a box of shells. I was amazed at his nerve and somewhat dismayed at the apparent ease with which he had made the purchase. My dismay was doubled much later when I found out what I think were FBI agents making a check on the purchase told us. A hardware clerk confirmed making the sale and identified Gray by his picture. He said he asked for no identification or information of any kind and was given none. There was no receipt or record, and apparently because a rifle was involved rather than a concealable weapon, none was required by Nevada State law. When the clerk was informed that rules under the Federal Firearms Act or one of the acts requires records of such a transaction, the clerk admitted laxness and promised future improvement.

The possession of this rifle seemed to change our captor's plans. It was about 9:30 in the morning by that time. Whereas they had been talking about leaving us in a desolate spot, stealing another car. and heading across Nevada, they now began to talk about holing up in the high Sierra, which would have meant doubling back on their tracks and in fact they did double back. But before they did so, within the next half hour they got another .30-30, this time in nearby Minden, Nev., which is just down the road from Carson City. This was a Winchester .30-30 carbine repeater, and again they got more shells. Investigators checking this out later got tentative identification of the purchaser by both a clerk and the manager as Carl Cletus Bowles, who was Gray's partner in this crime. They happened to have been wrong. It was in fact Gray himself who made the purchase because Bowles was still in the car with us at the time it was made. But since neither the clerk nor the manager had asked for identification or information or kept any records of any kind or kept any receipts, I can understand that their memories were not good and they had no way of checking back on who the real purchaser of the rifle was. It was interesting that they did remark to the investigators that they had noticed that the purchaser seemed nervous and that it was unusual that he should buy such a high-powered rifle at this time of the year, not deer season, but they made no effort to find out what it was to be used for or who the people that wanted it were.

At this time there were all points bulletins all over the western part of the United States naming these two men, identifying them and asking people who saw any signs of them or us to please report it to the police immediately.

I can only speculate on what would have happened had there been a requirement of adequate identification, or a compulsory delay of delivery, or a combination of both. At the very least, I would conclude, these men would have been without two high-powered rifles as they continued their flight with us.

As it happened both weapons got some use that day. The first was target shooting out in the desert. They had me busy changing a tire and this did nothing but scare the baby and produce a sore eardrum for my wife. But it also produced in their conversation evidence that firing a gun was the most important act in Bowles' life, and actually evidence that he was a very good shot. Gray conceded Bowles' superiority, but he added one thing, that he was as good a shot as he had to be because he could hit a man-sized target. Both talked about their

increased hitting power now that they had these two rifles, and their ability to deal better with the police with the rifles in their possession. "I think we are going to get it," Gray said to me at one point, "but now we can take a lot of fuzz with us."

The rifles actually helped them get through our first roadblock unscathed and later were used during one brief exchange of gunfire in nearby Tonopah, Nev., shortly before our release. The police were holding their fire in order not to endanger us, but a bartender opened up briefly with a .38 Colt in protest against having the facade of the main Tonopah Casino punctured where he worked. The only result of that bit of vigilante action was a bullet in my leg.

When the two gunmen let me out on the highway outside town, they were still convinced they were going to die, promising to die as a matter of fact, saying they were going to use their rifles to "take a lot of the cops with us." They did not, but they very well could have. It would be easy to demonstrate that much of what happened that day has really little direct relation, with the exception of the identification feature, to the legislation submitted by Senator Dodd, but there are a whole host of indirect relationships. If the Federal firearms laws are not tightened to prohibit mail-order sales without identification and strict limitations on eligibility, what good will it do to tighten State requirements or even to insist on better enforcement of the ones we already have? If the Federal Government is not to make a meaningful effort to do its part to keep arms from going to juveniles, felons, narcotic addicts, and the mentally deranged, how can the States successfully do so? The answers, it seems to me, are clear. Only if both the Federal and State Governments really work at this problem in concert can it be reduced. And, in approaching the methods, the sperific provisions of both Senator Dodd's bill and our continuing legislative program in California, we must do so with the attitude that far more people are far more threatened by loose laws and lax administration than would be burdened by tight laws and strict administration. Personally, I would like to see the Dodd bill go much further to include high-powered rifles and shotguns and to make even tighter the conditions of sales. I have had substantial experience with the realities of securing passage of controversial legislation in California, however, and I recognize the problems Senator Dodd is faced with. I hope that the committee and subsequently the Congress will approve at least as much as Senator Dodd now asks.

If you are interested, I have brought with me for your record a list of the changes we have just made in our State firearms laws. But I mention them here really for only two reasons. First, they indicate a growing concern about the use of firearms in a State which now has almost 10 percent of the Nation's population. And second, they show that we are awfully late in dealing with some problems which should have been dealt with long before if they had been approached with what I would believe to be the right attitude.

Thank you very much.

Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Champion.

I think it would be helpful if you would leave with us the changes that you have made in your State firearms laws.

(The information referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 140" and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 140

[Press release JM No. 669]

BILLS SIGNED BY GOV. EDMUND G. BROWN, JULY 14, 1965

Gov. Edmund B. Brown today signed a series of bills designed to tighten the State's firearms control laws and help keep lethal weapons out of the hands of those who have no legitimate reason to possess them.

The measures were authored by Assemblymen Gordon Winton, Democrat, of Merced, Anthony C. Beilenson, Democrat, of Beverly Hills, and Richard J. Donovan, Republican, of National City. The Winton bills carry out most of the 1964 recommendations of the Governor to the assembly committee on criminal procedure.

"California's firearms laws even before passage of the new legislation were among the best in the Nation," the Governor said. "These measures strengthen them significantly.

"But I believe still tighter controls are required. The recent Hale Champion family kidnaping is a dramatic and timely reminder of that fact.

"I am still deeply concerned over the fact that there are a number of persons in this State who buy or possess concealable firearms without legitimate reason; persons who, because of criminal record, mental condition, age, or lack of training have no business owning a gun.

"Yet such persons have virtually free access to weapons which are designed primarily to kill. And more and more such weapons continue to flood the market."

Nonetheless, he said, "significant progress was made at the 1965 session, particularly in the area of increased penalties for firearms theft and illegal possession, and I commend the authors—particularly Assemblyman Winton-for their leadership in this area.

"The new legislation will result in an increased measure of public protection without infringing on the legitimate firearms rights of sportsmen and hunters, whose groups and associations fully supported these bills."

These were the measures signed:

Assembly bill 389, by Winton, making the theft of any kind of firearms—pistol, rifle, or shotgun-grand theft.

Assembly bill 390, by Winton, increasing the penalty for illegal possession or ownership of a concealable weapon from 5 to 15 years and prohibiting any person who has been convicted of a felony in which he used a firearm from owning or possesssing a firearm.

Assembly bill 391, by Winton, requiring that every person under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian, or responsible adult trained in the use of firearms when carrying a concealable weapon.

Assembly bill 392, by Winton, requiring that the birthdate of the buyer, in addition to his signature and address, must be included in the dealer register of sale of a concealable firearm.

Assembly bill 393, by Winton, providing that no person previously committed to a mental institution may possess or own any firearms unless he has obtained a certificate from the head of the mental institution that he can do so without endangering others.

Assembly bill 1564, by Beilenson, increasing the waiting period on purchase of concealable firearms from 3 to 5 days to permit a more thorough check on the purchaser.

Assembly bill 395, by Donovan, redefining California's "machinegun" provisions to conform to Federal law.

Assembly bill 396, by Donovan, redefining “sawed-off shotgun" and bringing such weapons as the "enforcer," or sawed-off automatic carbine, under tighter control.

Assembly bill 397, by Donovan, exempting antique weapons from the dangerous weapons control law.

Senator DODD. You were kidnaped at gunpoint, I believe, were you not?

Mr. CHAMPION. That is right.

Senator DODD. You know, we have heard a lot of testimony here about the fact that rifles and shotguns are included in this bill. There have been several witnesses who proposed the inclusion of both types of weapons on the grounds that they are not used very much in the commission of crime. Our records show about 30 percent of crimes committed with guns include rifles and shotguns. That, it seems to me, would be a substantial amount. Certainly your experience sheds some light on that controversy.

Mr. CHAMPION. I might say that the men who had us originally had only hand weapons, and they were very anxious to obtain the other weapons. They felt that they were in a bad situation until they had them, and once they had the rifles, they then used the rifles as their primary weapons, both in the roadblock and at other times. They regarded them as the weapons that were really desirable as far as they were concerned.

Senator DODD. What is the nature of the fiery correspondence you have received since you have made known that you were to testify before this subcommittee?

Mr. CHAMPION. Well, I think the burden of it-and there is some correctness in this that we were not kidnaped because the firearms laws were not adequate, and that somehow, because I was arguing that we should change the firearms laws, that I was attempting to blame this sort of act on legitimate purchasers of firearms, and some of these people were quite resentful in their language about what they conceived to be my attitude here. Well, this was not my attitude, of course. As a matter of fact, my 10-year-old son had left a door unlocked that should have been locked, and it might not have happened in that case. But it would have happened to somebody else.

They were looking with guns in their hands for hostages, and actually the first time during the whole episode that the gun laws came into my mind was when they were making those purchases in Nevada while we sat out there in the car. They were buying guns in order to kill policemen, and they were not having to show any identification. They were not having to make any demonstration, apparently, who were two excons 2 weeks out of prison and really nothing to prevent them from obtaining the most lethal kind of weapons. I have not had a chance to answer all my correspondence yet, but I will try to make that clear to them when I do.

Senator DODD. What has been the general nature of the opposition to your firearms legislation in California?

Mr. CHAMPION. Well, it comes in various kinds. As I indicated in my testimony, there are different kinds of people. I think that the testimony that is the most seriously regarded and about which we are most concerned is the testimony that comes from sportsmen who do have a legitimate interest in under what circumstances they can obtain arms. My only feeling there is that they are not showing an understanding of our concern about the other kind of people who own arms. That the safest driver in the world has to obtain a license, has to register his automobile, has to do all sorts of things, has to pass tests showing competence to drive, and that for somebody to own a firearm this is not an outrageous requirement. This is the burden of our discussion with them.

I regard them as responsible people who are seriously concerned. There are, of course, a lot of people I do not regard as responsible who are against it, but the sportsmen, I think, we take it most seriously.

Senator DODD. Did these bandits say anything, make any comments on how easy it was for them to buy the weapons you have described! Mr. CHAMPION. Yes. Apparently they somehow-and this conversation was not pursued-they had earlier picked up shotguns, and I think in one case had cut down a shotgun and used it with other hos tages. Then when they were going to be in a city, they had gotten rid of the weapons, but they were all sure they would be able to pick up more. There seemed to be no problem in their minds about their inability to get firearms when and where they needed them.

Senator DODD. I take it from your experience and from your statement, that you were well aware of the mockery that mail-order gun salesmen make of State law. We have found in the course of our inve tigation and hearings that some of the most indiscriminate mailorder houses are located in California.

Do you think there is anything that the State of California can do to tighten up the practices of these dealers, these mail-order dealers in California?

Mr. CHAMPION. I think probably there are many more things that we could and should do. I understand the attorney general, who is an expert witness in this field, as I am not, has testified before this committee. We did work in this session to tighten the laws substantially, and among other things the Governor, who was a former Attor ney General, having been Attorney General of California for 8 years. has suggested that we should really investigate seriously the problem of total registration of firearms. He has not made that recommendation, but he has asked for a complete legislative investigation of that possibility.

Senator DODD. I think it would be of interest for you to know that I have asked the Treasury Department to thoroughly investigate the sale of two rifles which you described for us. They found some very interesting information. For example, on the first rifle which was purchased where your name was used, photostats of the records of gun stores questions indicated that the entry marked on the sale to Gray appears to have been entered in the book subsequent to the publicity surrounding the case which appeared in the press. There was no entry prior to that time.

Mr. CHAMPION. Apparently it may very well have been after the FBI called, because my information from the U.S. attorney's office is that they said there was no record of such a sale at the time they checked.

Senator DODD. Well, we asked for a more thorough investigation of this particular store.

The second sale also appears to have been completed in violation of the present Federal Firearms Act as you probably know. That is a matter of enforcement of the present act, of course, which certainly needs tightening up in my judgment.

I think your testimony, wholly aside from the grim drama of it. points up as well as perhaps any testimony could the fact that these long guns are used by the criminals and that we have got to do something about it in this country. I refer to the fact that witness after