Statement of Neal Knox, Firearms Coalition of America | appreciate this opportunity to comment on behalf of the Firearms Coalition concerning H.R. 155 and H.R. 975. The Firearms Coalition is composed of more than 2,000 clubs, associations and individuals in every state We consider these bills to be a violation of the Constitutionally guaranteed tight to keep and bear arms . .. and the right of privacy—which the Con- gress has declared “is a personal and fundamental right protected by the Constitution," ‘These bills repeal the Privacy Act of 1974 (PL. 93-579) as it applies to the nation’ firearms owners for they require the release of priviiged information to gun dealers, and authorize information to be submitted to Federal and local law enforcement agencies which has nothing to do with whether a buyer is disqualified from ownership. Further, although H.R. 975 requires law enforcement officials to destroy report forms within 60 days, that language is deceitful, for there is no prohibition against computerizing the information they contain—including the gun’s serial number. There is no privacy consideration in H.R. 155, nor any limit upon the amount or type information that might be required of purchasers of handguns. LR. 155 assumes dealers are the only source of guns; it would require a 15-day wait on purchases from dealers, mandate an FBI criminal records check (with- ‘out considering the tremendous cost), and request lacal authorities to verify the buyer’ residence, determine whether he or she has a criminal record, and exam- ine “readily available” mental records. Any information disqualifying the buyer {rom ownership would have to be reported to the firearms dealer, who could not complete the transaction, and would have to notify law enforcement agencies. H.R. 975 is schizophrenic; it assumes that all handgun sellers are scrupulously law-abiding, while all handgun purchasers should be investigated as potential criminals. The bill would require all sellers, both dealers and individuals, to notify local police agencies and delay the transfer seven days. Police would have the option of checking to determine if the purchaser had a criminal or mental record, or were otherwise disqualified. f enacted, BATF operatives would soon be seducing normally law-abiding citizens to make immediate transfers, In theory, the bills would provide a “cooling off” period during which an emo- tionally upset gun buyer might change his mind about killing himself or some- one else. The theory presumes that the handgun buyer has no other firearm or other weapon with which to commit such an act—despite estimates that 80 percent of handgun buyers already own another firearm. The requirement for a ‘waiting period’ and police background check before purchase of a firearm is not a new idea. These bills are slight variations of legislation which has been considered—and wisely rejected—by several preceding Congresses. However, the idea has been tried in many states, and failed to reduce their crime rates;“waiting periods” are now in place in about one-third the states—with roughly two-thirds of the population and three-fourths of the worst crimes. Most of the agitation for these proposals is coming from states ot cities which blame the failure of their own more-restrictive laws on the unwillingness of states with lower crime rates to emulate ther lack of success. A few days ago a Washington, D.C. official blamed lax gun laws in low-crime areas for the record number of fatal shootings in the city’ vicious drug wars, In what states are cocaine and crack legal? The reason for the failure of firearms laws is that the targets—felonious mis- users of firearms—do not obtain their guns through regulated commercial channels. That was the finding of Prof. James Wright of the University of Mas- sachusetts, who discovered that only 7 percent of "handgun-using predators” obtained their guns from licensed dealers, and that 70 percent of their guns were known or believed to be stolen (“The Armed Criminal in America: A Sur. vey of Incarcerated Felons"). The effect ofthese bills is the same as requiring police to stop and search every cat traveling the interstate highways—causing slowdowns in legitimate travel, while 93 percent of the crooks were known to be driving the back roads (and virtually all criminals would once the roadblocks became known). What makes Prof. Wrights studies so compelling is that they were funded by the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, and the fact that he began his first study in 1978 (*Weapons, Crime and Violence in America") as a staunch advocate of additional restrictive gun laws. Although it was his pur- pose to determine the most-elfective form of firearms law, he could find no gun Jaws that had effectively reduced the crime rate The stated objective of supporters of H.R. 155 and H.R. 975 is “to keep hand- guns out of the hands of criminals.” Prof. Wright's tesearch indicates that would be a deadly mistake; 72 percent of handgun predators stated that if for some teason they could not obtain a handgun, they would carry a more-lethal sawed- off shotgun or rifle, and 77 percent of them had sawed off a gun in the past (which is a rarely prosecuted Federal felony). If either bill were enacted and succeeded in keeping handguns out the hands of criminals, it could double the murder rate, for shotguns are about three times as deadly as handguns. Heel itis unfortunate that the committee has not heard from objective research- ers such as Prof. Wright or Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University (though I do not fully subscribe to either of their findings).“waiting periods” are now in place in about one-third the states—with roughly ‘wwo-thirds of the population and three-fourths of the worst crimes. Most of the agitation for these proposals is coming from states or cities which blame the failure of their own more-restrictive laws on the unwillingness of states with lower crime tates to emulate theit lack of success. A few days ago a Washington, D.C. official blamed lax gun laws in low-crime areas for the record number of fatal shootings in the city vicious drug wars. In what states are cocaine and crack legal? The reason for the failure of firearms laws is that the targets—felonious mi users of firearms—do not obtain their guns through regulated commercial channels. That was the finding of Prof. James Wright of the University of Mas- sachusetts, who discovered that only 7 percent of handgun-using predators” obtained their guns from licensed dealers, and that 70 percent of their guns were known or believed to be stolen ("The Armed Criminal in America: A Sur- vey of Incarcerated Felons"). The effect of these bills is the same as requiring police to stop and search every car traveling the interstate highways—causing slowdowns in legitimate travel, while 93 percent of the crooks were known to be driving the back roads (and virtually all criminals would once the roadblocks became known). What makes Prof. Wright’ studies so compelling is that they were funded by the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, and the fact that he began his first study in 1978 (*Weapons, Crime and Violence in America”) as a staunch advocate of additional restrictive gun laws. Although it was his pur- Pose to determine the most-elfective form of firearms law, he could find no gun Jaws that had effectively reduced the crime rate. The stated objective of supporters of H.R, 155 and H.R. 975 is “to keep hand- guns out of the hands of criminals.” Prof. Wright's research indicates that would be a deadly mistake; 72 percent of handgun predators stated that if for some reason they could not obtain a handgun, they would carry a more-lethal sawed- off shotgun or rifle, and 77 percent of them had sawed off a gun in the past (which is a rarely prosecuted Federal felony). If either bill were enacted and succeeded in keeping handguns out the hands of criminals, it could double the murder rate, for shotguns are about three times as deadly as handguns. [eel itis unfortunate that the committee has not heard from objective research- ers such as Prof. Wright ot Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University (though 1 do not fully subscribe to either of their findings).Since few mental records are available to police, and a records check would be unlikely to disqualily a suicidal buyer, the only possible advantage of these bills would be the “cooling off" period; but that could only affect 20 percent of buyers, and there is no evidence that either suicide or “passion murders" have declined where “cooling off" periods have been imposed. While thete are unquestionably instances of individuals buying a gun and immediately killing themselves or someone else with it, a waiting period does not mean the homicide or suicide would have been. prevented or even delayed. Last year an article in the Montgomery County Journal (Maryland) enthusias- tically reported that Maryland’ waiting period law had prevented three sui- ‘idal persons from obtaining handguns—they had committed suicide by other means while waiting, The reporter didn grasp the fact that the waiting period failed to prevent their deaths. Asan active shooter and occasional firearms technical writer, | own more than 100 guns, yet I must go through Maryland’ waiting period procedure every time 1 obtain another handgun from or through a dealer—sometimes four or five times per year. Each time the Maryland state police must waste the taxpayers’ money making certain I am not prohibited from owning a gun— although their records show that 1 own many. According to the most recent data supplied to Maryland Delegates, for the years 1982-84 there were an average of 27,300 handgun purchases each year and 127 denials by the State Police (one-half percent), During Senate testi- mony last summer, a member of the Maryland State Police testified that they were bringing charges against 14 persons with serious prior offenses who had attempted to buy handguns, We have learned the outcome in one of those cases: a guilty plea by a man who had committed an armed offense when he was 17, and thought his conviction no longer disqualified him, for it occurred when he was a juvenile—and because the offense had occurred almost 40 years before. ‘The advocates of H.R. 975 and H.R. 155 have repeatedly stated that if they had been in place, John Hinckley Jr. could not have obtained the gun with which he shot President Reagan and Jim Brady. That simply is not true. Even if Hinck- ley could not have bought a gun from other than a dealer—which he could have—his Texas drivers’ license was valid, he had no disqualifying criminal record (despite having been arrested and having had two guns confiscated at the Nashville airport), and treatment of mental illness by a private physician is not a public recordAlthough these hearings are intended to focus primarily upon the “waiting period” question, it should be mentioned that H.R. 155 also prohibits “hard to detect” firearms and “suppressors.” The former section would allow an unscru- pulous Administration to ban virtually any handgun, by declaring it to be “not readily detectable,” for which a synonym is “concealable.” ‘The section banning suppressors simply cannot be justified on any grounds except prejudice, for there ate no known examples of legally-owned and licensed “silencers” being used in crime, Further, the language prohibiting uansfer and possession of “silencers” is dangerously vague, for the definition allows prosecution for possessing “any part .. intended for use in a” silencer ‘or suppressor. It replaces the language used in present law which requires that for a prosecution to be based upon possession of a single part, that part must be usable solely in a suppressor. Thave various suppressor “parts” in my home, including hardware store “fender washers" commonly used for carpentry and home-made suppressor baffles, and a plastic 2-liter Coca-Cola bottle with a bullet hole in the bottom. The Coke bowtle was actually used as a suppressor by screwing it into an adap- tor fitted to a 45 caliber MAC-10. It was fired in my presence by the licensed suppressor manufacturer who made it, and for one shot it was almost as effec- tive as a commercial silencer. Although the bottom of the boitle is shattered, making it useless as a silencer part, would my possession of that Coke bottle be violation—bearing in mind that it had been an integral part of a silencer? Would my possession of an intact 2-liter plastic Coke bottle be a violation of HR. 155? Those questions are not facetious. I was at a Pomona, California, gun show in November 1986 when police arrested a man for possessing a spanner wrench used for suppressor disassembly. He was charged with violating the MeClure- ‘Volkmer bill, which uses far more precise language than H.R. 155. The definition of “silencer” used in H.R. 155 covers any device capable of “mullling, or diminishing the report” of a firearm, That language dates from the days when there were no sound-measuring devices. I'm aware of a convic- tion of aman who made suppressors which failed to reduce the sound enough for the ear to detect, but which produced a sound reduction detectable by sensitive instruments. Even greater sound reduction—clearly audible to the naked eat—can be accomplished merely by installing a slightly longer barrel on a firearm,there are any changes in the suppressor definition, they should reflect devel opments in sensitive instruments, and establish a significant percentage of Sound reduction as an objective standard. There should be no change in present language describing a single suppressor part as one used solely in a suppressor Since some members of the committee seemed to doubt my October 1985 tes- timony as to the sporting use of silencers, it should be noted that the original Patent by Hiram Maxim envisioned the devices as being used for recreational shooting while causing less disturbance to neighbors. 'm told suppressors actually only mufflers—are today commonly used for both hunting and short ange trap shooting in both France and England. In conclusion, 1 urge members of the committee to review the summary of Prof Wright’ “Armed Criminal in America” study, published in November 1986 by the National Institute of Justice Congress were asked to fund an experimental engine that ran on sea water instead of gasoline, the first thing that would be demanded is some evidence that it would work. 1f Congress learned that a third ofthe state legislatures had already funded such an engine, and that it hadn't worked, they would throw the con man and his water-powered engine off Capitol Hill. No less should be done to H.R. 975. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views