SANTARELLI. Thank you, Senator Dodd.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the invitation to appear before this subcommittee to give you the views of the Department of Justice on four legislative proposals affecting Federal controls over firearms and ammunition. The Department of Justice appears jointly with the Treasury Department because of our joint responsibilities in the enforcement of the Federal firearms laws. The primary responsibility for the actual administration of the Federal firearms statutes is with the Treasury Department.

The Department of Justice provides the investigative assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in procuring evidence of crime and the prosecutive arm of the U.S. Attorney in prosecuting violations of the Federal firearms laws in the Federal courts.

Therefore, I defer to the Treasury Department on S. 100, S. 1432, and S. 2433, bills generally referred to as proposals for registration and licensing of firearms. A few comments, however, on those proposals are in order.

Last year the Congress passed legislation which completely revised and expanded the Federal statutes pertaining to the transferring, transporting, and possession of firearms and ammunition.

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 revised the National Firearm Act to deal with the Supreme Court's decision in Haynes v. United States which had greatly limited the effectiveness of that act. Because the National Firearms Act covers only gangster type weapons and destructive devices, it is not pertinent to the present legislative proposals before this committee. Therefore, I will address my remarks toward the statutory framework created by other aspects of the legislation passed by the Congress last year, and the effect on the legislative proposals before this committee on that statutory framework and their desirability.

Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968, by curtailing interstate sales of firearms to individuals, both over-the-counter and through the mails, enables the several States to regulate effectively the sale and possession of firearms within their borders. This statutory framework was sufficiently well described and commented on by the representatives from the Treasury Department. But I believe it is necessary to emphasize that each State faces different problems and conditions in the area of firearms control. The problems and conditions peculiar to the populous urban Northeastern States are not those peculiar to the sparsely populated Plains and Mountain States. Thus, the legislatures of these diverse States are likely to adopt different measures in dealing with firearms.

The present statutory framework permits the States to design their own programs of firearms control according to their respective needs and protects them against circumvention through interstate and mailorder sales. The Department of Justice believes this is the proper statutory program to achieve this goal.

Furthermore, since the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not become effective until the end of 1968, we have had only approvimately 7 months of experience with its enforcement. Nevertheless, the statistics referred to in Mr. Thrower's testimony for the first 6 months of this year indicate a marked increase in the investigative activity made possible by the new and broader firearms legislation. However, it is to early for a similar increase to be reflected in our statistics on firearms prosecutions.

We agree with the representatives from the Department of the Treasury that registration and licensing proposals represent a distant departure from previously held concepts of Federal controls of sporting firearms and would constitute an unwarranted invasion into the province of State and local governments. Keeping in mind the recent repudiation of similar proposals in the 90th Congress, and noting the possible constitutional problems raised specifically in the previous testimony, and contemplating the practical aspects of such an undertaking, while contrasting these factors against the fact that there is no clear indication that such a program would have a significant impact on the criminal misuse of firearms, the Department of Justice joins the Treasury Department in opposing the enactment of registration and licensing proposals at this time.

Before looking to broader and more controversial statutory schemes for firearms control, it would be wise to look closely at the existing statutes with an eye toward perfecting them and making them more equitable in their application. A few comments on the existing law are in order.

Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to several categories of interdicted persons, including fugitives from justice, and addicts and users of narcotics and dangerous drugs. Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, while prohibiting the possession of firearms by certain classes of persons, including those dishonorably discharged from military service, convicted felons, aliens unlawfully in the country and others, does not prohibit possession by those interdicted classes in title I of the Gun Control Act. The danger posed by possession of firearms by persons in title I, such as fugitives and narcotics addicts, is a very