[fiche cite CIS 1986 H521-13] ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION AND THE CRIMINAL MISUSE AND AVAILABILITY OF MACHINEGUNS AND SILENCERS HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 641 and Related Bills ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION AND THE CRIMINAL MISUSE AND AVAILABILITY OF MACHINEGUNS AND SILENCERS MAY 17, 24 AND JUNE 27, 1984 Serial No. 153 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1986 newpage CONTENTS HEARINGS HELD Page May 17, 1984................................................... 1 May 24, 1984................................................. 107 June 27, 1984................................................ 213 TEXT OF BILLS H.R. 641....................................................... 2 H.R. 953....................................................... 5 H.R. 3796...................................................... 9 H.R. 5835.................................................... 217 H.R. 5844.................................................... 222 H.R. 5845.................................................... 226 S. 1762, An act............................................... 11 WITNESSES Baker, Jim, deputy director, Governmental Affairs Division, National Rifle Association.................................... 90 Biaggi, Hon. Mario, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York.............................................. 23, 236 Prepared statements............................ 43, 56, 240 Brooks, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas........................................................ 214 Prepared statement.................................... 216 Darwick, Norman, executive director, International Association of Chiefs of Police............................................. 316 Prepared statement...................................... 328 Epps, Sterling B., national cochairman, legislative committee, National Association of Police Organizations.................. 316 Prepared statement..................................... 321 Harrington, John J., past national president, Fraternal Order of Police........................................................ 316 Prepared statement...................................... 340 Higgins, Stephen E., Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury.......................... 110 Prepared statement...................................... 113 Kass, George, owner, Forensic Ammunition Service, Spring Arbor, MI............................................................ 286 Prepared statement...................................... 303 Konstantin, David N., research associate, Police Executive Research Forum......................................................... 316 Prepared statement..................................... 336 Kramer, Samuel, deputy director, National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards................................... 286 Prepared statement....................................... 295 Lapierre, Wayne, director, Federal affairs, National Rifle Association..................................................... 90 Prepared statement........................................ 93 Larkin,Isaiah, program associate, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives...................................... 83 Prepared statement........................................ 85 Moynihan, Hon. Donald Patrick, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York............................................................ 23 Prepared statement........................................ 36 Murphy, Edward, legislative counsel, International Brotherhood of Police Officers............................................. 316 Prepared statement....................................... 343 (iii) newpage IV Owen, Edward, chief, Firearms Technology Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury................ 62 Powis, Robert E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Department of the Treasury..................................... 62 Prepared statement....................................... 69 Stephens, Jay B., Deputy Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice..................................................... 135 Prepared statements.................................. 140, 261 Stone, Art, vice chairman, national legislative committee, Fraternal Order of Police....................................... 86 Prepared statement....................................... 88 Tighe, John H., chief of police, Pembroke Pines, Broward County, FL............................................................. 154 Prepared statement...................................... 157 Walker, John M., Jr., Assistant Secretary,Enforcement and Operations, Department of the Treasury......................... 247 Prepared statement...................................... 251 Zimmerman, Donald, deputy associate director, Law Enforcement.. 110 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL Hughes, Hon. William J., chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, opening statement...................................................... 17 A resolution of the New York's City Council's support of this hearing submitted by Hon. Mario Biaggi......................... 41 Law executive directors to Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan, letter dated April 16, 1984................................................. 52 Relief Statistics for fiscal year 1984........................ 124 Statement of the Hon. Joseph G. Minish, New Jersey, 11th District...................................................... 171 Statement of the Hon. Silvio 0. Conte, Massachusetts, 1st District................................................. 174, 355 Statement of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) in support of H.R. 953................................. 179 Statement by Donald E. Fraher, legislative director, Handgun Control, Inc.................................................. 181 American Law Division, Congressional Reference Service, Library of Congress, to Hon. Mario Biaggi, Attn: Craig Floyd, letter dated November 27, 1984............................................. 188 William J. Hughes, chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, to Stephen Higgins, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, letter dated May 16, 1984, with attachments.................. 192 Stephen E. Higgins, Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to Hon. William J. Hughes, chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, letter dated May 22, 1984, with enclosures.................... 195 Statement of the Hon. John D. Dingell, Michigan, 16th District, in support of H.R. 5845........................................... 232 Test procedure for armor-piercing handgun ammunition, prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1984.......................... 288 Diagrams of three types of ammunition.......................... 310 Statement by Thomas W. Doyle, FLEOA national executive vice president and legislative cochairman on H.R. 5835, dated June 27, 1984........................................................... 317 Additional statements made for the record...................... 355 newpage [SNIP] 110 made a part of the record in full, and you may proceed as you see fit. I see that we have a vote in progress and I think it might be prudent before we even begin your testimony to catch our vote and come right back and then we will begin. We will be back in 10 minutes. The subcommittee stands in recess for 10 minutes. [Recess. ] Mr. HUGHES. The subcommittee will come to order. I might say that I am sorry that it took so long. For those that might be interested, the debt ceiling bill passed, so the Republic is again saved; apparently they will not tear the Monument down, and the checks for social security will go out. To all, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Higgins, I am sorry that we had to interrupt. TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN E. HIGGINS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM T. DRAKE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, COMPLIANCE OPERATIONS, MARVIN DESSLER, CHIEF COUNSEL; DONALD ZIMMERMAN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND EDWARD OWEN, CHIEF, FIREARMS TECHNOLOGY BRANCH Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub- committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss ATF's role in regulating the commerce in automatic weapons and silencers as provided by the National Firearms Act. Accompanying me this morning are Mr. William T. Drake, Asso- ciate Director for Compliance Operations; Mr. Marvin Dessler, the chief counsel of the Bureau; Mr. Donald Zimmerman, the Deputy Associate Director for Law Enforcement; and Mr. Edward Owen, who is Chief of our Firearms Technology Branch. The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 in response to mounting public outrage over the open warfare among the notorious organized criminal gangs of the Prohibition era. The Bureau of the ATF and its predecessor agencies have enforced the Act since its inception. The act addresses the weapons which were the tools of their vicious trade: machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and similar types of weapons. The act has stood the test of time and is still a valuable asset to ATF special agents in their battle with the violent criminals of today. In 1934, the primary abusers of NFA weapons were bootleggers and rumrunners capitalizing on the illicit alcohol market created by Prohibition. Murder, mindless violence, and intimidation were only a few of the hallmarks of their long reign of terror. Fifty years later, in 1984, we find an equally, or even more vicious intimidating and ruthless criminal embracing the machinegun as the weapon of preference. I am speaking of the drug smugglers and dealers infesting our Southern borders and major cities. These are criminals who deal in a poison which poses a far greater threat to our society than boot- leg liquor may ever have approached. newpage 111 Ironically, the sense of security and protection from rivals, which these criminals seem to derive from NFA weapons, is often their Achilles heel. Just as Al Capone fell victim to tax violations rather than to bootlegging charges, today's drug trafficker often falls victim to weapons charges when narcotics violations prove more difficult or impossible to establish. Mr. Chairman, I know you are personally aware of the many successes of ATF special agents in south Florida. In fact, a congressional committee recently published the results of a survey of local police departments in the south Florida venue which asked for an evaluation of Federal law enforcement agencies operating in the area. We were proud to learn that ATF was rated number one in terms of cooperation with State and local officers in their battle against narcotic smugglers. The NFA Act is one of the weapons which enables our agents to achieve such well deserved recognition. It is important to stress that up to this point I have been talking about unregistered, contraband NFA weapons. I would now like to turn to the manner in which we regulate legally registered NFA weapons. These weapons are held by collectors and others; only rarely do they figure in violent crime. In this connection, the question of why an individual would want to possess a machinegun or, more often, a silencer, is often raised. We would suggest that ATF's interest is not in determining why a law-abiding individual wishes to possess a certain firearm or device, but rather in ensuring that such objects are not criminally misused. The regulatory scheme for dealing in or legally possessing NFA weapons and silencers is straightforward and provides safeguards which are adequate, in normal circumstances, to ensure that the firearms remain in the hands of law-abiding individuals. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, in order to deal in NFA weapons and silencers, an individual must be licensed and addition- ally must pay a Special Tax. The processing of a license application includes an NCIC check on the applicant to ensure that he has no disabling criminal history. This same type of control extends to an individual who desires to possess an NFA weapon, device or silencer. The prospective transferor must submit an application to us to transfer and register the firearm or device to a transferee. He must include with the application the fingerprints and a current photo of the transferee, a certification by the local chief law enforcement officer that possession of the weapon would not place the transferee in violation of local law and that he has no information that the individual would use the weapon in violation of local law. A written statement is also required from the transferee that possession of the weapon or device is consistent with public safety and is reasonably necessary. While there are certain exceptions to one or more of the provisions I have just mentioned, for example, sales to police departments, those exceptions do not constitute a significant segment of the total legitimate commerce in NFA weapons. newpage 112 I might also add that during the past 6 years, well over 90 percent of the NFA weapons manufactured in the United States were later exported, primarily to foreign military or police agencies, In summary, I would say that the National Firearms Act pro- vides a satisfactory regulatory framework for keeping track of le- gally obtained weapons possessed by responsible, law-abiding gun owners. The act also constitutes a strong tool for the ATF special agents in their battle with today's violent criminal. That concludes my prepared testimony. We previously provided written responses to a number of questions from the committee. We would be happy now to answer any questions relating to that material or today's material that you or members of the subcom- mittee may have. After we respond to your inquiries, Mr. Owen is prepared to give a comprehensive briefing on several automatic weapons and types of silencers. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Higgins follows:] newpage 113 TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN E. HIGGINS, DIRECTOR BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss ATF's role in regulating the commerce in automatic weapons and silencers as provided by the National Firearms Act. Accompanying me this morning are Mr. William T. Drake, Associate Director (Compliance Operations), Mr. Marvin Dessler, Chief Counsel, Mr. Donald Zimmerman, Deputy Associate Director (Law Enforcement), and Mr. Edward Owen, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch. The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 in response to mounting public outrage over the open warfare among the notorious organized criminal gangs of the Prohibition era. The Bureau of ATF and its predecessor agencies have enforced the act since its inception. The Act addresses the weapons which were the tools of their vicious trade--machineguns, sawed off shotguns, silencers and the like. The Act has stood the test of time and is still a valuable asset to ATF special agents in their battle with the violent criminals of the modern era. In 1934, the primary abusers of NFA weapons were bootleggers and rumrunners capitalizing on the illicit alcohol market created by Prohibition. Murder, mindless violence and human misery were hallmarks of their long reign of terror. Fifty years later, in 1984, we find an even more vicious, cowardly and amoral criminal embracing the machinegun as the weapon of preference. newpage 114 I am speaking of the drug smugglers and dealers infesting our southern borders and major cities; these are criminals who deal in a poison which poses a far greater threat to our society than bootleg liquor ever approached. Ironically, the sense of security and protection from rivals, which these criminals seem to derive from NFA weapons, is often their Achilles heel. Just as Al Capone fell victim to tax violations rather than to bootlegging charges, today's drug trafficker often falls victim to weapons charges when narcotics violations prove more difficult or impossible to establish. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Committee on Narcotics, I know that you are aware of the many successes of ATF special agents in South Florida. In fact, the Select Committee recently published the results of a survey of local police departments in the South Florida venue which asked for an evaluation of Federal law enforcement agencies operating in the area. We were proud to learn that ATF was rated number one in terms of cooperation with State and local officers in their battle against narcotic smugglers. The NFA Act is one of the weapons which enables our agents to achieve such well deserved recognition. It is important to stress that up until this point I have been talking about unregistered, contraband NFA weapons. I would now like to turn to the manner in which we regulate legally registered NFA weapons. These weapons are held by collectors and others; only rarely do they figure in violent crime. In newpage 115 this connection, the question of why in individual would want to possess a machinegun or, more often, a silencer, is often raised. We would suggest that ATF's interest is not in determining why a law abiding individual wishes to possess a certain firearm or device, but rather in insuring that such objects are not criminally misused. The regulatory scheme for dealing in or legally possessing NFA weapons and silencers is straightforward and provides safeguards which are adequate, in normal circumstances, to ensure that the firearms remain in the hands of law abiding individuals. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, in order to deal in NFA weapons and silencers an individual must be licensed and additionally must pay a Special Tax. The processing of a license application includes an NCIC check on the applicant to ensure that he has no disabling criminal history. This same type of control extends to an individual who desires to possess an NFA weapon, device or silencer. The prospective transferee must submit an application with ATF to transfer and register the firearm or device to the transferee. He must include with the application the fingerprints and a current photo of the transferee, a certification by the local chief law enforcement officer that possession of the weapon would not place the transferee in violation of local law and that he has no information that the individual would use the weapon in violation of local law. A written statement is also required from the transferee that possession of the weapon or device is consistent with public safety, and is reasonably necessary. newpage 116 While there are certain exceptions to one or more of the provisions I have just mentioned, for example sales to police departments, those exceptions do not constitute a significant segment of the total legitimate commerce in NFA weapons. In summary, I would say that the National Firearms Act provides a satisfactory regulatory framework for keeping track of legally obtained weapons possessed by responsible, law abiding gun owners. The Act also constitutes a strong tool for the ATF special agents in their battle with today's violent criminal. That concludes my prepared testimony. We will be happy to answer any questions you or the members of the Committee may have. After we have responded to your inquiries, Mr. Owen is prepared to give a comprehensive briefing on several automatic weapons and types of silencers. Thank you. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. The Uniform Crime Reports can tell us how many homicides were committed with handguns or rifles. Do you know how many homicides were committed with machineguns? Mr. HIGGINS. No, and I don't believe anybody gathers that kind of information, we certainly do not. Mr. HUGHES. Do you or does any other agency in the Federal Government keep track of the number of crimes committed by ma- chineguns? Mr. HIGGINS. We keep track of the Federal crimes in the jurisdictions of the laws that we enforce in terms of the machineguns and other kinds of weapons in the cases that we enforce, but I don't know of anyone who maintains the records. Many of the guns are used in violation of State and local laws, and I don't believe anybody maintains any records of those-and that would be by far the largest number of those types of crimes. Mr. HUGHES. How about the regulatory crimes, such as possession without the appropriate license? That is what you do keep track of, I guess? Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, as an example, during the past year we com- pleted 152 criminal cases which involved all types of machineguns, the overwhelming number being unregistered machineguns or converted weapons. I think 109 of those were cases involving machineguns, and 43 were cases where a semiautomatic weapon had been converted to a machinegun. So in the number of cases where we were involved in 1983, that was 152 cases. newpage 117 Mr. HUGHES. You had indicated in your testimony that it was rare for a machinegun held by a collector to be involved in violent crime. If you don't really have a record, bow can you make that determination? Mr. HIGGINS. Perhaps it was my fault. I should restrict that to say of the cases that we are involved in, and I will restrict it to that, it is highly unusual--and in fact, it is very, very rare- that it would be a registered machinegun or registered silencer. I would not be prepared to make that statement with respect to State and local crimes as to whether it would be or not. I think our people would have a fairly good feel of that but I couldn't give you anything specific. Mr. HUGHES. How many legal machineguns are there in the country? Mr. HIGGINS. We have 194,000-well, this would include all guns, all NFA-type weapons-we have 194,940 that are registered in our files. Mr. HUGHES. What do you mean by the NFA weapons? What, be- sides machineguns, are we talking about? Mr. HIGGINS. OK. We are talking about machineguns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, or sawed-off rifles. We are talking about destructive devices which could be a bazooka or a cannon, or a mortar, or a Molotov cocktail, or any other weapon which is a special category which includes H&R hand[y]guns, pen guns, cane guns, and that type of special purpose weapon. Mr. HUGHES. Am I correct in assuming that most of those guns would be in fact machineguns? Mr. HIGGINS. I think the big percentage-we may have that figure here if you want it. Mr. HUGHES. Can you give me a breakdown? Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, sir. Of those guns 101,000 are machineguns, so better than half are. We do have a breakdown we can provide the committee which shows shotguns, rifles, destructive devices, and other types of things. I would be happy to provide that information. [The information follows:] Registered National Firearms Act, firearms as of September 30, 1984 Machineguns.................................................... 105,125 Silencers....................................................... 13,234 Short-barreled rifles........................................... 11,442 Short-barreled shotguns......................................... 21,530 Destructive devices............................................. 16,328 Any other weapons............................................... 31,330 Miscellaneous.................................................... 1,540 Total...................................................... 200,529 Mr. HUGHES. Why don't you just give us some idea now? Mr. HIGGINS. In the categories, 101,000-plus are machineguns, silencers are 12,800, sawed-off rifles are 11,399. Mr. HUGHES. What was that figure again? Mr. HIGGINS. 11,399. This is an inventory made as of May 10, 1984. Sawed-off shotguns, 21,443; destructive devices which are the cannons, mortars, and that category, 15,166; any other weapons newpage 118 which are the special kinds of guns, the cane guns, pen guns, and that type of guns, 31,217; and there is roughly another 1,500 that are kind of an assortment. Mr. HUGHES. Are most of the machineguns, which obviously com- prise the great vast majority of the weapons within the NFA cate- gory, possessed by collectors? Do you know? Mr. HIGGINS. I think that would be a fair assessment-or law enforcement agencies. A number of them are held by State and local police officers for official use. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have a breakdown on that figure? Mr. HIGGINS. I don't think we have our statistics broken down that way. I would be more than happy to try to do some more work on it. Mr. HUGHES. The record will remain open if you could furnish us with that breakdown. That would be very helpful. Mr. HIGGINS. We will try. [The information follows:l Possession of machineguns Special taxpayers (39.4 percent)...............................41,419 Government entities (11.5 percent).......................... 20,499 Individuals (41.1 percent).................................... 13,207 Total........................................................ 105,125 Mr. HUGHES. How many illegal machineguns do you estimate there are in this country? Mr. HIGGINS. I wouldn't want to give you a figure, Mr. Chair- man, because I would have no way of knowing. The problem is that what might be a semiautomatic weapon today, could be an illegally converted machinegun tomorrow, so you have that potential inventory, plus, if we knew about the ones that were out there, we would try to seize them. So I really don't have the figure. Mr. HUGHES. Is there any question in your mind that there are more illegal machineguns than there are legal machineguns in existence? Mr. HIGGINS. I don't know if anybody would want to guess on that. I honestly don't know, and I wouldn't want to say that there are, necessarily. Mr. HUGHES. Last year, BATF purchased 583 illegal machineguns, as I understand it. Is that correct? How many illegal machineguns were purchased by other State and local law enforcement agencies, if you know? Mr. HIGGINS. You have the correct figure for the ATF guns. We purchased 583. We seized 120 machineguns, and 4 were abandoned to us. As to the seriousness of the crime committed with the gun, often a case is proceeded against in State court-and if there is a satisfactory disposition there, we would not follow up with a Feder- al charge against someone. So it is probably a large number but I don't know the seriousness of the crime committed with the gun. Often a case is proceeded against in State court-and if there is a satisfactory disposition there, we would not follow up with a Feder- al charge against someone. So it is probably a large number but I don't think anyone has it available. newpage 119 Mr. HUGHES. Of the 583 illegal machineguns that were seized, how many of those were semiautomatic weapons that had been converted to machineguns as opposed to machineguns that had been converted into the illicit market? Mr. HIGGINS. I can give it to you in three categories. In the seized property area, 90 of the weapons that we received were the result of machinegun conversions; and the ones that we purchased for- evidence in connection with investigations, 73 of those were converted machineguns, and then we had one machinegun that had been converted that was abandoned. too, so the grand total would be about 114 of those were converted guns. Mr. HUGHES. So the vast majority were machineguns that had just been diverted into the illicit market in one form or another? Mr. HIGGINS. For that particular year they would be. Mr. HUGHES. What is the source of those particular machineguns that were not converted, semiautomatic weapons, where did they come from? Mr. HIGGINS. Don, you may want to answer that, since you have had more experience in working in that particular area. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. The source of the machineguns, really, would be very difficult to say from any one place. Some of them are military weapons that have been diverted from the military, others are machineguns that have been stolen from legitimate sources, and others are machineguns that have been manufactured but somewhere along the line were diverted from the normal commerce force. So it is not any one particular source. There are all types. Many of them are military-type machineguns, war-trophies and that type of thing. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have the capability to track the diversion of these weapons? Do you have adequate records to be able to identify the source of machineguns, to track them back to the registered owner? Mr. HIGGINS. We can track a machinegun that we seize or find that has the serial number, obviously. We can track that back to its registered owner in the National Firearms Registration record here. For those who would have the serial number obliterated or something of that kind and we could not restore it, then we would not be able to do that. Mr. HUGHES. Do you know how many illegal machineguns were seized by the Customs Service in smuggling last year? Mr. HIGGINS. No, sir. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have any idea? Mr. HIGGINS. No, sir, I do not. Mr. HUGHES. OK. Let me move on, if I could, briefly, to silencers. Since every time that a silencer is registered, it is registered to a particular taxpayer, why can't BATF determine how many persons legally are holding silencers? Mr. HIGGINS. How many people legally are holding silencers? Mr. HUGHES. Legally holding silencers. Mr. HIGGINS. I think we would have that figure. In fact, we have the number of silencers that are registered with us and that is included in that figure that I gave you earlier. They are in there, I think, by serial number in terms-of going back and matching up those serial numbers, it is a smaller number of individuals but that newpage 120 would be a considerable amount of work. We have the capacity to do that but that would take a long time to do. We would have to look at every one of the number of forms-and one person, probably, I am sure, has more than one silencer; in fact, we know that. So it would be less than the number of silencers that are registered. Mr. HUGHES. Why do people possess silencers? Are they mostly collectors? Mr. HIGGINS. Of the ones I have asked, obviously the same kind of questions. and basically the only answer that I know of is they are collectors. I don't know, there may be other reasons. Mr. HUGHES. Do silencers have any legitimate use? Mr. HIGGINS. That is not a question that I could answer because I would guess that--- Mr. HUGHES. I am just trying to find out why people want silencers? Mr. HIGGINS. I am sure there are military situations where a silencer may well have a legitimate use and there may, in fact, be law enforcement-- Mr. HUGHES. Putting aside the law enforcement and potential military uses, what other uses can you advance? Mr. HIGGINS. I wouldn't try to advance any, That doesn't mean somebody couldn't come here and do that. Mr. HUGHES. What procedure does a person have to go through to purchase a silencer? Mr. HIGGINS. If they want to buy a silencer-if, for example, that silencer would be owned by a person who is a licensed dealer and has paid the special tax, the individual who is wanting to possess a silencer, the transferor who is going to sell it to them would have to get that transferee's fingerprints, photo, file an application with us, pay the transfer fee, get a certification from the local law enforcement official in the area in which they live saying that the possession of the silencer wouldn't place them in violation of State or local law-there is one other part of that certification. And then also, a certification from the person who, is receiving it saying that it is legal under State and local law and it is a public necessity. With all that information, they would file the form with us. We would make sure that it was a completed package, and do a records check on the individual who is going to get it. Then if we were satisfied that all the statutory requirements were met, we would in fact authorize the sale of that silencer and the receipt of it by the person. Mr. HUGHES. How many applications for silencers did you have last year? Mr. HIGGINS. I am not sure I have that figure with me. I don't have it. I think maybe we can do our statistics in such a way that we could tell you. Mr. HUGHES. Are they mostly dealers that are purchasing silencers? Mr. HIGGINS. I hate to say that without looking, it would just be a guess on my part. I would hate to say. I will provide that. [The information follows:] newpage 121 Transactions involving silencers-fiscal year 1984 Manufactured................................................. 1,819 Imported........................................................ 269 Made (by individuals)............................................ 17 Registered by government entities................................ 18 Transfers between special taxpayers........................... 1,819 Transfers to government entities................................ 987 Transfers to individuals........................................ 364 Transfers disapproved to individuals.............................. 5 Note.-The figures do not correlate because in many instances a silencer was transferred more than once during the year. Mr. HUGHES. Once a silencer is approved by BATF, and sold, do you make an effort to determine whether that silencer is still in the possession of that individual? Mr. HIGGINS. No, the same with silencers and machineguns. With 194,000 of them, we don't go out and make random checks to be sure that those people still have them. The only other times we would have reason to query that base would be is if that silencer was used in a crime of some kind, then we would get the number and trace it back to see who in fact should have had it as opposed to who does have it. Mr. HUGHES. How difficult is it to get a silencer without going through the process you have just described? Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Owen will show you, I think, later, today, how easy it is to make a silencer, and that would be one way to get it. But if you are asking how easy it is to get an illegal silencer, I would say it is very simple to make one yourself. Mr. HUGHES. I understand you can make one yourself. You can pretty much make an atomic bomb if you really have the technology. My question is how easy is it to get a silencer without going through that process, one that is already made? Mr. HIGGINS. Go ahead. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. As a guide, in fiscal year 1983, in an undercov- er capacity, we purchased 256 silencers. And if that is any guide as to their availability of ease of obtaining them, that is a figure to-- Mr. HUGHES. 256-- Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Yes. Mr. HUGHES [continuing]. Were seized last year? Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Were purchased. Mr. HUGHES. Were purchased. Mr. HIGGINS. We seized 657. Mr. HUGHES. How many? Mr. HIGGINS. 657. Mr. HUGHES. How many of those were homemade? Mr. HIGGINS. I would say the vast majority of them. Mr. HUGHES. OK. What was the source of those that were not homemade? In other words, where did the ones that were not homemade come from? Mr. HIGGINS. I will see if anyone knows that. Go ahead, Ed, feel free. Mr. OWEN. Before 1934, silencers were not regulated in the United States, and there are still a fair quantity of Maxim silencers which were produced in the teens and 1920's in existence. newpage 122 Beyond that, the vast majority of suppressors that we encounter are made from kits or homemade suppressors. Mr. HUGHES. What does it cost to get a license for a silencer today from BATF? Mr. HIGGINS. To get the license to deal in silencers is-it is $10 to get the firearms license, it is $200 for the special tax stamp that you have to pay. That is to deal. Mr. HUGHES. The information ou have submitted reveals that an average of 55,000 machineguns were available from manufacturers- importers each year for the past 5 years. Yet, the number of transfers each year for the past 5 years was less than 20,000. What explains this enormous availability? What is happening to all those machineguns? Mr. HIGGINS. OK. I tried to allude in my opening remarks that a vast majority of the machineguns that are made in this country are later exported, and it is more than 90 percent of those guns that are-- Mr. HUGHES. Are later exported? Mr. HIGGINS [continuing]. Later exported, yes. Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. SHAW. You mentioned the question of kits that are available. Are these kits-do they require licensing to buy a kit? Mr. OWEN. The kit that was complete enough to assemble a suppressor would be treated in the same fashion as a functional device. In many of the kits only one portion of the parts would be available from one source and the remaining needed parts are available from a different source. In a situation like that there would be no controls on either portion of the kit. Mr. SHAW. I see. In your testimony, you talked about the question of the licensing, in going through the certain procedure. What type of background check do you make on the individual and what would you find in the background that would preclude you from the issuance of a license for either a machinegun or a silencer? Mr. HIGGINS. Basically, the check that we would make would be we would get the records, the fingerprint record, and the photo, and the history-where born and date, and age, and those kinds of things- and do a criminal record check through a number of different criminal systems, NCIC and others, to determine whether or not that individual had a criminal history. If we found anything that looked suspicious or any charges that we had some question about, we may in fact have to make a personal visit either into that area or of that applicant. But that would be unusual that we had to do that. Beyond that, if the various certifications-well, basically they have to establish that they want to be engaged in the business, and that is fairly subjective, just holding out material for sale, could in fact be engaged in the business; but, essentially, it is a criminal check. Mr. SHAW. Well, is the fact that someone has been convicted of a felony, is that in itself grounds to deny him a license? Mr. HIGGINS. Yes; it sure is. Mr. SHAW. If he or she has their civil liberties restored, would that in any way negate that act? newpage 123 Mr. HIGGINS. There is a provision that an individual could apply for a relief from disability as long as it is not a crime which involved the use of a firearm, or a violation of firearms laws. But assuming that someone applied and got a relief from disability, then in fact they later could got that. Mr. SHAW. How often do you in fact deny an application? Mr. HIGGINS. I am not sure. I think we have a figure on that. We may have to provide you that because I am sure that we have that number. [The information follows:] newpage 124 RELIEF STATISTICS FY 1984 Completed Relief Investigations: Granted Denied Other Total 1st Quarter Oct-Dec 202 132 42 376 2nd Quarter Jan-Mar 177 106 36 319 3rd Quarter Apr-Jun 153 123 31 307 4th Quarter Jul-Sep 190 196 38 424 TOTAL 722 557 147 1426 Total Reliefs Completed in FY-1984 1426 Relief Applications Received: 1st Quarter - 495 2nd Quarter - 500 3rd Quarter - 508 4th Quarter - 429 TOTAL 1932 'Other' category includes those applicants who, upon completion of a field investigation, were found to be either ineligible to apply for relief or not under any Federal firearms disabilities. newpage 125 RELIEF STATISTICS FY 1983 Completed Relief Investigations: Granted Denied Other Total 1st Quarter Oct-Dec 159 39 47 245 2nd Quarter Jan-Mar 297 142 43 482 3rd Quarter Apr-Jun 165 105 35 305 4th Quarter Jul-Sep 209 161 30 400 TOTAL 830 447 155 1432 Total Reliefs Completed in FY-1983 1432 "Other" category includes those applicants who, upon completion of a field investigation, were found to be either ineligible to apply for relief or not under any Federal firearms disabilities. newpage 126 RELIEF STATISTICS FY 1982 Completed Relief Investigations: Granted Denied Other Total 1st Quarter Oct-Dec 252 114 43 409 2nd Quarter Jan-Mar 164 72 75 311 3rd Quarter Apr-Jun 145 68 76 289 4th Quarter Jul-Sep 256 140 82 479 Total 817 394 277 1488 Total Reliefs Completed in FY-1982 = 1488 "Other" category includes those applicant who, upon completion of a field investigation, were found to be either ineligible to apply for relief or not under any Federal firearms disabilities. newpage 127 RELIEF STATISTICS FY 1981 Completed Relief Investigations: Granted Denied Other Total 1st Quarter Oct-Dec 58 25 4 87 2nd Quarter Jan-Mar 135 81 60 276 3rd Quarter Apr-Jun 205 82 69 356 4th Quarter Jul-Sep 206 111 54 371 Total 604 299 187 1090 Total Reliefs Completed in FY-1981 1090 "Other" category includes those applicants who, upon-completion of a field investigation, were found to be either ineligible to apply for relief or not under any Federal firearms disabilities. newpage 128 Mr. SHAW. I would assume that someone who has a felony record would probably stay shy of you fellows anyway, wouldn't they? Mr. HIGGINS. That is generally the case. Mr. SHAW. And go the illegal channels rather than the legal channels. Have you found that most of the illegally possessed machineguns are in fact semiautomatic rifles that have been converted into fully automatic firearms? Mr. HIGGINS. I think that is probably right, yes. Mr. SHAW. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Higgins, at the bottom of page 3 of your statement, you indicate that, "A written statement is also required from the transferee that possession of the weapon or device is consistent with public safety and is reasonably necessary." My question is: What showing could a private individual make that would suggest that it was reasonably necessary for a private citizen to own a silencer or machinegun? Mr. HIGGINS. That is a good question. Don, do you want, to answer? Mr. ZIMMERMAN. All that is required, really, is that at this point in time is an assertion on the part of the person to whom the firearm is being transferred, that it is reasonable and consistent with public safety. And we also get a statement from the chief of police, but also a statement as to what his intended use is in terms of reasonableness. Mr. HIGGINS. They could in fact say collecting as an example, and I would guess that a lot of them do say that they have it for the purpose of collecting, and we can't say that it is not. Mr. HUGHES. Would that be reasonably necessary, though? Rea- sonably necessary suggests some degree of security or some other standard besides collecting. Mr. HIGGINS. That may be a position-that is not one that we have been able to take or we think that we could support legally. Mr. HUGHES. You indicate that you do a fairly good job of attempting to keep track of these weapons. My own view has been that BATF has been somewhat decimated over the years in its ranks and its ability to trace even handguns that have been used in the commission of a crime-that has become increasingly difficult. I know with a number of dealers you are talking about literally hundreds of thousands of dealers around the country, that it would be unusual for BATF to make an inspection of a licensed dealer once in 10 years. My question is: How could you suggest that there is a satisfactory regulatory framework for keeping track of the weapons? Mr. HIGGINS. Some of the observations you have made obviously are correct. I think in terms of our experience in what we see in our investigations in the field and the relatively few times that we find crimes involving registered types of weapons, whether they be registered machineguns, registered silencers, or those kinds of things, maybe falsely, but at least leads us to the conclusion that the problems aren't with those guns that people have fingerprints on file newpage 129 and have registered their name here with the Bureau in Washing- ton. The problem with those guns that don't become registered are in fact contraband weapons. But that is just based on experience in terms of the investigation we make. Mr. HUGHES. You really have no handle on contraband weapons, do you? Mr. HIGGINS. We would have no way of knowing. Mr. HUGHES. In other words, no handle? Mr. HIGGINS. What might be a legal gun today, could be contraband tomorrow if somebody converts it, as you will see. Mr. HUGHES. A dealer can have a couple of machineguns and have those machineguns stolen, and there is no penalty, is there, if he doesn't report that to the authorities? Mr. HIGGINS. No. There is a regulatory requirement that he report it to us, but there is no penalty. Mr. HUGHES. Suppose he does not report that, is there any penalty attached? Mr. HIGGINS. No penalty, no. Mr. HUGHES. Does he lose his license if he doesn't report it? Mr. HIGGINS. No. Mr. HUGHES. So there is, in essence, no requirement that a theft be reported? Mr. HIGGINS. No. The only incentive would be that by reporting it, number one, it may give us an opportunity to be involved in an investigation and help that individual get it back; but also triggers and makes us more alert to that. But that is the only incentive. Mr. HUGHES. Is there a requirement that the shippers or those that distribute, or warehouse these weapons, have to report a theft to BATF. Mr. HIGGINS. We have a voluntary program with the major ship- pers who do in fact handle guns, that they report. But there is no penalty if they don't, and that is it. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have any data on the number of weapons that have been seized that were registered weapons, stolen but never reported to BATF. Mr. HIGGINS. For the subcommittee, and in answer to one of the questions, we had to go back and physically go through a number of reports that we had received since October. Even in those re- ports I think we found 36 NFA thefts that had been reported to us since the first of October until sometime this past month. I wouldn't hold out to you that that is all the NFA weapons that were seized or that we have any other figures to let you know that there have been more stolen-we don't have that. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have a breakdown of the number of weapons that have been sold that are possessed by dealers as opposed to individuals? Mr. HIGGINS. We have the capacity to do that. It would take some time, and if the subcommittee would like that, we will have to do that. But as you mentioned earlier, we have been short staffed and that will take some time, but we can provide it to you. [The information follows:] 130 Possession of NFA firearms Special taxpayers (28.6 percent)............................ 57,351 Government entities (17.8 percent).......................... 35,694 Individuals (53.6 percent)................................. 107,484 Total................................................... 200,529 Mr. HUGHES. Has there been a growth in the number of NFA dealers in the last few years? Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, there has been, and the figures I have with me today go back to fiscal year 1979. I think we had 890 licensed dealers who were also special taxpayers; and that increased until in 1983, fiscal year 1983, we had 2,306 dealers. Mr. HUGHES. I have a figure for April 1984 of over 2,600. Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, I see a pencil notation that that is a correct figure, 2,600. Mr. HUGHES. So since 1978, it looks like the number of NFA dealers have tripled. Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. Mr. HUGHES. Can you explain to me what happens to those NFA weapons when a dealer goes out of business? Mr. HIGGINS. Depending upon the type of dealer license that individual has. If the person was qualified as a sole proprietor, qualified as an individual, Steve Higgins as Steve's Guns, and I went out of business-I could maintain those guns and they would still be registered with the Government and on file, and things of that kind. If a corporation or a partnership to other types of ownerships, if those entities went out of business, then in fact the guns would have to be disposed of to someone else because there is no longer that taxpaying entity, and that is just the legality of it. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have any way of keeping track of those weapons once a dealer goes out of business? Mr. HIGGINS. All of the records remain in our file. Mr. HUGHES. The initial serial number is on file? Mr. HIGGINS. Right. Mr. HUGHES. Under the assumption there is still a serial number on the weapon? Mr. HIGGINS. Right. Mr. HUGHES. But beyond that, you have no record of any trans- fers, if they go out of business, or the weapons ends up in a private purchaser's hands? Mr. HIGGINS. Obviously, any gun that is legally transferred from those people going out of business to someone else, we will get that record, we will update our file, and we will have the new record of the new individual owner. If they fail to notify us, no. Mr. HUGHES. With each transfer there is supposed to be a $200 tax, is there not? Mr. HIGGINS. There are tax-exempt and taxable transfers. If it is to an individual who is not a dealer or a police department or something like that, there is a $200 tax. Mr. HUGHES. Do you find that in transfers, in those instances where NFA dealers go out of business, that they are in fact paying the $200 tax when they transfer to private individuals? newpage 131 MR. HIGGINS. If they are transferring other than, say, to a police department, if they were transferring to another individual, before we would approve the transfer they would have to-- Mr. HUGHES. What if they don't notify you? Mr. HIGGINS. If they don't notify us, they would be in this file of 194,000, but we would not be in that file looking for them. So the only other way we would find it is if later the person who gets the weapon, at that point if they haven't notified us, is in fact in possession of an unregistered title II weapon-and in fact, you know, which is 10 years or $10,000. So there may be some modification on his part not to take the gun-if it were the law, not to take the gun unless it is properly registered to them, so that is part of it. Mr. HUGHES. My own confusion right now is trying to identify what kind of control we have on these NFA weapons. If I understand you correctly, we don't make an effort to periodically check, we just don't have the resources to do that. There is no requirement or penalty that in fact they must report a theft to the au- thorities, BATF or otherwise. Mr. HIGGINS. Only a recommendation. Mr. HUGHES. The only way you find out about the contraband, the diversion of legal weapons into the illicit market, is when you make a seizure, either through somebody being arrested for pos- sessing weapons or in connection with some other crime. Is my perception correct? Mr. HIGGINS. I think everything you have said is correct. There is a regulatory requirement they report it, but you have accurately pointed out there is no penalty for not complying. Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Florida? Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions. I would like to make the observation, however, that I think it is going to be very difficult to find good compliance to the existing laws unless some penalties are in fact put in place. I can see that laxity is probably one of the chief causes that so many of these guns are put into the illegal streams of commerce; perhaps therein lies a great deal of the problem that we are facing, and one that we certainly-along with the other things that we are going to be looking at-and possibly coming up with some of the loopholes that we should certainly look to close. Thank you. Mr. HUGHES. I think that, very simply what I have concluded from your testimony, and it has been very helpful to me, and I pre- sume to the other members of the subcommittee, is that, first of all, we don't know the nature and extent of the contraband and these types of weapons. We don't know how many crimes are being committed by these types of weapons. We don't know what other law enforcement agencies are necessarily acquiring by way of seizures, because we don't keep that data. For instance. even with one of your sister agencies, Customs, you have no idea what Customs is seizing; you have no idea of those weapons that are being exported or how many of those end up back in this country through one method or another. The only thing that, we do know is that organized crime figures and drug traffickers, in particular, in some sectors of the country newpage 132 are pretty heavily armed; and in many instances they are the ones that have these machineguns and silencers. Would you say that is a pretty accurate portrayal of some of your testimony-conclusions that we can draw from it? Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, sir. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much, Mr. Higgins. Do you have a demonstration for us? Mr. HIGGINS. Yes; Mr. Owen will be happy to do that. Mr. HUGHES. We appreciate that. [Demonstration.] Mr. HUGHES. I gather this is a semiautomatic weapon that can be easily converted to an automatic weapon? Mr. OWEN. Yes, Sir, it is a silencer also. Mr. HUGHES. A silencer? Do you have with you a homemade silencer as opposed to a man- ufactured silencer? Mr. OWEN. Yes, Sir. Mr. HUGHES. A do-it-yourself silencer? Mr. OWEN. Do-it-yourself kit. Mr. SHAW. I am, and I know you are, concerned about distribu- tion of this type of information. Perhaps we could ask the courtesy and indulgence of both the television media as well as the rest of the media that is here today that they not show the details or write about the actual details so that someone could read or see what would amount to actual instructions in putting one of these type of silencers together. Mr. HUGHES. I think that would be a good request. We will request that the television cameras just not film the demonstration. Mr. OWEN. On the silencer kits, one source supplies two pieces of aluminum tubing which by themselves would not be able to be used. Another supplies components which are eyelets, tubes of alu- minum, and a small container. These components all together are a fairly simple matter to assemble, a very effective sound suppres- sor. These eyelets would normally be placed inside this tube. This is a do-it-yourself kit. Mr. HUGHES. Who do you obtain these from? Mr. OWEN, There are any number of sources of these component parts. We find that quite frequently the tubing is acquired through a standard commercial outlet. Many of the internal parts are supplied by independent machine shops. Mr. HUGHES. I might say for the television, there is no problem with your actual viewing the weapon, it is the conversion that you don't tape. Are these kits advertised in national publications? Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir, they are. Mr. HUGHES. Do you require that they be registered before people can acquire this kind of a kit? Mr. OWEN. Most of the suppliers of kits, they will not supply the entire kit. If they supply the entire kit it would be a silencer subject to registration. If independent sources want to supply just the internal parts, which are not regulated-- Mr. HUGHES. They handle it by saying that we can provide you with thus and so, and somebody else can provide you with this other part? newpage 133 Mr. OWEN. We have not seen instances where one source will identify Another source for the remaining parts. Some of the larger commercial trade publications-both of the sets of components will be advertised throughout the publication from different sources. Quite often, the supplier will include an application to legally apply to the manufacturer of the suppressor. Mr. HUGHES. That looks like a cannon. Mr. OWEN. This is a very effective suppressor for a 9- millimeter handgun. Mr. SHAW. Some of the internal parts, do they have any purpose other than-- Mr. OWEN. These are specifically designed for use in a sound suppressor. Mr. SHAW. That is specifically designed for a silencer and has no other use? Mr. OWEN. That is correct. The only off-the-shelf items are the aluminum eyelets, which in this particular design are used to absorb some of the gases. Mr. SHAW. They are poured into the-- Mr. OWEN. They are placed into this large encasement in the back. Mr. HUGHES. When some of these parts are supplied, do they provide also instructions on how to put it-I together with other parts? Mr. OWEN. Some of the manufacturers do. Very often in their advertising they will depict it pictorially where it is very easy to figure out. Mr. HUGHES. So even though they don't provide all the parts, they show you how to put it together with other parts? Mr. OWEN. That is correct. Mr. HUGHES. If you were to fire this from this end of the room, could you hear that shot in the back of the room? Mr. OWEN. You would hear a noise. It would be a noise that would be an everyday background noise, sort of like a book, slap- ping a desk. Mr. HUGHES. A muffled sound? Mr. OWEN. A muffled noise, yes, sir. If it was fired in the hallway, most likely people in the room would not even notice it. Mr. HUGHES. I see. Mr. OWEN. This is a small semiautomatic pistol we had particular problems with its conversion to full automatic fire. It can be converted in any number of ways, like blocking the motion of the trigger with a small magnet. And it will fire fully automatic. That modification takes about 15 seconds. What we see more commonly as the weapon is quickly disassem- bled, modifications are made to its internal components, to a small shoulder right here, which is clipped with a pair of pliers. If that is clipped, the weapon will fire fully automatically-this long component right here, where I hold a screwdriver, hit it with a hammer, break this out, the weapon will fire fully automatically. Mr. SHAW. Is that what you call a sear? Mr. OWEN. This is the sear portion right here, this is called a disconnect. Mr. HUGHES. So you can knock that pin out in about 2 minutes and you have got yourself an automatic weapon? newpage 134 Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. Mr. SHAW. I have never seen a weapon quite like that. Has it got a legitimate use, is it recognized? Mr. OWEN,. This is a weapon that was produced as a pistol. It is called the RPB Industries SM11Al. It is a semiautomatic copy of a submachine gun. Mr. HUGHES. Who manufactures that? Mr. OWEN. The company that produced this weapon is no longer in business. The problems that were faced with the conversion of this led to the classification of this particular firearm as a ma- chinegun due to its design features. The weapon is no longer in production but we still encounter them on almost a daily basis. Mr. SHAW. I can imagine shooting a pistol that would be converted into an automatic it would be a-- Mr. OWEN. The straps are here. Mr. SHAW. Oh, so that is what the strap is for? Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. Mr. SHAW. Where was that manufactured, by the way? Mr. OWEN. Atlanta, GA. Mr. HUGHES. What caliber is that? Mr. OWEN. This one is .380 automatic. Mr. HUGHES. .380? Mr. OWEN. There are two other similar versions of it, a little bit larger, one a 9 millimeter and one a .45. Mr. HUGHES. And how many rounds would it fire? Mr. OWEN. The magazine holds 32 cartridges and the full auto- matic mode the rate of fire is approximately 1,200 rounds a minute. Mr. HUGHES. That is the second bell, isn't it? Mr. SHAW. Yes. That is an interesting machine. Mr. OWEN. It is a semiautomatic version of the M16, which, as it comes from the factory. is quite difficult to convert. There are some specially produced components which enable a very simple conversion of this firearm. What is entailed is acquiring some M16 machinegun components and a part specifically designed to enable to convert into this weapon. This component, is referred to as an AR15 drop-in automatic sear. By installing these components, which would take about a minute, and this piece-we have created a machinegun. This particular component has been classified as a conversion kit subject to the National Firearms Act. We still encounter these that are being homemade. Mr. HUGHES. Any machine shop could basically fabricate that part? Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. Mr. HUGHES. It is the trigger that-- Mr. OWEN. Releases the hammer for automatic firing. Mr. HUGHES. I see. OK. Mr. OWEN. That is all I have, sir. Mr. HUGHES. OK, thank you. That is a vote and we are going to have to break for another 15 minutes to catch that vote. newpage 135 Thank you, Mr. Higgins, for both the demonstration and for- your testimony. You have been most helpful to us today. The subcommittee stands in recess for 15 minutes. [ Recess. ] Mr. HUGHES. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order. Our next witness is Jay Stephens, Deputy Associate Attorney General. Mr. Stephens was named to this position just this past summer; from 1981 until that time he was Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney -General for the Criminal Division, Lowell Jensen. Prior to his service at main Justice, Mr. Stephens was an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for some 5 years. In 1974, he served as assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate special prosecution force. He is a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and graduated from Harvard College magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1968. Mr. Stephens, we are just delighted to have you before the subcommittee this morning. We have your prepared statement which, without objection, will be made a part of the record, and you may proceed as you see fit. We are sorry for so many delays this morning but we have had, as you know, an inordinate number of votes today. Welcome. TESTIMONY OF JAY B. STEPHENS, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY CARY COPELAND, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND LESTER SHUBIN, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE Mr. STEPHENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With me this morning are Mr. Cary Copeland, the Department of Justice, and Mr. Lester Shubin, who is with the National Institute of Justice, and has been instrumental in development of soft body armor. I am delighted to be here and have an opportunity to discuss with the subcommittee the issue of armor-piercing ammunition and the threat which such ammunition poses to law enforcement officers and others who are engaged in enforcing our laws. We are proud that the Department of Justice has pioneered de- velopment of soft body armor and we have promoted, with the as- sistance of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the use of soft body armor for law enforcement officers. We believe that this effort has been effective. We would like to encourage that effort further and we believe it is an important initiative to ensure the safety of our law enforcement officials and officers throughout the country. In cooperation with the National Bureau of Standards, Federal standards were developed in 1978 for means of ensuring that body armor purchased by police agencies throughout the country met minimum performance standards. As the subcommittee may know, there are presently five body armor types beginning with type I, which is designed to protect against most common types of handgun ammunition, ranging up to type IV, which is protective hard body armor which will stop essentially armor-piercing rifle ammunition. newpage [SNIP] 154 the captain of the police force of the city of Miami and, in fact, served in that capacity in Miami for about 24 years. Chief Tighe is president of the Broward County Chiefs of Police Association. He is a leader in the area of firearms policy and is the chairman of Sensible Citizens for Gun Management. As a result of that leadership, I understand that Broward County recently took steps to provide for a 10-day waiting period before one can consummate a handgun purchase to provide time to assure that the purchaser has not been convicted of a crime. Now, even more importantly, I am told by my good friend Larry Smith, that you are a great law enforcement officer with a distin- guished career, and we are just delighted to have you with us today. TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. TIGHE, CHIEF OF POLICE, PEMBROKE PINES, BROWARD COUNTY, FL Chief TIGHE. Thank you very much, sir. It is an honor to be here. I have come to you on two different items and, with your permission, sir, I would make an opening speech on the second one after we finish the first. The first, of course, is the use of machineguns. It was a novelty for me to sit in the back of the room when the ATF witnesses were speaking. I concur with them, they are one of the highest regarded Federal agencies, as far as local police departments are concerned. Our trouble in south Florida is a case of oops. And the oops is turning into a war. If you take the Prohibition days that ATF spoke about, if you take a John Wayne movie of the marines going up the hill with tommy guns, add a little bit of the wild west finale where everybody is shooting at everybody, and at times Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County, resemble part of that all put together. There is within our district more machineguns and more ma- chinegun deaths, than any place else in the United States. Currently, we don't believe it is a national problem. But just as the Vice President's task force improves its efficiency, we see narcotics going into the different Gulf States and Atlantic States, so, too, do we believe that this machinegun policy will also spread throughout the country. We do not have good, solid statistics, as ATF explained to you. In Dade County, we have something like 26 individual municipalities; in Broward County we have 28 municipalities. But we can bring forward statistics that we have gathered to the best of our ability. I quoted 34 deaths by machineguns in a 4-year period. I could tell you that between ATF, the FDLE and the individual police departments, in the past 4 years, almost 1,000 machineguns have been confiscated. Those machineguns over and over again are the MAC 10's. The MAC 10 is the weapon that was showed to you. It was the last weapon that he demonstrated. The one that he has and the one that he demonstrated to you was about this long, about 8 or 9 inches long. The ones I have seen are similar in size but weigh a greater amount. They were the original MAC 10's. That particular gun is sold in a soft material kit. The barrel of that gun and one clip, newpage 155 which will hold 40 pieces of ammunition-that weapon, when fully automatic, expends 16 shots every second. When you take that and then the soft cover that I mentioned earlier which is made of the same material that our armor vests are. They have large handles that you can put over your body. You have a very effective weapon and a very effective armor vest for yourself. This particular weapon is seen 90 to 95 percent of the time in the State of Florida in narcotics deals, with narcotics people. But we are now seeing a diversion from that. Just this week, two juveniles were picked up in Broward County in a burglary with a MAC 10. They, had secured that MAC 10 by killing a person, or a couple, in Dade County, strictly to get that MAC 10-juveniles with a MAC 10 fully automatic weapon. In Broward County, we currently have an extortion, what we be- lieve is an extortion to try to put abortion clinics out of business. In our city, our clinic was shot up-some 37 rounds of ammunition were fired into that store. All, we believe, from a MAC 10 with a silencer-because within the block there was a shopping center and the residents behind it did not hear the noise in the midmorning hours. So we come to you and we say, yes, ATF is doing a good job. But they missed on one particular weapon. Because of the absence of that weapon we are now having problems in south Florida. We have a tape here that a local television channel, 7, loaned to us. It was an investigative reporter. The tape shows where a MAC 10 was used against police officers and killed indiscriminately their own dope dealers. For your information, since there was reference to it, there was a purchase of 14 teflon bullets for $15, made by an investigative reporter. I see we might have the equipment. It is a 15-minute tape, you might want to look at later. Another problem that is beginning to develop resulted in a murder within my city. Mr. Smith will tell you, my city goes from Hollywood-everybody knows where Hollywood, FL, is, nobody knows where Pembroke Pines is. We are on the western part of Hollywood, and we go all the way to the Everglades. Consequently, halfway through our city, people think they are in the Everglades and they dump some bodies there for us to recover. We currently are working on a murder with a female who was arrested with a member of the outlaw gang who was bringing to south Florida two MAC 10's with silencers, and was going to trade them for cocaine. The silencers we spoke to you about, or that were addressed, were made by MAC- M-A-C, it is a Military Armor Corp. Later, at Federal orders, they were ordered to cut them up and scrap them, and we discovered silencers that were being welded together again from the parts of those. The committee asked ATF how easy it is to get these type of weapons-silencers and everything else. I have a copy of a trading manual that is within the trade, gun trade, and it is some 235 pages long. Mr. HUGHES. What is the name of the publication, Chief? newpage 156 Chief TIGHE. The publication is known as Shotgun News. It was established in 1946 and it is published three times a month. I do have to say, within it it does have conversion kits, but it says must be federally licensed. But there are some, for instance, all I had to do was go to page 2, and I find an advertisement for a MAC 10 open bolt semi to full automatic in 5 seconds. This MAC 10 can be converted back to a semi-automatic in 2 seconds. It also comes with a $28 guarantee. This is the weapon that we are talking to you about. Mr. HUGHES. Where do you write to obtain the kit? Does it have an address? Chief TIGHE. Yes, sir, it does. Mr. HUGHES. Can you give me the city? Chief TIGHE. Waupun, Wisconsin. Also on page 2, a silencer plan makes improvised silencers from household materials, all firearms. That is on page 2. So it is not hard to find the parts that we are talking about today. A third place that we have found silencers are where parts are sold as was explained to you by ATF. It is illegal to own a full part. To own part of the parts, is not illegal. At these gun shows, one part might be sold at this table, and the man will be gracious enough to direct you to that table where the second part might be bought. He in turn, might direct you to the third table, where the third part might be purchased. That is in addition to the machine shop and the homemade silencers that we also speak about. This is what we wanted to bring before the subcommittee. ATF is doing a wonderful job, we endorse them. But this is one that got past them. [The statement of Chief Tighe follows:] newpage 157 JOHN H. TIGHE INTRODUCTION RETIRED AS CAPTAIN OF POLICE AFTER 24 YEARS OF SERVICE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA SINCE 1973. PRESIDENT OF BROWARD COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION. SECRETARY OF THE SOUTHEAST TRI-COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE, WHICH REPRESENTS THE CHIEFS OF DADE, BROWARD AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES. CHAIRMAN OF "SENSIBLE CITIZENS FOP GUN MANAGEMENT", A POLITICAL ACTION GROUP WHO WORKED TO PASS A REFERENDUM THAT CALLS FOR A 10 DAY WAITING PERIOD TO DO A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND ON PERSONS BUYING HANDGUNS. newpage 158 I'M HERE TO PRESENT TWO DIFFERENT PROBLEMS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE AND, HOPEFULLY, TO TAKE ACTION IN ONE CASE. BOTH PROBLEMS ARE RELATED TO GUNS AND ARE (1) MACHINE GUNS AND SILENCERS, AND (2) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LIMITS ON USE OF THE NCIC. THE PROBLEM OF MACHINE GUNS AND SILENCERS CURRENTLY IS NOT A NATION WIDE PROBLEM, BUT IT COULD DEVELOP INTO ONE AS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE VICE PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE INCREASES IN SOUTH FLORIDA. DON CONROY, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE UNITED STATES TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS IN THE MIAMI DISTRICT, STATES THAT SOUTH FLORIDA HAS MORE TRAFFIC IN MACHINE GUNS AND SILENCERS THAN ANY OTHER PART OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS DEPENDENCY ON THE MACHINE GUN WILL SPREAD AS INCREASED NARCOTICS SMUGGLING REACHES OTHER ATLANTIC AND GULF STATES. THE THREE COUNTIES OF DADE, BROWARD AND PALM BEACH HAVE TWO UNIQUE INGREDIENTS OTHER STATES DO NOT. THESE INGREDIENTS ARE THE MURIEL CRIMINAL REFUGEES AND THE ABILITY OF COLOMBIANS TO BLEND INTO OUR VAST SPANISH SPEAKING COMMUNITY. THE FACTS AND FIGURES I QUOTE TODAY ARE FROM DADE AND BROWARD COUNTIES. AT TIMES, THEY REPRESENT THE ONLY FIGURES AVAILABLE, INSTEAD OF FULL FIGURES, BECAUSE OF THE MANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN OUR DIFFERENT COUNTIES. IN THE PAST FOUR AND ONE HALF YEARS, THIRTY-FOUR MURDERS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED WITH MACHINE GUNS. BREAKDOWN BY YEAR SHOWS: 1980 4 CASES, 5 DEATHS 1981 9 CASES, 17 DEATHS newpage 159 1982 2 CASES, 5 DEATHS 1983 3 CASES, 4 DEATHS 1984 3 CASES, 3 DEATHS THESE DEATHS IN NO WAY REFLECT THE TRUE TERROR CAUSED BY MACHINE GUNS WHEN THEY ARE USED TO ENFORCE SILENCE, COLLECT DEBTS AND GUARD NARCOTIC SHIPMENTS OR CACHES. I HAVE A TAPE AVAILABLE TO SHOW THE DIFFERENT TIMES LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BECAME VICTIMS WHERE MACHINE GUNS WERE USED. MANY OTHER CASES FAILED TO REACH THE NEWS MEDIA. FOR EXAMPLE; ON MAY 21, A MIAMI BEACH POLICE OFFICER.STOPPED A FEMALE DRIVER FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION. HER ACTIONS AS HE APPROACHED HER VEHICLE CAUSED HIM TO BECOME SUSPICIOUS ENOUGH TO DRAW HIS WEAPON. AFTER HER ARREST, A FULLY LOADED MAC 10 WAS FOUND ON THE SEAT BESIDE THE DRIVER. SHE HAD USED IT AS A DEFENSIVE WEAPON IN A DOPE TRANSACTION THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE MINUTES BEFORE THE TRAFFIC STOP. ONE METHOD TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM AND HOW THE PROBLEM IS DIVERSIFYING IS TO READ THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER, THE MIAMI HERALD. THESE ARTICLE'S I HOLD ARE FROM THE MAY 19 EDITION OF THAT PAPER. ALL DEAL WITH MACHINE GUNS. ONE REPORTS TWO TEENAGERS BEING ARRESTED WHILE BURGLARIZING A HOME IN BROWARD COUNTY. IN THEIR POSSESSION WAS A MAC 10 MACHINE GUN WHICH THEY HAD ACQUIRED BY MURDERING A LATIN COUPLE IN DADE COUNTY. ANOTHER REPORTS A MEMBER OF THE OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANG PLED GUILTY TO POSSESSING TWO MACHINE GUNS AND SILENCERS. newpage 160 THIS CASE IS OF INTEREST TO MY CITY, AS THE GIRL ARRESTED WITH HIM, WHO ASSISTED IN TRANSPORTING THE WEAPONS FROM LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, WAS FOUND MURDERED AND BURNED IN THE WESTERN PART OF PEMBROKE PINES. INFORMATION RECEIVED DURING OUR INVESTIGATION SHOWED THESE MACHINE GUNS AND SILENCERS WERE TRANSPORTED SO AS TO BE TRADED FOR COCAINE. THE THIRD NEWS ARTICLE IS OF THE ARREST OF A DRUG SMUGGLER FOR TWO MURDERS COMMITTED IN A LIQUOR STORE SHOOT-OUT IN 1979. THAT SHOOT-OUT IS PART OF THE TAPE THAT WILL BE SHOWN. WITHIN THE CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES IN THE PAST YEAR, WE HAD TWO MURDERS COMMITTED BECAUSE OF, OR WITH MACHINE GUNS, AND A STOREFRONT SHOT OUT BY A MACHINE GUN IN AN EXTORTION ATTEMPT. A SILENCER WAS PROBABLY USED IN THE STOREFRONT INCIDENT, AS THE RESIDENTS AND SHOPPERS FAILED TO HEAR ANY SHOTS FIRED. LOCAL ENFORCEMENT BOTH DADE AND BROWARD COUNTIES HAVE SUPERB CRIME LABS. CITIES WITHIN THESE COUNTIES SEND SEIZED WEAPONS TO THE LABS WHEN IT IS BELIEVED BY THE MUNICIPAL OFFICER THE WEAPON MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED IN A PREVIOUS HOMICIDE. TOGETHER THESE LABS EXAMINE A LITTLE OVER ONE HUNDRED MACHINE GUNS AND SIXTY TO SEVENTY SILENCERS A YEAR. TYPICALLY, THESE FIGURES BEGAN IN 1979, PEAKED, AND NOW ARE DIMINISHING. THE NUMBERS ARE DIMINISHING BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN PROCEDURE BY THE CRIMINALS. IN THE PERIOD FROM 1979 TO 1982, SHOOT- OUTS WERE COMMONPLACE newpage 161 IN THE LAST TWO AND ONE HALF YEARS, THE LOCAL OFFICE OF ATF HAS SEIZED THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS: SEIZED (WEAPONS WHERE ARRESTS WERE MADE) PISTOLS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS 617 MACHINE GUNS, SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS, SILENCERS 364 PURCHASED (USUALLY FROM UNLICENSED DEALERS OR DEALERS WHO MIGHT BE DEALING IN CONTRABAND GUNS) PISTOLS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS 110 MACHINE GUNS, SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS, SILENCERS 399 RETAINED (WEAPONS THAT WERE TAKEN DURING SEARCHES AUTHORIZED BY WARRANTS WHERE OWNERSHIP WAS NOT DETERMINED) PISTOLS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS 113 MACHINE GUNS, SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS, SILENCERS 43 ABANDONED (WEAPONS TURNED IN TO THE LOCAL OFFICE OF ATF) PISTOLS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS 10 MACHINE GUNS, SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS, SILENCERS 10 OR A TOTAL OF 1,406 TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. OF THAT AMOUNT, ONLY 66 WERE STOLEN. newpage 162 AND THE WEAPONS WOULD BE LEFT ON THE SCENE (WITH SERIAL NUMBERS DRILLED OUT). ENSUING PUBLICITY AND THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE KILLED OR WOUNDED MADE A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT, SO THE CRIMINALS HAVE CHANGED THEIR METHODS. THE LOCAL OFFICE OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT (FDLE) HAVE CONFISCATED THIRTEEN MAC 10'S, INCLUDING TEN EQUIPPED WITH SILENCER'S, WHEN ONE SEARCH WARRANT WAS SERVED. GUNS PREDOMINATELY, THE MAC (MILITARY ARMAMENT CORPORATION) 10 AND 11, ORIGINALLY MANUFACTURED IN GEORGIA AND SOLD AS A PISTOL, FIRED 16 ROUNDS PER SECOND. INITIAL WEAPON HAD A SELECTIVE SWITCH, WHICH ALLOWED THE WEAPON TO BE FIRED SEMI OR FULLY AUTOMATIC. PRODUCTION OF THESE WEAPONS WAS HALTED WHEN ATF SECURED A COURT FINDING WHICH RULED THEY WERE MACHINE GUNS. THE MODELS HAVE CHANGED TO A SEMI- AUTOMATIC, BUT A SIMPLE FILING OR GRINDING OF A TRIP WOULD ENABLE A WEAPON TO FIRE FULLY AUTOMATIC. WHEN SOLD AS PISTOLS, FEDERAL REGISTRATION WAS NOT REQUIRED. KG-9'S, MANUFACTURED IN DADE COUNTY, WERE QUICKLY CLASSIFIED AS MACHINE GUNS WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THEY WERE TOO EASY TO CONVERT TO A FULLY AUTOMATIC. THEY HAVE SINCE RE-DESIGNED AND NOW PRODUCE AND SELL THE KG-99, WHICH IS NOT ABLE TO BE CONVERTED. SILENCER'S MAC MANUFACTURED AND SOLD ON A MASS PRODUCE BASIS. AFTER BEING ORDERED TO DESTROY, MANY WERE FOUND WELDED TOGETHER. SOURCES FOR SILENCER'S ARE NOW MACHINE SHOPS, KITS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AND ADVERTISED (SHOTGUN NEWS), AND AT GUN SHOWS PARTS WILL BE SOLD BY DIFFERENT VENDORS WHICH, WHEN ASSEMBLED, BECOME A SILENCER. IT IS LEGAL TO POSSESS A SILENCER AS LONG AS THEY ARE REGISTERED WITH ATF. newpage 163 HANDGUNS ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, THE BROWARD COUNTY COMMISSION PASSED ON FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE ON GUN MANAGEMENT. THIS ORDINANCE DICTATES A TEN DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR PERSONS DESIRING TO PURCHASE HANDGUNS. IN THAT TEN DAY PERIOD, A LIMITED CRIMINAL BACKGROUND IS DONE. THE PHRASE, "LIMITED CRIMINAL BACKGROUND" WILL BE EXPLAINED LATER. THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS POSSIBLE BECAUSE 61% OF THE VOTERS IN BROWARD COUNTY APPROVED A BALLOT REFERENDUM IN THE MARCH ELECTIONS. DURING DISCUSSION AND DEBATES ON THE MERITS OF THE ORDINANCE, THIS WRITER USED TO GREAT ADVANTAGE SOME OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS. DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY LEAD THE UNITED STATES IN MULTI GUN SALES. IN A ONE YEAR PERIOD, 12,813 GUNS WERE PURCHASED IN SUCH SALES. "MULTI GUN SALE", AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW, IS THE PURCHASE OF TWO OR MORE WEAPONS IN A FIVE DAY PERIOD. USING ONLY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE'S, WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTIGATION ATF CONDUCTS ON SUCH SALES IS AFTER THE FACT. THE LOCAL SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, DON CONROY, WAS QUOTED THAT "OVER 90% OF THE FORMS COMPLETED FOR SUCH SALES USED EITHER FICTITIOUS NAMES OR ADDRESSES." SOME ARRESTS MADE AND PUBLISHED IN THE PAPERS WERE (1) A NEW YORK MAN, ROBERT SPARKS, WAS ARRESTED FOR USING FALSE IDENTIFICATION WHEN HE PURCHASED THIRTEEN GUNS IN BROWARD COUNTY AND RETURNED TO NEW YORK. (2) IN FEBRUARY OF 1984 ANOTHER NEW YORKER, DOUGLAS newpage 164 ORFALA, WAS ARRESTED FOR USING FALSE IDENTIFICATION WHEN HE PURCHASED TWENTY-THREE HANDGUNS. SOME OF THESE GUNS WERE USED IN STREET CRIMES IN NEW YORK CITY. (3) A HANDGUN PURCHASED IN BROWARD COUNTY WAS USED IN A NEW YORK CITY SUICIDE THREE DAYS LATER. (4) ANOTHER PURCHASE IN BROWARD WAS USED TWO WEEKS LATER IN AN EAST COAST ORGANIZED CRIME MURDER. ROBERT J. CREIGHTON, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE MANHATTAN OFFICE OF ATF STATED FOR NEWS MEDIA "FLORIDA IS THE NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF FIREARMS COMING IN TO NEW YORK CITY." WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RON CHANDLER, A CONVICTED MURDERER AND AN ESCAPEE FROM RAIFORD PRISON, PURCHASED SIX MAC 10'S IN BROWARD COUNTY UNDER AN ALIAS. POLLS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE REFERENDUM VOTE SHOWED ANY WHERE FROM 81 to 85 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE DESIRED SOME TYPE OF GUN LEGISLATION. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE REFERENDUM PASSED WITH A 61% MAJORITY. THE WORDS "LIMITED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION" WERE USED PREVIOUSLY. BECAUSE OF AN NCIC ADVISORY BOARD POLICY THAT NAME INQUIRIES THROUGH NCIC SHOULD BE RESTRICTED FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSES, BROWARD COUNTY AND OUR GROUP WERE TOLD THAT A COMPUTER CHECK BY NAME FOR THIS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION WOULD BE ILLEGAL. AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THE BROWARD COUNTY ORDINANCE WILL BE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO FCIC (FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER) BY MAIL. A RETURN BY MAIL WILL newpage 165 BE MADE IN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS TO INDICATE IF THE PERSON WAS CONVICTED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CONVICTIONS IN OTHER STATES WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OUR BACKGROUND CHECK. SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK IN BROWARD COUNTY, PALM BEACH COUNTY IS NOW ABOUT TO ADOPT A FOURTEEN DAY WAITING PERIOD. THEY TOO WILL BE HAMPERED BY THE INABILITY TO CHECK ON NATION WIDE CONVICTIONS THROUGH NCIC. I BELIEVE YOUR COMMITTEE SHOULD QUESTION THE NCIC BOARD ON HOW THEY EXCLUDE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR HANDGUNS FROM THE NCIC. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Chief, for an excellent statement. Let me ask you, and this is just a general question which has puzzled me. What legitimate value does a silencer or a machinegun have to anybody? Chief TIGHE. I have to explain, I personally see no value. I have a gentleman in my city that is a collector. He has 29 automatic weapons. I asked him what good are silencers? He told me, well, if you are shooting at birds you can get one and not scare the second one away. I don't know of any good reason for a silencer. Mr. HUGHES. Are you aware of any reason why a law enforcement agency would use a silencer? Chief TIGHE. I heard that statement made and I think I resent it, to tell you the truth. I have never known any law enforcement agency to use a silencer. Mr. HUGHES. I was puzzled by that, I had never heard of any law enforcement agency using a silencer for any purpose. Chief TIGHE. I agree with you, sir. Mr. HUGHES. I don't have any questions. I think your testimony is quite clear. I appreciate your traveling from Florida to be with us today. You have been most helpful to us. Unfortunately, as you know, my colleague, Clay Shaw from Florida, was here earlier, but he has a direct conflict right now. He has another committee meeting under way, as did my colleague, Mr. Smith, who for a while, had to go to another committee meeting. We appreciate your coming here today and providing some insight for us. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, thank you for coming up. Also, I want to commend you for the work that you have done, not only during your career in law enforcement but also during the time that you have been president of the Tri-County Association. I think that the chairman would like to hear from you answers to the questions as they relate to what problems you now have in newpage 166 Broward County. Although they are not within the totally scope of this hearing, I think the subcommittee ought to be aware of it. Certainly, I am. And the gun referendum is passed, and let me commend you also on your chairmanship of that. As you know, you and I have a lot of friends, together with you, who helped in that battle. What prob- lems are you going to have in trying to get your weapons checks done within the 10-day period? I think that it is important that this subcommittee understands that there is a problem at the Federal level and that we may need to be of some service to a lot of communities around this country who are going to have problems enforcing their waiting period ordinances because there will not be information available within the time of the waiting period. Chief TIGHE. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. Why don't you go ahead and tell that to the subcom- mittee? Chief TIGHE. That would be the second time that I would appear before you, sir, to ask for assistance to us local agencies within Broward County. Broward County, Tuesday, passed on the first reading, a 10-day waiting period for the people that desire to purchase a weapon. That 10-day waiting period would give us the opportunity to do a background investigation in criminal activity, if the person was ever convicted of a felony and should not own a weapon. Unfortunately, during the campaign it was pointed out to us that we would not be able to use the computer, what is known as the NCIC computer, to get background information. Because of the NCIC policy, which is the Federal Bureau of Investigation advisory policy, we could not get from what we call the FCIC background information on anyone that was arrested within the State of Florida. We have to take the applications, forward them to Tallahassee, they have to be looked up manually. If there are any convictions where the person could not receive a weapon, that would be so noted and returned to us by mail. This particular ordinance, I believe, is going to become a standard for many more communities throughout the United States. It deals only with one specific person, and that is the criminal who should not have the weapon. The county immediately north of us, Palm Beach County, is about to enact the same ordinance with a 14-day waiting period and with the same background information. There are two things what bother me and two things that could assist us in making it even quicker. No. 1, that the FBI look at their policy as far as determining if we cannot get convictions from people or if they are wanted. They could be wanted at the present time and we could not find that out without going through the State of Florida. The State of Florida could only give us the information for the State of Florida. If a man is convicted in the State of Florida, and is wanted in the State of Florida, we could learn that. If he is wanted for murder or anything in any other State, we could not learn that. newpage 167 So one of the things I would like to point out, one of the reasons I believe that was 61 percent of the people voted for that, was the fact that within both Dade and Broward County almost 12,000 handguns were sold last year in what are called multigun sales. Most of them ended up in New York. Consequently, the background check that we do should include the State of New York, and that is why we would ask for your as- sistance to approach the FBI to change their policy. Mr. SMITH. Now, you have indicated to me, Chief, that that is a policy that is not by statute but rather by a regulatory agency making rules that they felt were appropriate. Chief TIGHE. That is correct, sir. They say that the information they would give out is of a criminal nature. We believe this is a criminal nature. If a man has been convicted, if a man is wanted, most certainly that is a criminal process. Mr. SMITH. And you have been denied access, or will be denied access to the NCIC? Chief TIGHE. We have been denied. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, I appreciate your taking the time to tell us that because I think it is very important. I think you are correct. More and more communities around this country are beginning to stir in the direction of having, at the very least, waiting periods on transactions where guns are legally sold, so that during the waiting period background checks can be made on the applicants who want to purchase those weapons. If they have to do everything by mail, you will have to have waiting periods of 30 or 60 days, given the bureaucracy at the State and Federal level before you get anything, which would be at that point an unacceptable wait which would probably kill the kind of pro referendum proposal that might otherwise pass with a 10- or 14-day waiting period. So I would certainly second what you said to the chairman. I hope that we can, at some point in time, have some hearings or an- cillary hearings when the FBI is here and raise the issue of access to the NCIC by various local police agencies who are doing back- ground checks where the law mandates that in a local area. Thanks again for being here. Chief TIGHE. Thank you. I believe we have the tape if you desire. Mr. SMITH. Yes. I just want, for the record, to tell everyone that the chief has done an excellent job, not only in Pembroke Pines, which is a fine city of about 36 or 37,000, maybe up to 40,000? Chief TIGHE. Sorry, sir, you insulted us, we are 43,000. Mr. SMITH. Oh, we are up to 43,000? Well, I was going by the 1980 statistics. I guess you shouldn't do that since Florida is growing by leaps and bounds. You have done a terrific job in the city and also as the president of the Florida Tri-County Police Chiefs Association which is very well respected in our area. Mr. HUGHES. Chief, I gather that the FBI will run a fingerprint check for you. Chief TIGHE. Yes, sir. Mr. HUGHES. But the turnaround time is right now, what, about a month? newpage 168 Chief TIGHE. I would say, sir, longer than that. We had an occasion of needing the fingerprints of a police officer and it took us longer than 6 weeks. Mr. HUGHES. That is why it is important to have access to criminal histories through NCIC. Chief TIGHE. Through the computer, yes, immediate answers. Mr. HUGHES. I see, to have rapid access to that information. Chief TIGHE. Sure. Mr. HUGHES. You know, I found something interesting in the statistics in connection with apparently your movement in south Florida, for which you are to be commended, to secure a waiting period. I gather that a number of things came out. No. 1, when the special agent in charge there, apparently, began to look at a profile of the people making application for handguns, he found that a very high percentage-I have a figure of almost 90 percent of the forms-for the sales contained either fictitious names or addresses. Chief TIGHE. This is their Mr. Conroy, sir, and he is doing an excellent job in south Florida. This is in reference to the Federal law on a multigun sale. Multigun sale dictated by Federal law is two guns in a 5-day period. Nobody is ever going to convince me that a person buying 30 handguns is a legitimate person. That is the type where he says 90 percent of those addresses are fictitious. In the 3 months that we were working to get this ordinance, there were four arrests made by New York people, not by Florida people, who presented false identification to purchase those type of weapons. Mr. HUGHES. I have also felt it is ludicrous for the Federal Government to require an applicant for a handgun to fill out a form which has a series of questions, two of which are: Do you have a criminal record? And, second, do you have a mental illness? I have often said, they have got to have a mental illness if they answer either one of those questions yes. I think that there are compelling reasons why we should have some degree of uniformity. Your community can pass an ordinance but if the next community doesn't pass an ordinance, you are going to find that all of those who want to purchase handguns for illicit purposes are going to move over to the community without the or- dinance. That has happened right in this region. You can travel not very far from here in the Capitol and walk into a handgun shop in some of the neighboring States and walk out in 10 minutes by just showing a phony ID, and you can have as many handguns as you want. Chief TIGHE. I believe, the proof was in one of the arguments that we received while we were working in New York City which has the Sullivan law. It does not work according to the man in charge of the Manhattan branch of the ATF because of the handguns that are coming from Florida. Mr. HUGHES. Well, I am not sure what the circulation of hand- guns would be if they didn't have a law. We don't have any statis- tics on that. But in any event, you have been very helpful to us, Chief. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to view this because- Mr. SMITH. We have a vote on. newpage 169 Mr. HUGHES [continuing]. We have a vote on, and I also have two groups in the Capitol here today that I have got to see right away, so I am not going to be able to view it myself. Perhaps the staff might be able to view it. Chief TIGHE. Then, I publicly thank Mr. Ralph Page who did that, and channel 7 for allowing me to bring the tape to the sub- committee hearing today. Mr. HUGHES. Yes, we are indebted to channel 7 for providing that. I understand it was well done. Perhaps the staff can brief me on what the segment shows. Mr. SMITH. If the chief would allow us to keep the tapes, the staff can see if, I can certainly bring it home at some point and return it. I am sure Ralph Page, who used to be a detective with the Miami Metro Dade Police-- Chief TIGHE. We would be glad to do so, sir. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Chief. Chief TIGHE. Thank you, Sir. Mr. HUGHES. We appreciate your assistance. The subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] newpage [SNIP] 192 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Washigton, D.C. 20515 Telephone: 202-225-3051 May 16, 1984 Mr. Stephen Higgins Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20226 Dear Director Higgins: The Subcommittee on Crime is interested in examining the manufacture, registration and criminal aspects of the commerce in and use of machine guns and silencers. Would you please prepare a detailed explanation of each of the areas on the attached list. The Subcommittee on Crime will he holding a public hearing on these issues and the question of whether a total ban on the transfer or possession of machine guns and silencers is appropriate on Thursday, May 24, 1984. With best personal wishes, William J. Hughes Chairman Subcommittee on Crime WJH:esh Attachment newpage 193 1. THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX STAMPS TO MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER OR RECEIVE MACHINEGUNS AND SILENCERS. 2. THE INCREASING NUMBER OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (NFA) WEAPONS DEALERS, AND THE INCREASING PRACTICE OF OBTAINING LARGE NUMBERS OF NFA WEAPONS AS A DEALER AND CEASING TO DO BUSINESS AS A DEALER RESULTING IN THE TRANSFER OF THE WEAPONS TO ONE'S PERSONAL COLLECTION WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE $200 TAX FOR EACH WEAPON. 3. THE NUMBER OF NFA WEAPONS IN EXISTENCE, THE NUMBER REGISTERED WITH BATF, THE NUMBER TRANSFERRED EACH YEAR FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS (BROKEN DOWN BY STATE IF POSSIBLE). 4. THE NUMBER OF MANUFACTURERS OF NFA WEAPONS AND THE NUMBER OF NFA WEAPONS THAT ENTERED INTO COMMERCE EACH YEAR FOR THEE PAST FIVE YEARS. 5. THE LEGALITY OF IMPORTING NFA WEAPONS. 6. THE PRACTICE OF DEALERS IMPORTING "SAMPLE" MACHINE GUNS, ALLEGEDLY FOR SALE TO POLICE DEPARTMENTS, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO OTHER DEALERS. 7. THE SUBSTANCE IF SPECIAL EXAMINATION, IF ANY, OF APPLICANTS TO TRANSFER OR RECEIVE NFA WEAPONS. 8. THE ACTION BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY TO DECLINE TO CERTIFY ANY APPLICATIONS, FOR NFA WEAPONS TRANSFERS, AND RELATED LITIGATION. 9. THE AVAILABILITY OF AMMUNITION FOR NFA WEAPONS, AND RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, ON ITS DISTRIBUTION. 10. STATISTICS ON THE SEIZURE OF NFA WEAPONS. NEWPAGE 194 11. THE STATUS OF MILITARY SURPLUS NFA WEAPONS AND THE WAR TROPHIES EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATIONS ON MILITARY WEAPONS. 12. CLASSES OF NFA WEAPONS THAT ARE CONTRABAND 13. MODIFICATIONS OF MILITARY WEAPONS FOR POLICE USE. 14. THE EXTENT OF SALE OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND THE EASE OF CONVERSION TO MACHINE GUNS. 15. SALE OF NFA WEAPONS TO POLICE DEPARTMENTS. 16. THE NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING ALL TYPES OF MACHINE GUNS, AND THE NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING REGISTERED MACHINE GUNS. 17. THE NUMBER OF TRANSFERS OF NFA WEAPONS. 18. THE REQUIREMENTS, IF ANY, FOR SECURITY OF NFA WEAPONS IN THE OWNER'S POSSESSION. 19. THE REQUIREMENT, IF ANY, TO NOTIFY BATF IN THE EVENT OF A THEFT OF A NFA WEAPON. 20. THE COMMERCE IN NFA WEAPONS, LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE. 21. THE LEGITIMATE USE OF SILENCERS, THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED SILENCERS, AND THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED OWNERS OF SILENCERS. 22. THE NUMBER OF CRIMES COMMITTED WITH SILENCERS, AND THE NUMBER OF CRIMES COMMITTED WITH REGISTERED SILENCERS. 23. THE LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, ON THE ADVERTISING OF MACHINE GUNS AND SILENCERS. 24. THE LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE USE OF MACHINE GUNS AND SILENCERS. newpage 195 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Washington, D.C. 20226 May 22, 1984 Honorable William J. Hughes Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses to the questions raised in your letter of May 16, 1994, concerning the manufacture, registration and other enforcement aspects of the commerce in machineguns and silencers. We hope this has been responsive to your request. If you need further information please let us know. Sincerely yours, Stephen E. Higgins Director Enclosures newpage 196 1. Q. The current requirements for tax stamps to manufacture, distribute, transfer or receive machineguns and silencers. A. 26 USC Section 5801 imposes a special (occupational) tax on those engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing or dealing in National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms which include machineguns and silencers. The tax is paid on a fiscal year basis and the rates for those involved with machineguns and silencers are: Class 1 - importer of Firearms $500.00 Class 2 - Manufacturer of Firearms $500.00 Class 3 - Dealer in Firearms $200.00 There are three other classes of special tax, however those relate only to those NFA firearms classified as "any other weapons." An appropriate Federal firearms license is required for all persons who intend to engage in any of the businesses noted above. The special tax is paid to the Internal Revenue Service Center for the area in which the taxpayer's business is located. ATF requires the taxpayer to obtain an identification number before commencing business. This requirement is to ensure the special tax was paid and to allow the taxpayer to be in business as soon as possible. To obtain the identification number, the taxpayer must furnish the NFA Branch of ATF a copy of the taxpayer's Federal firearms license and any one of the following: a copy of the special tax stamp, a copy of the completed IRS, Form 11 (Special Tax Return), or ATF Form 5320.3 (Certification of Tax Payment). Upon meeting these conditions, the taxpayer is qualified to operate. The issuance of a special tax stamp is non-discretionary. If someone pays the tax, the person has fulfilled the requirement. The transfer tax rate on a machinegun or silencer is $ 200.00. newpage 197 Q. The increasing numbers of National Firearms Act (NFA) weapons dealers, and the increasing practice of obtaining large numbers of NFA weapons as a dealer and ceasing to do business as a dealer resulting in the transfer of the weapons to one's person collection without payment of the $200.00 tax for each weapon. A. The number of NFA special taxpayers has increased over the past years. In FY 1978, our records showed that 808 Federal firearms licensees were registered with us as special taxpayers. The number increased to 2306 in FY 1983. At the end of April 1984, over 2600 licensees were registered with us. Approximately 90% of these are Class 3 Dealers, Any transactions between special taxpayers is exempt from the transfer tax. Since the special tax rate for a Class 3 Dealer and the transfer tax on one machinegun or silencer are identical, this encourages a person to become qualified as a special taxpayer. There is a practice in the industry of qualifying as a special taxpayer, obtaining NFA firearms from other special taxpayers, and then ceasing the business that required the special taxpayment. In these instances, as long as the structure of the licensee remains intact, i.e. sole proprietor, corporation, etc., the firearms acquired and registered as the business remain, after cessation, registered to the entity. if it is a sole proprietor, the registration is to the individual; for a corporation; the firearms remain registered to the corporation. only if the corporation dissolves would transfer applications be required. newpage 198 3. Q. The number of NFA weapons in existence, the number registered with BATF, the number transferred each year for the past five years (Broken down by state if possible). A. The total number of NFA firearms registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record at this time is 194,940. Over the past five fiscal years, we have approved the following number of transfers of firearms: FY 79 14041 FY 80 14069 FY 81 15197 FY 82 18074 FY 83 23274 We do not maintain these statistics by state. We can not provide a number of NFA firearms in existence because those firearms in control of the United States Government do not require registration and we have no way of knowing the number of NFA firearms possessed illegally. 4 Q. The number of manufacturers of NFA weapons and the number of NFA weapons that entered into commerce each year for the past five years. A. our records show 173 Federal firearms licensees are currently qualified as Class 2 Manufacturers. Over the past five fiscal years, the number of NFA firearms legally entered into commerce by manufacture and import (our figures are not broken down any further) are: FY 79 58092 FY 80 79239 FY 81 55848 FY 82 45348 FY 83 39886 These figures do not include the production figures of 24 licensed manufacturers who are exempted from the provisions of the NFA by virtue of their United States Government contracts. newpage 199 5. Q. The legality of importing NFA firearms. A. NFA firearms may be imported into the United States for the following reasons only: (1) The use of the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof, or any political subdivision thereof; or (2) Scientific or research purposes; or (3) Testing or use as a model by a registered manufacturer or soley for use as a sample by a registered importer or registered dealer. The importer must submit an ATF Form 6 application, stating the reason for the importation and if for use as a sample by a dealer, the name of the dealer. After approval and release from Customs, the importer must file ATF Form 2 to effect the registration. These NFA firearms retain the import restrictions and may not be introduced into ordinary commercial channels. 5. Q. The practice of dealers importing "sample" machineguns allegedly for sale to police departments, which are actually transferred to other dealers. A. As noted in the prior question, NFA firearms, including machineguns, may be imported for use as samples by registered dealers. These "sales samples" are to be used for possible sales to government agencies, the only entities that could receive imported NFA firearms (other than samples). ATF allows dealers to transfer their registered imported samples to other special taxpayers, subject to the import restrictions on the firearm's use as a sales sample, basing the transfer on a legitimate business reason for the disposition. In many cases, the imported firearm is valueless to any government agency because the firearm is outmoded and outdated, but the law and implementing regulations set no standards as to what could be imported. There is value however in the firearm as a collectors item for the same reasons that it is valueless to an agency. newpage 200 7. Q. The substance of special examination, if any, of applicants to transfer or receive NFA weapons. A. Any Federal firearms licensee applicant has computer checks made for a criminal record through the Treasury Enforcement Communications System and the National Crime Information System. For any person who is not a special taxpayer, a more exhaustive check is conducted. When the transferee is an individual, his fingerprints must be submitted with the application to transfer the firearm. in most cases, the transferee's fingerprints are classified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a check is made for a criminal record. A record check is made for each transferee through the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, the National Crime Information Center, and the Secret Service. Records checks are also made through the Interstate Identification Index which accesses the FBI criminal records and provides the same information. The resolution of the disposition of a criminal record or the magnitude of the penalties imposed may require a field investigation to determine if the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm. 8. Q. The action by the South Florida Law Enforcement community to decline to certify any applications for NFA weapons and related litigation. A. For the transfer of an NFA firearm to any person other than a special taxpayer, or the making of an NFA firearm by any person other than a qualified manufacturer, a certificate is required on the application from a law enforcement official in the transferees area of residence. In the certificate, the official states that he has no information that the transferee is going to use the particular firearm unlawfully nor is his receipt or possession a violation of State or local law. The making of the certificate on the part of the official is a discretionary action although a certificate is required for the processing of the application. If no official will make the certificate, ATF will not process the application. Over the past several years application to transfer NFA firearms in the South Florida area have come to a virtual halt because of the local officials' hesitancy to make the law enforcement certification. Mr. Eugene Steele, trading as Machinegun Kelly's, in North Miami, filed suit in U.S. District Court in the Southern Di- trict of Florida to declare the requirement for a certificate invalid or if not invalid, to force the local officials to make the certificate. Mr. Steele's argument that the requirement was invalid was not accepted by the court and he has appealed the decision. The other portion of his suit is pending. newpage 201 #9. Q. The availability of ammunition for NFA weapons, and restrictions, if any, on its distribution. A. The vast majority of NFA weapons fire conventional small arms ammunition. There are no special restrictions on this type ammunition. It is regulated in the same manner as sporting ammunition. Certain types of NFA weapons, namely destructive devices, fire ammunition which is specifically regulated by the Gun Control Act. To manufacture, import or deal in ammunition for destructive devices requires a license fee of $1000.00 per year. However, this ammunition may be distributed to any individual qualified to purchase ammunition under the GCA. Certain of this ammunition is classified as a destructive device in and of itself. Specifically any ammunition containing more than 1/4 ounce of high explosive or incendiary charge or any rocket having more than 4 ounces of propellent charge is a destructive device and requires the same registration as other NFA weapons. newpage 202 #10. Q. Statistics on the seizure of NFA weapons. A. Although this question only deals with seized NFA weapons, there are generally three ways NFA weapons come into ATF custody. These are defined as seized property, purchased property and abandoned property. The FY 1983 investigative summary of the three categories is set forth below: Seized Property Sawed-off rifle/shotguns 184 Machineguns 120 Silencers 657 Pen Guns 59 Other NFA 29 Machinegun Conversion 90 1137 Purchased Property Sawed-off rifle/shotguns 161 Machineguns 583 Silencers 256 Pen Guns 7 Other NFA 280 Machinegun Conversion 73 1360 Abandoned Property Sawed-off rifle/shotguns 213 Machineguns 4 Silencers 3 Pen Guns 0 Other NFA 2 Machinegun Conversion 1 223 TOTAL 2720 NOTE: These statistics do not include any NFA weapons seized by State or local law enforcement agencies. newpage 203 11. Q. The status of military surplus NFA weapons and the war trophies exception to the limitations on military weapons. A. Military surplus NFA weapons are generally prohibited from importation into the United States except for (1), use by the United States, any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof, or any State or possession or political subdivision thereof; (2), scientific or research purposes; (3), testing or use as a model by a registered importer or registered dealer. With respect to war trophies, the Gun Control Act provides that the Secretary may authorize members of the Armed Forces to import firearms determined by the Department of Defense to be war souvenirs. However, this provision does not permit the importation of weapons within the purview of the National Firearms Act. Accordingly, Department of Defense regulations list machineguns and other National Firearms Act weapons, regardless of the degree of serviceability, among the items which are precluded from being retained and introduced into the United States by Armed Forces personnel. The Customs Service is authorized to release a firearm without an import permit from ATF where a properly executed DD Form 603, Registration of War Trophy Firearms, is presented, providing that the firearm has been classified as a war souvenir under Department of Defense regulations. 204 12. Q. Classes of NFA weapons that are contraband. A. Under the Federal firearms laws, any machinegun, short-barrel rifle or shotgun, silencer, or other NFA weapons must be registered with ATF for an individual to legally possess such a weapon. Additionally, ATF approval must be obtained prior to making or transferring an NFA weapon. Those NFA weapons not legally registered with ATF are contraband weapons. There are no known statistics which would provide information on how many contraband weapons may be in existence in the United States. newpage 205 13 Q. Modifications of military weapons for police use. A. We do not have any statistics available that would provide information on how many conventional military weapons have been acquired by police departments and then converted to machineguns. We suspect that it does occur occasionally but it rarely causes a law enforcement problem. Since police departments can receive NFA weapons for official use without paying the $200 transfer tax, there is little incentive for them to convert conventional weapons to fire fully automatic. A more frequent occurrence would be the importation of surplus military firearms for official use of a Department and then immediately sell them to police officers or other individuals for personal use. Such weapons are generally prohibited from importation exempt for use by governmental entities. newpage 206 #14. Q. The extent of sale of semiautomatic weapons and the ease of their conversion to machineguns. A. Semiautomatic weapons of all types are very popular and are widely used. Statistics on the volume of sale of semiautomatic weapons as opposed to other types are not available. The unlawful conversion of semiautomatic weapons to machineguns is a growing problem. Virtually any semiautomatic weapon can be modified to permit full automatic fire. Most semiautomatic weapons are designed and manufactured in such a manner that conversion is fairly complex and requires considerable knowledge and skill. However, certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols have been produced which can be modified to permit full automatic fire in a matter of seconds or minutes. These modifications are simple, require little skill and entail only minor modification to or elimination of a part. Where possible ATF has classified weapons of this types as machineguns based on their design. To further compound the problem of unlawful conversions of semiautomatic firearms to machineguns are kits which are marketed to convert all types of semiautomatic weapons to machineguns. If the kits are complete enough to affect the conversion, the kit is subject to the NFA and requires registration as a machinegun. newpage 207 The problem only occurs with kits which are sold only in a partially completed state with a portion of the kit supplied by one source and the remaining needed parts sold by another source. When the complete kit is acquired, the weapon can be easily converted. This problem of conversion of semiautomatic firearms to machineguns is difficult to combat because ATF does not have the authority to require manufacturers to submit new weapons designs for approval prior to commercial marketing. In addition to the conversion of semiautomatic weapons, we are currently faced with the problem of improperly destroyed machineguns and machinegun parts which are sold with partially finished machinegun receivers as "do it yourself" kits. 15. Q. Sale of NFA weapons by Police Departments. A. Government agencies, including police departments, are for the most part allowed to sell their registered firearms in ordinary commercial channels subsequent to ATF approval. An exception to this is any firearm registered on ATF Form 10 for official use. These firearms may not be introduced into commercial channels and may only be transferred to other government agencies. The agencies are required to apply for the transfer of any NFA firearm and receive approval before affecting the transfer. For an imported NFA firearm, we would allow the agency to transfer the firearm to a special taxpayer with the restriction that the subsequent transfer of the firearm must be to a government agency. This policy was implemented because the special taxpayers should be better suited to find an agency purchaser than would the selling agency. newpage 208 16. Q. The number of criminal cases involving all types of machineguns, and the number of criminal cases involving registered machineguns. A. A total of 707 machineguns were acquired by ATF during FY-83. Most of the Federal firearms violations involved in these acquisitions are for illegal making or possession of unregistered firearms. Registered machineguns which are involved in crimes are so minimal so as not to be considered a law enforcement problem. Additionally, should a machinegun be used to commit a murder or robbery, the State violations would probably be treated as the primary violation and State prosecution would be instituted. Any Federal violations would not likely be prosecuted if a substantial sentence is given on the State charge. #17. Q. The number of thefts of NFA weapons. A. While actual statistics are not available, the number of thefts of registered NFA weapons are minimal and is not considered a law enforcement problem. The actual number of thefts reported to the NFA Branch since October 1, 1983, totals 36. Occasionally, a collectors' NFA firearms are stolen and this is cause for concern. However, there are no Federal laws that require the registered owner of an NFA weapon to provide safe-guards against such thefts. The theft of unregistered weapons would not likely be reported. newpage 209 Q. The requirement, it any, for security of NFA weapons in the owners possession. A. The law and regulations do not identify requirements for the security of an NFA firearm. However, since the law pertains to possession and "transfer" is broadly defined, any NFA firearm should he maintained so that only the registrant has access to it. This precludes the possibility of any transfer of possession without approval. Q. The requirement if any, to notify BATF in the event of a theft of a NFA weapon. A. The regulation which implement the Act require the person losing possession of the registered firearm to make a report of theft to tho Director immediately upon discovery of the theft. newpage 210 Q. The commerce in NFA firearms, legitimate and illegitimate. A. To legally transfer an NFA weapon, prior approval must be obtained from ATF. As evidenced by the large number of unregistered NFA weapons purchased during FY-83, illegal NFA weapons are a continuing problem and concern to ATF. Another source of concern that is causing numerous law enforcement problems are unlawfully made full automatic weapons, silencers and conversion kits. This area was more fully addressed in Question 14. However, it should be noted that many undesirable groups, such as the various motorcycle and street gangs, are known to be acquiring and stockpiling these types of weapons. In some cases, we have found licensed firearms dealers becoming a willing source for these gangs. Q. The legitimate use of silencers, the number of registered silencers, and the number of registered owners of silencers. A. Silencers, as with other NFA firearms, may be lawfully possessed under the provisions of the National Firearms Act. There are 12,801 silencers registered in the NFRTR at this time. It would be difficult to quantify the number on the registered owners of silencers. newpage 211 Q. The number of crimes committed with silencers, and the number committed with registered silencers. A. A total of 916 silencers were taken into custody by ATF during FY-83. Most of these were illegally made or possessed because proper authorization to make the devices was not obtained, as required by the Federal firearms laws. Statistics are not available that reflect how many crimes were committed while using a silencer. However, the use of a registered silencer to commit a criminal act does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal firearms laws, unless the violation can be prosecuted in Federal court. In fact, the Federal violations involved when an unregistered silencer is used to commit a crime would generally be the fact that it is not registered as required by law, not because it was used to commit a crime. The commission of a crime with a registered silencer is so minimal that it is not considered to be a law enforcement problem. newpage 212 23. Q. The limitations, if any, on the advertising of machineguns and silencers. A. The Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF do not regulate the advertising of machineguns and silencers. 24. Q. The limitations, if any, on circumstances of the use of machineguns and silencers. A. Limitations on the use of machineguns or silencers such as storage, security, sporting purposes, etc., are regulated by State or local authorities. newpage [SNIP] 301 Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Kramer. What we will do, if it is agreeable with you, is just defer questioning until we hear from Mr. Kass. Mr. Kass, welcome. Mr. KASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and distinguished visitors. You have my prepared statement. I will not read it in its entirety. Basically why I came down here is to point out the fact that there are other people that need this ammunition other than Federal, State, and local law enforcement. One of these items was just touched on by the gentleman to my right and that is the private sector manufacturing police protective materials such as body armor manufacturers, bulletproof glass manufacturers, armor vehicle manufacturers. If they cannot have access to this ammunition they can't build a better mousetrap. The other area that is of concern to me is that university and private sector think tanks, R&D organizations. The American system for technology advancement is not always on Government contractors- I am sure you are all aware of-a lot of stuff is developed by industry, submitted to the Government, and if it meets the criteria and the needs of the Government, is, therefore, adopted. If industry will not have access to this type of material for testing and development of both protective materials and new products in the ammunition industry, we will put a crimp in the American enterprise system. The other area that I am concerned about-and this is solely me-is that the cost of this ammunition is extremely expensive, a normal round, you are talking 10, 15, 20 cents a round. This armor-piercing ammunition starts at $1 and works up, some as much as $5 or $6 a round. Manufacturers do not sell by the round, they normally sell by the case; they might, in some exceptions, sell by the box of 50 rounds. Police crime laboratories, especially the small ones, the county crime labs, and the small cities that have their own crime lab, need this ammunition in case there is a homicide with it, or a shooting, whether it be used by the police or by the criminal, to identify it. They cannot afford to buy it by the box. Forensic Ammunition Service provides from one round up, one round for their reference identification collection, if their local legislature is interested in possibly outlawing the use. I am sure you are aware of many legislatures have, I have provided the ammunition to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for testing, whether it be 5 rounds or 7 rounds, or 12 rounds, of the various types to keep the cost down. The same thing with industry, when they want to test their product they need to buy small quantities, which are not available through the manufacturers or importers as a rule. I would like to see some provisions that this service can be continued to those with a legitimate need. Let me elaborate just a hair. My procedure has been up until this point that I will only supply it on signed purchase orders signed by a senior police offi- cial, or in the case of a large city like Chicago, signed by a duly authorized purchasing agent of the city, but it must be on a department purchase order. Known police product manufacturers, protec- 302 tive material, such as Second Chance, Pointblank, Vector, and GE, that are known manufacturers, I will sell directly. If I get a phone call from some company and he says he is making body armor I have never heard of, I feel if he is legitimate his local police department knows about him, I then ask him to ask the local police chief to order it for him and make arrangements to reimburse the county or city for that ammunition. I have been highly restrictive because 99 percent of my friends are law enforcement-related and I am not going to put their life on the line. Unfortunately, I am sure there are other people in this world that are interested in the almighty buck than the protection of people. The only other comment I do have to say is I have been in the development of ballistic helmets and body armor with Vector Divi- sion of Javelin and with several other companies. I don't want to disagree that the test methods that they are describing here with aluminum plates may be acceptable, however, police officers are not walking around with aluminum plates. I feel that if you really want to do the job right, there is nothing like firing it against Kevlar, which is what you are trying to simulate. You know, we may save $100 in the long run but we may not get the results that we always want. And Kevlar does come in many types. If it is felt that the verbiage description of armor-piercing is not adequate as given in the bill, H.R. 5845, then a very specific standard must be set up of specifying the type of Kevlar, the number of layers of Kevlar, the barrel length of the weapons to have tested against, and the distance from which the barrel was held from the Kevlar. This is very critical because, otherwise, you are opening a can of worms. The only other comment I have is that armor-piercing technology is something that is constantly changing, there are new and improved rounds. However, the verbiage description that is given covers all basic technology as currently used today in the manufacture. Your point was well taken about the other materials that may be used for core materials. However, the majority of those that you mentioned are soft, they are nonferrous, and, as such, they would act like lead or more so in causing expansion and, therefore, not present a problem as far as armor-piercing. For a bullet to be armor-piercing you don't want it to expand and mushroom when it hits. And if it mushrooms, naturally It is going to present more area and, therefore, you know, it is not going to penetrate. But your point is well taken and you might want to include in addition to the list that was submitted, add the term at the end "and all other ferrous metals." Ferrous metals being magnetic as a rule and, therefore, very hard, and not used as bullet jackets be- cause they would cause more derifling of the weapon than they would be to engage the rifling. Thank you, sir. [The statement of Mr. Kass follows:] 303 I would like to start off by stating my support for this or any other legislation which will help to put criminal offenders off the streets for longer periods. However, of any greater importance is the fact that this legislation is designed to reduce the danger to law enforcement personnel, as well as, the public from a person or persons who are capable of committing personal violence. A major point of this bill is the fact that it does not put any additional burden on the honest, law abiding citizen, only the criminal with certain exceptions which I would like to expand on. There is a need for this type of ammunition to parties other than law enforcement and government. The first of these is industry. Manufacturers of police protective devices such as body armor, ballistic helmets, riot shields, etc., need to test their products in order to insure they meet the requirements of law enforcement, as well as developing new and improved products that are even more effective. Other industries that come to mind are bullet proof glass manufacturers whose products are used in barks, gas stations and taxi cabs. Another is the transportation industry that builds bullet proof cars for governmental personnel and other dignitaries. The armored car manufacturers whose products are used to transport valuables and even personnel such as government witnesses in criminal cases. University and private research institutions who are working on both governmental and industry grants. This names but a few of many fields that will be hampered by this legislation unless amended. 304 The next matter is the availability of AP ammunition to persons and entities who are legally entitled to purchase it. Most manufacturers will sell only by the case, some may sell by the box (normally 50 rounds per box). When you look at the cost of this ammunition of $1.00 per round and up, you can appreciate the fact that police forensic crime laboratories cannot afford to purchase a box of each. Therefore, there must be provision for supplies other than the manufacturers who will provide what is required to these organizations. Forensic Ammunition Service, which I own and operate, does this by supplying from one round to police laboratories, known law enforcement equipment manufacturers, as well as the Department of Defense and other federal government agencies. The last matter is one that I feel also deserves your consideration, and that is the cartridge collector. There are by my estimates from 10,000 to 50,000 collectors of ammunition. It is no different than collecting stamps, coins, beer cans or barbed wire. These collectors have paid $3,000 and more for a single cartridge for their collections. This would be like saying to stamp collectors that as of this date you can no longer acquire or import stamps that are red in color. There are collections in the U.S. today that would bring over a half million dollars at auction. The people who collect and pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for a single specimen would no more think of firing it then you gentlemen who consider betraying your country. Yet this bill puts a burden and restrictions on this group of honest law abiding citizens. By having these cartridges, this group would present no danger to law enforcement or the public. 305 The last matter I wish to comment on is the criteria by which testing will be done to determine which cartridges are to be classified as armor piercing. Many factors enter into what is armor piercing, these include, but are not limited to: mass, velocity, physical shape, hardness, etc. I have been involved in several discussions on the matter and it is probably one of impossibility to describe in words. I would, however, like to say that the definition proposed in H.R. 5845 is an adequate definition for what constitutes armor piercing ammunition. If, however, a testing procedure were contemplated, it should duplicate what we are trying to prevent, the piercing of soft body armor. Therefore it is my feeling that a standard of "V" layers of type "X" kevlar, be used out of a handgun, of "Y" length barrel at "Z" distance. Again, I wish to repeat that I support the purpose and basic content of this legislation if properly amended to protect American industry and honest citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. 306 Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much, Mr. Kass. Let me just, if I might, pick up on that just a little bit. As I read the proposed standard for armor-piercing ammunition it doesn't say how much of any one alloy for trace or for trace metals. Mr. KASS. OK, we went through this in the State of Michigan which I was very involved in, and we tried to come up with a per- centage. If the bill was restricted to handgun which, again, is a problem to define what a handgun is-if it was restricted to handgun that may be a possibility. However, because of the nature of some of the way rifle bullets are made, it becomes very difficult. The Nosler, which is strictly a hunting round, the Nosler partition bullet, has very little lead content compared to, say, a Sierra or a Speer bullet, and this presents a problem. Mr. HUGHES. Most of the problem that police officers confront are with handguns. Mr. KASS. Correct. Mr. HUGHES. One of the things that concerns me is that you could have a manufacturer make a projectile crafted like this Swedish projectile which has a small lead core. In fact, you could reduce it to just a little more than what you would consider trace. Trace, to me, suggests that it is the impurities that you would have in most metals, I would presume. Mr. KASS. Correct. Mr. HUGHES. So it would be so easy to avoid being caught in this standard by having just a small amount of some other ferrous or non-ferrous metal. Mr. KASS. However, I would feel that anybody trying to go to that extreme to circumvent this law could be handled by BATF in an administrative way, maybe include in the bill, in addition to the verbiage description say, "and any other ammunition the Secretary so defines as being armor-piercing." Mr. HUGHES. We would have to provide that for the Secretary to have that authority, though. Mr. KASS. Yes, that is what I am saying. That way, if somebody tries to circumvent it, the Secretary would have the authority to include it under this bill and prevent its sale. Mr. HUGHES. That wouldn't be permitted under the terms of this bill? Mr. KASS. No, I am saying add to the term at the end, "and any other ammunition the Secretary so rules as armor-piercing." Mr. HUGHES. Did you hear my colloquy with Mr. Owen and Mr. Walker about how much armor-piercing ammunition this legislation would reach? Mr. KASS. Yes, sir. Mr. HUGHES. I attempted to find out from him how much of a class we are talking about of the overall armor-piercing ammunition that is available in the marketplace. Mr. KASS. OK. Now, I have been fortunate enough to be able to handle this armor-piercing ammunition for the police crime labs. The police crime labs naturally have to all ammunition market in the United States for identification. The percent of the five or six different types of armor-piercing ammunition currently imported 307 or manufactured, I would say the total percentage of my sales would be less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Mr. HUGHES. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent? Mr. KASS. Based on my sales to police crime labs as far as reference material goes. Mr. HUGHES. I was being rather liberal when I said 1 percent. Mr. KASS. I will also say that the-and I think BATF does de- serve some credit, that when they did ask for voluntary compliance, the manufacturers did comply. Whenever I order ammunition for resale to the police departments, because I am known to most of the manufacturers, you know, supplied it to me to resell-I always include a statement that this ammunition is only for resale to police crime labs, and they are very, very careful about their sales. I think the industry does deserve some credit. Mr. HUGHES. They do. And you, perhaps, have not been here when we have praised the industry for making these voluntary constraints. Mr. KASS. Can I bring up one other matter, Chairman Hughes? Mr. HUGHES. Go ahead. Mr. KASS. I know there is probably not going to be a lot of sympathy for it but I feel I should bring it up-and that is the matter of the cartridge collector. There are collectors that collect ammunition just like they collect stamps, coins, beer cans, barbed wire, and what have you. I have been a cartridge collector, that is how I got into the business. Before I ran Forensic Ammunition Service, as a collector I was involved with AFTE, which is the Association for Firearms Too] Mark Examiners from all the police crime labs. I have been technical adviser to them for 10 years. Most research that is being used in forensics today is being done by cartridge collectors. The crime labs, unfortunately, are overworked, understaffed, and the caseloads are not dropping. I would hope there might be some kind of regulation worked out with BATF where the collectors can legitimately continue to collect and to do the research because these are honest citizens, most of them are lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. They have paid liter- ally thousands of dollars sometimes for single specimens. They are not going to go out and shoot anybody with it. As a matter of fact, they shudder every time they see a weapon fired, you know, that might have a head stamp they are missing in their collection. But it is something that is to be considered. This is a small group, I estimate between maybe 10 and 50,000 people that collect ammunition. But yet, it would be infringing on a hobby that many of them had for many years. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you. Mr. Kramer, have you examined the bullets that penetrate alu- minum plates at a level that exceeds IIIA? Mr. KRAMER. Yes, sir. Mr. HUGHES. OK. Would you discuss that ammunition with us and present your analysis of their construction and materials? Mr. KRAMER. Yes, sir. As I noted, the test method that we developed, which is in the publication NBSIR 84-2884 has to have a threat level associated with it. We were directed by the National 308 Institute of Justice to use a IIIA test level for our experimental work to evaluate a very small select group of ammunition. Mr. HUGHES. Why don't you describe what that IIIA is? Mr. KRAMER. Correlated, OK. This can best be illustrated if J. may go back to the original body armor standards. When the original body armor standards were issued in 1972, there were three levels of protection for the body armor. At that time they were not labeled as such but they have since become known as level I, level II, and level III. In December 1978, a revision to the standard for the body armor was issued by the National Institute of Justice for which we provided the technical work. At that time, there was added a level IIA body armor which was above level I and we also added a level III at that time, which was between the levels II and IV in degree of protection afforded. We have just recently completed work on another revision to the body armor standard. That revision to the body armor standard has been submitted to the National Institute of Justice for their consideration and promulgation. This latest revision includes a new level IIIA. A level IIIA is a level that sits between level II and level III. Mr. HUGHES. What is that? What kind of protection does that afford? Mr. KRAMER. OK. Let me say that the threat IIIA is considered to represent now the maximum protection available from soft body armor manufactured using the Kevlar fabric of today's technology. For the protection purposes, it is to protect against the threat of a 9 millimeter, 124 grain, full metal jacket bullet, and the .44 caliber, 240 grain lead semi-wide cutter bullet-both with nominal impact velocities of 1,400 feet per second. As I noted in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, the levels assigned and the way of assigning them are based on a performance test. We do not get involved in how the bullets are constructed, the ma- terial or anything else, but rather, the vest must resist the penetration from these rounds and not cause a deformation that would result in blunt trauma. It is a performance test. Mr. HUGHES. What distance are we talking about, because that is a significant factor, is it not? Mr. KRAMER. Five meters, that is shown in the test procedure, from the end of the muzzle to the armor to be penetrated. This is described in the Test Procedure published by NIJ that we developed for evaluating the Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor. It is a standard test method for the evaluation of the armor. Let me return to the test procedure for armour-piercing ammunition. Knowing what we wanted to protect against, we conducted a series of tests on the apparatus to ascertain how many aluminum plates would be pierced utilizing the same type of ammunition that we are protecting against in a IIIA level threat. The reason we went to a performance test such as this, is be- cause with aluminum plates we can specify the composition, the size, the thickness, the alloys, and the spacing so the test can be replicated. In this way we are not depending on any one vest or fabric. 309 In running that test we found that the .355 caliber or less ammunition that we were protecting against in the level IIIA would penetrate a maximum of four plates. And in calibers greater than .355, it would penetrate a maximum of six plates. Therefore for doing our evaluation if it penetrated more than that amount we would consider the ammunition to be, quote, "armor- piercing" and I have to put it in quotes, because we are not the agency to make the designation but we would consider it for test purposes to be "armor-piercing" since we would assume it would go through a level IIIA vest. Accordingly, we said if it (the ammunition) goes through five or more plates in a smaller diameter, it would be "armor-piercing." If it would go through seven or more plates in the larger diameter, we would consider it "armor-piercing." We then ran some tests. The tests were not all-inclusive. I want to state that the testing was not based on any kind of statistical sampling, and was not based on any study of the rounds being used since we have no knowledge of that. I think-Dan, correct me if I am wrong--the selection of ammu- nition for the tests was based on what we can lay our hands on. Mr. FRANK. [Nodded affirmatively.] [Diagrams shown.] Mr. KRAMER. And in running the tests we found that there were three types of ammunition, actually four, one was of the same type but in two different calibers, that penetrated the plates that we would consider to be above a IIIA level threat. That ammunition is described, and I think you have some of them up there-one was a solid material, Mr. Chairman, that had just some coating on it, we call that round G. Another one had a jacket and what we call the liner and a core, which is round H. And another round was what we are calling round E, that had the most complex construction, an outer jacket, had a liner, an inner jacket, and had a core. After we found these had penetrated, we did an examination of them and we found what the materials were made of based on an analysis. Mr. HUGHES. I wonder if we can make as part of the record, first of all, the three different exhibits which you have offered. I think they will be helpful. Mr. KRAMER. Yes. [the diagrams follow:] 310 [Page 310 is a sectional view graphic of "Round G", the KTW round, although not so identified.] 311 [Page 311 is a sectional view graphic of "Round H".] 312 [Page 312 is a sectional view graphic of "Round E", the "Swedish" round.] 313 Mr. HUGHES. If I understand your testimony correctly, I am not sure I have any of the ammunition except for this one that seems to be round E, the complex round with a outer jacket, a liner, an inner jacket, and a core. That would be the Swedish-- Mr. KRAMER. I believe, from your description, it is the round we have called the Swedish round, I think we are talking about the same thing. Mr. HUGHES. That is what you referred to as round E? Mr. KRAMER. Round E is what we have defined as the Swedish round. Mr. HUGHES. And that would penetrate? Mr. KRAMER. The "Swedish" round did in our test--- Mr. HUGHES. How many different plates did that penetrated? Mr. KRAMER [continuing]. We fired three shots of that type of round and in all three shots it penetrated either five or six plates, depending on the velocity. Mr. HUGHES. I see. Mr. KRAMER. But it penetrated more than the IIIA level. Mr. HUGHES. I see. So it clearly penetrates the level II or IIA vests that are presently marketed? Mr. KRAMER. Yes, sir, we would expect it to. Mr. HUGHES. OK. Let me just if I might, since I have some experts on metallurgy and alloys here today, can you give me some idea of how many different types of ferrous metals would be suitable for constructing a projectile, any idea? Mr. EARLY. OK, I am not a ballistics expert, I am not familiar with all of the criteria that go into designing ammunition. However, there are hundreds and hundreds of recognized commercial ferrous alloys, many of which would probably possess the appropriate properties of hardness to be suitable, notwithstanding cost or ease of fabrication. Mr. HUGHES. So that the seven different metals that are enumerated in this proposal represent a fairly small part of the different ferrous metals that could be utilized? Mr. EARLY. It depends on the final interpretation of some of those words. For instance, the word steel. Mr. HUGHES. That is the second thing we are going to get into. Mr. EARLY. OK. Mr. HUGHES. Why don't we pick up there? For instance, what do we mean by steel? Mr. EARLY. To a metallurgist, steel is a iron-based alloy, almost always containing carbon, manganese, it may well contain sulfur, phosphorous, and a number of other alloying elements. There are various sub-classes of steels which metallurgists recognize, they all have names which connotate certain characteristics about the alloy. Mr. HUGHES. If in fact you interjected other substances that are not generally identified as being a part of what is commonly known as steel, I would presume that that would not be what we referred to as steel, then? Mr. EARLY. That is correct, there are a number of commercially available iron-based alloys which do in fact contain some of the 314 same alloying elements which are not normally ever referred to as steels. Mr. HUGHES. I see. How about brass? What do we mean by brass? Mr. EARLY. Brass is a generic term which covers a whole class of copper-based alloys in which the principal alloying agent is zinc. There are several dozen commercially available compositions which generically are all called brass. Mr. HUGHES. So you could very easily create a difference in composition using zinc as a major component and create something other than brass? Mr. EARLY. That is correct. Mr. HUGHES. How about bronze? What do we mean by bronze? Mr. EARLY. Bronze, again, is another generic term which is broken down further into sub-classes of bronze as phosphor bronzes or copper-based alloys in which tin is the major alloying addition. Aluminum bronzes are copper-based alloys in which aluminum is the major addition, there's silicon bronzes. So it is a generic term without specificity. Mr. HUGHES. Can brass sometimes be bronze? Mr. EARLY. The names of many of these alloys have been used over long periods of times and in any system of guidelines for naming things there are exceptions, and there are some alloys whose common name is at odds with the chemical definitions that I have just given you. Mr. HUGHES. The point I am trying to make is that a metallurgist could very easily vary in a very minor fashion the composition and raise some question as to whether it is truly bronze or steel or brass. Mr. EARLY. I believe so. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Kass, is there anything that you want to say on that score? Mr. KASS. My suggestion about the ferrous and alloys of the above I think would cover most, of your concerns, Mr. Hughes, be- cause then would cover any variations and composition within these general categories such as brass and steel, with the hundreds of steels, and you say any alloys thereof would cover that and protect against, shall we say, house brands. You know, it is like in the medical industry, you have your sulfur drugs and then somebody comes along and calls it X, Y, Z-you know, they don't refer to sulfur, you know, then house brand names and everything else. If we say and alloys thereof, I think we will protect ourselves. Mr. HUGHES. Aside from the seven materials identified in the pending legislation, are there other hard materials that could be used to make projectiles to make firearms? Mr. KASS. I think this bill has pretty well covered all of them. I worked in the metallurgic testing field for 15 years, I was with Wilson Instruments, who makes the hardness testers, both the Rockwell and the Tucons, and I served as product manager for them. When BATF called me and we discussed this definition, we try to all encompass anything that might be employed to circumvent the law. Mr. HUGHES. How do you feel about that, Mr. Kramer? Mr. KRAMER. I would prefer to defer to our metallurgist. 315 Mr. Early. Would you repeat that, please. Mr. HUGHES. Yes, my question is, we have identified seven hard materials that could be used to make projectiles for firearms, and my, question is, could one fabricate a bullet from other very hard materials? Mr. EARLY. Yes. It might not be economical but there are certainly other hard materials with similar hardness that are not on the list. Mr. HUGHES. Not on the list. Mr. KASS. Can I interject, Mr. Hughes. If we included all ferrous materials at the end, would that pretty well cover it? Mr. EARLY. I do not have with me specific information, but there are large classes of alloys which are designed for totally different applications which are of high strength and generally high hardness which would be compatible in the sense that steels are producible in an extremely wide range of hardness values. There is nothing in the definition which specifies hardness precisely. So there is tremendous variability in hardness of brass as well as steel. I think there are some other materials. There are certainly ceramic materials which are certainly as hard as the materials in this list. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Kass, would it be very difficult for one, in an attempt to avoid definition of armor-piercing in this proposed legislation. to fabricate a projectile that would be by and large steel or brass that would have a very small amount, let's say, of lead, right in the center, very small, more than a trace, but-- Mr. KASS. It is possible, Mr. Hughes. Mr. HUGHES. Would it be difficult? Mr. KASS. No. Mr. HUGHES. OK. Mr. KASS. That is why my suggestion was to also include at the end of the list, and any other ammunition the Secretary so feels is armor-piercing, to take care of those illegitimate businessmen that would try to circumvent the law. Mr. HUGHES. Unfortunately, as you said, not everybody is moti- vated by the same motivations and good intent that you have ex- pressed. I wish that the world was full of more people like yourself but, unfortunately, there are some that do look at the bottom line, the dollars to be made, and we have to deal with that all the time. Mr. KASS. Yes, it is unfortunate, but for as good or bad as it is, we have to live with the situation and try to prevent these people. It is a hard thing, and I apologize for those people. I am not in the industry per se, but I apologize for any people in the industry that puts the almighty dollar ahead of the public safety. Mr. Hughes, thank you for your time. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Kass. Mr. Sawyer. Mr. SAWYER. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and I am sorry that we have had such a delay here today. Our final panel today consists or a distinguished list of representatives of law enforcement organizations. We have Norman Darwick, executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, David N. Konstantin, research associate, Police Executive Research Forum; Art Stone, National Legislative Committee, Fraternal Order of Police: Edward Murphy, legislative counsel, Interna-