testify. I told him that I had to phone Mr. Perian back and he asked that I attempt to arrange with Mr. Perian for a later date for his testimony." This is on June 29. "Subsequent conversations occurred by long distance between Mr. Perian and myself, and by local telephone between Mr. Siatos and myself. Finally, at 3:10 p.m. P.d.t. Mr. Siatos informed me on the telephone that he did not wish to appear." Mr. Siatos, I want to repeat that this is your lawyer who sent this telegram. "*** informed me that he did not wish to appear before the subcommittee and to testify voluntarily—” it may not be your lawyer, I am not sure of that-I am right— "this was on the advice of counsel, and that he would only appear if the subcommittee called him. I informed Mr. Perian of this and so reported to Mr. Siatos that I had informed Mr. Perian. I regret, Senator, very much these events of Tuesday, June 29, 1965. I assure you and the members of the subcommittee that I did not know in advance that Mr. Siatos had changed his mind and now did not desire to testify before the subcommittee. "With sincere apologies. "I am very truly yours, (Signed) WILLIAM H. DORSEY, Jr., "Attorney and Counselor at Law, Suite 105, 1047 Gayley Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif." He is your lawyer, isn't he? Mr. SIATOS. No, he is not, Senator. Senator DODD. He was, wasn't he? Mr. SIATOS. No, he was not my attorney; no, sir. Senator DODD. He never was? Mr. SIATOS. No, sir. Senator DODD. Who is your lawyer? Mr. SIATOS. Robert Gottlieb, of Beverly Hills, Calif. He was slated to appear with me today but due to a last moment emergency he was unable to make it. Senator DODD. Now, is Mr. Dorsey in touch with you because he was the lawyer for Petersen Publications? Mr. SIATOS. No, sir; Mr. Gottlieb is our attorney. Senator DODD. We got a letter from Mr. Dorsey on May 11 requesting permission for you to testify. This letter is on "behalf of my client." Mr. SIATOS. I believe there was an unfortunate error made there, Senator, which I will attempt to straighten out if I may for a moment. Our public relations department apparently contacted Mr. Dorsey. I haven't had time to check into this yet. Mr. Dorsey then made the initial contact with your committee, sir. Senator DODD. You knew he had made the contact? Mr. SIATOS. I knew he was supposed to make the contact, but apparently we had a breakdown of communications between our public relations department and myself, and this is how this unfortunate occurrence came about. Senator DODD. Is your magazine affiliated with any other group or organization? Mr. SIATOS. No, sir; we are completely an independent publication with no affiliation of any groups whatsoever. I think you are the first witness we have had to subpena at these hearings. Mr. SIATOS. I wanted to cancel my appearance on the advice of counsel, Senator. We felt that our case had pretty well been presented by the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We felt it would be redundant to appear, so on the advice of counsel we attempted to cancel out. Unfortunately, a bit late. I must personally apologize for any inconvenience that may have been occasioned to the committee. Senator DODD. You don't need to apologize. This seems very strange that you should have been so insistent on appearing here and when we gave you the opportunity you refused to do so and said you would only show up if you were subpenaed. You are the first witness to do this. Mr. SIATOS. There may have been some misunderstanding on that point, Senator. Senator DODD. All right. I want to read into the record a telegram which we have received which may shed some light on this situation. It is addressed to Mr. Carl L. Perian, staff director, Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, room 241, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. By the way, this was received June 30 at 7:56 a.m., that is yesterday. This is to inform you that the following letter addressed to Senator Dodd was sent to you at the above address by special delivery airmail at 2:20 p.m. P.dt. on Wednesday, June 30, 1965: "Hon. THOMAS J. DODD, "U.S. Senator from Connecticut, "Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. "DEAR SENATOR DODD: I have already expressed to Mr. Carl L. Perian, staff director of your Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, my sincere apologies for the events of yesterday (June 29, 1965) during the course of which I was first informed for my client, Petersen Publications by Mr. Thomas J. Siatos, editor and publisher, Guns and Ammo, shortly after 3 p.m., P.d.t., that he did not wish to appear and testify before your subcommittee at the previously scheduled time of 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 30, 1965. "As your subcommittee records will show, Mr. Siatos first wired the subcommittee directly and requested permission to appear and to testify on Senate bill 1592 at the May 19, 20, and 21, 1965, public hearings thereon. As your subcommittee records will also show, on May 11, 1965, pursuant to my client's specific request, and in accordance with Mr. Perian's suggestion, I wrote directly to you in behalf of Petersen Publications and requested permission for Mr Siatos to testify on Senate bill 1592 before your subcommittee at the June 2, 3 and 4, 1965, scheduled public hearings or at public hearings to be scheduled later in June or July 1965. "Mr. Perian was kind enough to inform me by telephone on Tuesday, June 15 1965, that my request on behalf of Petersen Publications had been granted and that Mr. Siatos was scheduled to testify before your subcommittee at 10 on June 25, 1965. This date was later confirmed by your letter of June 15, 1965 Mr. Perian called me. Unfortunately, I missed his call, but later the subcommittee staff informed me that Mr. Siatos' appearance had been postponed unt! June 30, 1965, and Mr. Siatos had been so informed by Mr. Perian. This June 32 1965, date was confirmed by me with Petersen Publications. "On Monday and Tuesday, June 28 and 29, 1965, Mr. Perian called me and indicated that advance copies of Mr. Siatos' prepared statement had not as yet been received by the committee within the required 48 hours. "On Tuesday, June 29, 1965, I reached Mr. Siatos by telephone. He indicated that copies of the prepared statement had already been mailed to the subcom mittee, but that unfortunately he had confused the date on which he was to testify. I told him that I had to phone Mr. Perian back and he asked that I attempt to arrange with Mr. Perian for a later date for his testimony." This is on June 29. "Subsequent conversations occurred by long distance between Mr. Perian and myself, and by local telephone between Mr. Siatos and myself. Finally, at 3:10 p.m. P.d.t. Mr. Siatos informed me on the telephone that he did not wish to appear." Mr. Siatos, I want to repeat that this is your lawyer who sent this telegram. **** informed me that he did not wish to appear before the subcommittee and to testify voluntarily—” it may not be your lawyer, I am not sure of that-I am right— "this was on the advice of counsel, and that he would only appear if the subcommittee called him. I informed Mr. Perian of this and so reported to Mr. Siatos that I had informed Mr. Perian. I regret, Senator, very much these events of Tuesday, June 29, 1965. I assure you and the members of the subcommittee that I did not know in advance that Mr. Siatos had changed his mind and now did not desire to testify before the subcommittee. "With sincere apologies. "I am very truly yours, (Signed) WILLIAM H. DORSEY, Jr., "Attorney and Counselor at Law, Suite 105, 1047 Gayley Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif." He is your lawyer, isn't he? Mr. SIATOS. No, he is not, Senator. Senator DODD. He was, wasn't he? Mr. SIATOS. No, he was not my attorney; no, sir. Senator DODD. He never was? Mr. SIATOS. No, sir. Senator DODD. Who is your lawyer? Mr. SIATOS. Robert Gottlieb, of Beverly Hills, Calif. He was slated to appear with me today but due to a last moment emergency he was unable to make it. Senator DODD. Now, is Mr. Dorsey in touch with you because he was the lawyer for Petersen Publications? Mr. SIATOS. No, sir; Mr. Gottlieb is our attorney. Senator DODD. We got a letter from Mr. Dorsey on May 11 requesting permission for you to testify. This letter is on "behalf of my client." Mr. SIATOS. I believe there was an unfortunate error made there, Senator, which I will attempt to straighten out if I may for a moment. Our public relations department apparently contacted Mr. Dorsey. I haven't had time to check into this yet. Mr. Dorsey then made the initial contact with your committee, sir. Senator DODD. You knew he had made the contact? Mr. SIATOS. I knew he was supposed to make the contact, but apparently we had a breakdown of communications between our public relations department and myself, and this is how this unfortunate occurrence came about. Senator DODD. Is your magazine affiliated with any other group or organization? Mr. SIATOS. No, sir; we are completely an independent publication with no affiliation of any groups whatsoever. Senator DODD. How long has it been publishing? Mr. SIATOS. It was originally published in 1958 as a quarterly magazine. We then went to semimonthly two issues later and in the latter part of 1958 we became a monthly magazine. Senator DODD. It has rather consistently opposed all firearms legislation, has it not? Mr. SIATOS. Not in actuality, Senator. We are opposed to unduly restrictive antifirearms legislation. Senator DODD. Well, you opposed this bill, haven't you? Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir, we have. Senator DODD. Haven't you opposed previous mail order gun legislation? Mr. SIATOS. We Senator DODD. Or have you? Mr. SIATOS. We did support, editorially at one time, Senate bill 14 which you introduced. Senator DODD. Do you have a copy of that editorial? happy to send it to you. Senator DODD. I wish you would. Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir. Senator DODD. When did you support S. 14? I would be very Mr. SIATOS. I don't recall the exact date, Senator. That- Senator DODD. Well, the reason we have been anxious to have you is that you have been about the most violent critic of this legislation, and believe me, that is saying something because there is quite a field but I consider your publication by far the most violent in its attacks on me which I don't care about. I care about them only as they affect this bill, and I care about them only because they have been such gross misrepresentations. Your background indicates to me that you know better. You are a college graduate, you are an acknowledged authority on ballistics, you are an editor, you are a publisher, you have the largest newsstand sale of all gun publications in this country, you have done dreadful damage by your misrepresentations, and I want to tell you about them and ask your comments on them. Mr. SIATOS. May I make a statement for the record at this point? Senator DODD. You can make one after I ask you some questions. Mr. SIATOS. All right, sir. Senator DODD. This article is in your latest issue for July 1965. The first paragraph says: On March 28 Senator Dodd of Connecticut introduced firearms bills numbered S. 1591 and S. 1592, and if you as a collector, hunter, target shooter, gun dealer. gunsmith, or small manufacturer wish to lose your rights to own guns, to go hunting, target shooting, deal in firearms, read no further. This bill will confiscate your guns, make it impossible for you to hunt or stay in business. You have read this bill, have you? Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir; I have, Senator. Senator DODD. You point out to me where confiscation is mentioned in this bill. Mr. SIATOS. It is not mentioned in the bill specifically, Senator, but we sincerely feel that such a bill as S. 1592 will ultimately become, there will be additions made to it because we also sincerely feel that it will not accomplish the purpose that it states. Senator DODD. Is that the best explanation you can give for writing a paragraph like that about this bill? Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir. We sincerely feel that it will not accomplish its purpose. Senator DODD. You sincerely feel it will cause confiscation of the guns of hunters, people who want to target shoot, to own guns, to deal in firearms. Do you really believe that? Mr. SIATOS. S. 1592, as you indicate, Senator, does not mention the word "confiscation" but as I indicated previously, we do feel that it could conceivably lead to much more stringent type of legislation which may utlimately end up in confiscation of firearms. Senator DODD. Now, on page 22, which is the page from which I have been reading of your July 1965 issue, there are some 27 or more paragraphs. We have analyzed your article, and it is almost 100 percent in error by any fair reading of the bill, and I would be happy to submit it to everyone on this committee or anybody else. Some 28 paragraphs refer to this bill, its intent or design and effect, and 27 of them are not anywhere near truthful. They distort the provisions of this bill through conjecture or actual misstatement of fact, and while I don't want to go through 30 paragraphs here this morning, I would like to take up some others other than the one I have read. In paragraph 5, for example, you know this article well, you wrote it, didn't you? Mr. SIATOS. No; I did not. Senator DODD. You are the publisher? Mr. SIATOS. Yes. Senator DODD. You approved of it, you read it in any event before it was published, I assume. Mr. SIATOS. Yes; I did. Senator DODD. And you had read the bill, had you? Mr. SIATOS. Yes; I had, Senator. Senator DODD. In paragraph 5, you say: Section 1 deals with the definition of a firearm. At the present time this covers cartridge-loading weapons. Under the new bill it will cover all firearms. Have you ever read the definition of a firearm in the Federal Firearms Act? Mr. SIATOS. Yes; I have, Senator Senator DODD. Well, a reading will show that the definition in the present act is broader than in the bill which I have introduced. You know that as well as I do. Mr. SIATOS. The definition in the Senator DODD. The present Federal Firearms Act is broader. Senator DODD. Yes. Listen, you are an expert in ballistics and firearms, you know that is a fact, don't you? |