Statement of James Baker, National Rifle Association Before proceeding to a discussion of the substantive issues surrounding H.R 975, The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action would like to lay to rest one of the lynchpin myths used to argue in favor of a national wait- ing period and background check before purchase of a pistol or revolver. It is unfortunate that we must spend so much time belaboring this point; itis equally unfortunate that advocates of "gun control” continue to misrepresent the facts concerning the tragic assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, In much of the propaganda produced in support of H.R. 975, the allegation is ‘made that, if such a waiting perioc/background check system had been in place, “John Hinckley would have been caught” because “he lied on a federal form” when he purchased the revolver used in his attack on President Reagan. It is further claimed that Hinckley “would have been in jail, instead of on his way to Washington, D.C." had such a background check been conducted. These alle- ations are irrefutably false, Their continued use merely points up the fact thatHCI and sponsors of the legislation before this Committee have only emotional thetoric to justify the wholesale abrogation of constitutional rights (under the 2nd and 5th Amendments) represented by H.R. 975. John Hinckley purchased a total of eight firearms—two .38 cal. and four .22 cal. revolvers, as well as two rifles—from August 1979 to January 1981. The .22 cal. revolver used in his assault on President Reagan was one of two he purchased in October 1980, ‘more than six months before he left for Washington, D.C. Federal law was so diligently complied with in this case by the seller that multiple purchase forms were quickly filed with the regional office of ATF after the purchase. Indeed, this purchase, and all previous purchases, were legal, And they would have been legal uncler this ot any other “waiting period” scheme ever devised. ‘At the time of his purchase, and up until his attack on the President, John Hinckley had no felony record, he had no recorded history of mental illness or commitment, (as no check currently involves police inspection af private con- versations with a psychiatrist) and he was using a valid Texas driver’ license issued May 23, 1979, to make his firearms purchases, The contention that a background check would have “uncovered” the fact that he did not physically reside at the address listed on his license is a willful distortion of the criminal record check made by local police. To the contrary, had a check been run and all criminal records been thorough and completely available, they would have confirmed that Hinckley was not a prohibited person and that his last known address was in Lubbock, Texas. Simply put, no detection system ever proposed or ever devised has mindread- ing capabilities. Advocates of the background check do a gross disservice to the nation by asserting that the tragic assassination attempt on President Reagan would have been prevented by the imposition of any regulatory “gun control” scheme. | urge this Committee to look carefully at other arguments made by those who would make that claim using the case of John Hinckley as evidence. The long history of waiting period schemes points up the failure of those systems in other criminal justice areas, as well. Waiting periods, permit-to- purchase laws, and police background checks have been instituted around the Country for most of the century: After the 1911 Sullivan law in New York, many were enacted in the 19208 and 19305, about the same time that a Uniform Crime Reporting system was implemented to facilitate the collection of crime data from cities and states throughout the nation. Thus, criminologists and other scholars have had ample time and abundant evidence with which to prove just how effective a waiting period is in deterring, violent crimeln October 1975, Douglas R, Murray of the University of Wisconsin published “Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearms Violence.” Using the standard statistical methods—a multiple regression statistical framework—he compared the various state firearms laws—including purchase permit, waiting period, Police notification, retail license, minimum age, permit to carry openly, and Permit to carry concealed—to crime rates, while considering socio-economic conditions. Murray found that “gun control laws have no significant effect on Fates of violence beyond what can be attributed to background social condi- tions.” Secondly, he found that such laws do not effectively limit access to guns by the violence-prone; and, finally, accessibility to handguns “seems to have no elfect on rates of violent crime and firearms accidents, another reason why gun control laws are ineffective.” Murray summarized: “On the basis of these data, the conclusion is, inevitably, that gun control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rates of violent crime,” Murray's study was replicated by a self-proclaimed “gun control” advocate, Pro- fessor Matthew DeZee at Florida State University. His conclusion? “The results indicate that not a single gun control law, and not all the gun control laws added together, had a significant impact ... in determining gun violence. It appears, then, that present legislation created to reduce the level of violence in society falls far short ofits goals. ... Gun laws do not appear to affect gun crimes.” Keep in mind that the types of laws studied by these scholars were identical to the legislation before you today. Another unimpeachable study was conducted by two professors at the Califor- nia State University at Long Beach. Professors Joseph Maggaddino and Marshall Medoff studied “waiting periods” and “cooling-off periods and found them to be totally useless in curbing crime. They found no relationship between a waiting period or cooling-off period and any type of violent crime, except that they noted a slightly higher homicide rate and a slightly higher robbery rate in places with such laws Currently, there are sixteen states with application and waiting periods required for the purchase of a pistol or revolver. Additionally, there are scores cof cities and counties that have their own resirictive systems of this type. There are also six states that do not technically have an application and waiting period system, but do have a licensing system or require a permit to purchase firearms. Again, the majority of these systems have been in place for decades, giving criminologists such as Mutray, DeZee, Maggaddino and Medoff ample opportunity to unearth any supposed efficacy these systems have. Likewise,