Mr. SIATOS. I would have to refresh my memory by reading that provision over again, Senator. I can't recall it offhand. Senator DODD. I will put the appropriate Federal Firearms Act section in the record at this point. (The information referred to follows:) (3) The term "firearm" means any weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive and a firearm muffler or firearm silencer, or any part or parts of such weapon. Senator DODD. That act, you know, even covers parts of firearms, it goes much farther than this bill. In paragraph 8 you say: Section 1-4 will prohibit the ownership or sale of what they term destructive devices. What do you mean by that? Mr. SIATOS. Would you please repeat that, Senator? Section 1-4 will prohibit the ownership or sale of what they term destructive devices. Mr. SIATOS. We were referring to devices which are termed destructive under the provisions of S. 1591 but which in reality are collector's pieces having a bore size larger than 50 caliber. We have subsequently developed that point in our recommendations in my testimony. Senator DODD. You know they can still be owned and sold in accordance with the law. Under this bill they can. Mr. SIATOS. What, as destructive devices? Senator DODD. Certainly. Mr. SIATOS. We feel that the broad regulatory powers given to the Treasury Department by this bill could conceivably close the door on that particular provision. Senator DODD. Don't you know that under the bill the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to exclude devices not likely to be used as weapons? It is specifically written into the bill. Mr. SIATOS. He has the authority, sir, but is there any guarantee that he would do so, that's our main contention. Senator DODD. Well, the bill gives him the authority to do that. Don't you think it would have been fair to point that out rather than write this kind of a paragraph? Mr. SIATOS. Well, all I can say is that in our considered opinion, we feel that it gave too broad a regulatory power to the Treasury Department and its agents which may have worked to the detriment of the sporting and shooting fraternity. Senator DODD. Then you say in paragraph 19: The bill would prohibit a hunter or target shooter going from one State to another taking his gun with him. Mr. SIATOS. Yes, there seems to be some confusion Senator DODD. The bill specifically says that a man can transportany man transporting his rifle or shotgun for lawful purposes may do so. Mr. SIATOS. But, I am not an attorney on this point, Senator, and possibly you can help me out, but that is providing he adhered to the laws and ordinances of the State in which he was traveling. Senator DODD. He has to do that now, doesn't he? Mr. SIATOS. Up to a point. Senator DODD. Up to what point. You are not suggesting that he violate the laws of the State, are you? Mr. SIATOS. No, I am not, Senator. But this simply would be another bill which would add to the confusion that already exists. Senator DODD. You know that is one thing to say, but to write an article of this kind and just nakedly say prohibit a hunter or target shooter going from one State to another and taking his gun with him, this morning you say, well, it is possible it could happen. But to your readers, and you have the largest circulation, that kind of a statement is certainly misleading, because you state categorically that this bill would prohibit the hunter or target shooter from carrying his gun from one State to another. Do you really think that is a fair thing to do about this bill? Mr. SIATOS. Well, we, again I must reiterate my sincere opinion that it would ultimately lead to the statements outlined in this particular article, Senator. Senator DODD. Even though the bill says otherwise? Mr. SIATOS. Even though the bill was conceived in utmost sincerity on your part. Senator DODD. Don't give me that sincerity bunk. I just want to know why you wrote an article like this? Mr. SIATOS. Because we do feel that it would lead to this manner of confusion. Senator DODD. Well, I can't think of any greater confusion that has been contributed to the discussion of this bill than your article. You baldly state what I am sure you know is not true. You say you have read the bill. And for you to write an article that it would prohibit a hunter or target shooter from taking his gun from one State to another is about as willful a misrepresentation of this bill as I have read or heard of. And thousands of people have read it. The mail is pouring into the Congressmen and Senators, into the White House, and some of it is almost word for word from your article. Just think of this, paragraph 20: Do not be fooled by any of the doubletalk. What it all comes down to is that without obtaining special licenses, permits, probably from the Federal Government and every State, you will not be allowed to travel out of your State with a firearm under any circumstances unless you are fully licensed and even then that is questionable. Do you really believe that, having read the bill? But it is again conceivable to us, because of the broad regulatory powers given to the Treasury Department, that this could be the ultimate Senator DODD. I don't think you ever have read it or else your imagination has run wild. When referring to the standards set forth to obtain licenses under section 3 you say in paragraph 27, and I quote it: In other words, if for any reason they do not like your looks, your politics, your religion or anything else you may not be allowed to have a license in the first place. Do you believe that? Mr. SIATOS. Do I specifically-does this article specifically say that? Senator DODD. In paragraph 27, I am reading from it: In other words, if for any reason they do not like your looks, your polities, your religion or anything else you may not be allowed to have a license in the first place. Do you believe the Secretary of the Treasury is going to enforce this law on the basis of not liking a citizen's looks or his politics or his religion? Have you ever known a Secretary to do that? It is right at the corner of page 23, if you have your own magazine, it is the last. beginning the last three lines. In other words, if for any reason they do not like your looks, your politics, your religion, or anything else ***. Mr. SIATOS. Senator, all I can say is this is what we call editorializing. Senator DODD. Is that what you call it? Senator DODD. That is pretty good. Some people call it lying, and I am one of them. You know better than that. I think you maliciously misrepresented this bill. You are one. There have been several others. No wonder that the Congressmen and Senators are being swamped with mail by people who have become excited and confused when you write this kind of falsehood about the bill. Mr. SIATOS. Senator, I honestly don't think that we intended it as malicious falsehood. We sincerely feel Senator DODD. If you didn't I don't know what you intended. But I come back to the fact you are a man of considerable background in this field, you are a graduate, I believe, of the University of California, you are a ballistics expert, you have written books and articles and manuals on guns, you are not an innocent by a long shot. You just show me anywhere in this bill where there is any reference to a man's religion and his politics. Mr. SIATOS. As I indicated a moment ago, Senator, this is editorializing. Senator DODD. It is a pretty name. It is so bad from beginning to end, as I say, I can go through it sentence by sentence, I am going to have it printed in the Record as an example of what we have been up against, and I am going to have to ask the committee members to pay particular attention to the fact that you asked more than once to appear here and then when we invited you to do so you backed out. (The article referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 135" and will be found on pp. 623-625.) Mr. SIATOS. I backed out on the advice of counsel, Senator, I would also point that out to you. Senator DODD. I am intrigued by that: what were you afraid of? Mr. SIATOS. I personally can't think of anything I was afraid of except as I indicated earlier, anything I might have to say here by way of my statement would be pretty much redundant. EXHIBIT No. 135.-ARTICLE, "THE REAL FACTS BEHIND S. 1592," GUNS AND AMMO MAGAZINE, JULY 1965 GUNS AND AMMO, July 1965 10% n March 28 Senator Dodd of Connecticut introduced Firearms Bills Nos. 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 shoot, deal in firearms, read no further. This bill will ultimately confiscate your guns, make it impossible for you to hunt or to stay in business. 2. If you do not agree with these intentions, then read on and take action now. 3 It is almost impossible to speak of a Dodd bill since he has introduced so many; it is difficult to keep track of them all. In addition to the Dodd bills, there are literally dozens of others equally bad or worse, if that is possible. However, for our purposes we will dis sion where only the frame is left, if he fails to handle this in the exact manner as prescribed by law and sells it as a gun part, he will have violated the new act, and by doing so, he will automatically be out of business, his license will be forfeit, and he will never be granted another firearms license. Section 1-4 will prohibit the ownership or sale of what they term destructive devices: This includes mortars, rocket launchers, missiles (loaded or non-operating, even), and included in missiles are tracer ammunition, incendiary ammunition, or any other kind of ammunition other than ball, meaning that A. P. would also be illegal. It also includes any weapon with a bore of more than ", excluding shotguns, which means that practically every fire The Real Facts ANTI-GUN PLOT THICKENS! The latest "gun control" bill 7 cuss only Dodd's latest efforts, S-1591 Exactly why are these bills so dan- 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. This includes flint locks, wheellocks and anything else. Also, it will include the frame as being a complete firearm. This means that those of you who have collected antique guns in states where ownership of regular cartridge guns is difficult, they will now be brought under these laws very quickly. You will probably not be granted a license and your guns will be confiscated, or you will be forced to sell them at ruinous prices. For the dealer or gunsmith who may have a stripped-down gun in his posses arm made during or prior to the Civil War would then be illegal since they are rifles and their bore is definitely larger than ", most of them being .54 caliber, or larger. Many of the currently made big-game rifles would be illegal. 9 Included in this section would be flare guns such as are used on private boats and yachts as life-saving devices. It seems somewhat minor to argue about such devices as incendiaries, rockets, mortars, as there are only a small number of collectors of this type of equipment, but why should they be penalized? It is not up to us to prove our right to own any weapon. It is up to the powers that be to show where such weapons are extensively used in some type of violence or crime, and that they have been totally unable to do. Do not be misled into believing that this is an unimportant provision of the bill which could be "conceded" in order to compromise with the bill writers. Any concessions of any nature will result in the downfall of all, and selling out one to save something else won't do. Section 1-13 pertains to any of the firearms licenses, either dealers or manufacturers, and it points out that anyone convicted of a crime of any type for which a term of more than one year imprisonment can be imposed shall not have a license. On the surface this appears to be a reasonable requirement. However, there are a number of interesting points. (1) Excluded from such crimes are Federal or State offenses pertaining to anti-trust violations, unfair trade practices, etc., which very often carry penalties of more than one year. They had to put this escape clause in; otherwise, many of the big firms who have been convicted of such crimes would be put out of business. For the little man it could mean means is (1) there will be no more (2) It could prohibit a hunter or Do not be fooled by any of the double talk added on to this section of the act. What it all comes down to without obtaining special licenses, permits, possibly from the Federal Government and every state, you will not travel out of your state with a firearm under any circumstances unless you are fully license cost $1. This would be increased per year. While all these licenses are raised to a prohibitive figure, this is only the beginning. Many gunsmiths are actually, though unknowingly, engated in some form. technically, of manufacture; and while it has not been worth their while to investigate and dig through all the records to collect an extra $24, P would definitely be to their advantage to do so to collect an additional $500 plus penalty. But that would only be that, if you were convicted of drunk driving, a reprehensible affair, nevertheless one that could happen, you would also be out of business as, in many states, it's more than a "one-year offense." There are many other non-violent crimes of which you are not even aware that carry possible terms of imprisonment of more than one year, all of which will prohibit you from having a license of any type. Section 1-15. This has been changed to include not only pistol ammo, as it does now, but also rifle ammunition or any other type. This provision is of minor importance except for your state laws, should they now or in the future make some license distinction in requirements as regards pistol or rifle ammunition. Then it does become serious.. Section 2 titled "Unlawful Acts": It tion call for anyone except a licensed dealer, manufacturer, etc., to transport, ship or receive any type of firearms from interstate or foreign commerce. There are a number of escape clauses indefinitely worded, but what this licensed, and even then that is question- 2 Section 2-3: It will be illegal for any 2In the case of rifles or shotguns, it License fees: These are increased to. a prohibitive and exorbitant sum. Currently, a Federal firearms dealer's if they condescend to let you make the purchase of an additional license since, by not having the right license. you would have violated the act. Consequently, cancellation of current license plus refusal to give you any other license would put you out of business. Anyone engaged in the business of handloading ammunition would require a $500 or a $1,000 license per year. 27 Section 3-C-1, etc.: Before you can even obtain a license, you will have t prove to the satisfaction of the Alcobs and Tobacco Tax Unit that no one any importance in your organization has ever been convicted of any kind of a crime; otherwise, the license will not be granted. You will also have to prove by reason of your business experience that you are entitled to such a license You will also have to prove that you have sufficient financial standing, whatever that may be, that you should be granted a license, and that you have the proper trade connections, otherwise von not be granted a license. In other words if for any reason they do not like your looks, your politics, your religion or |