Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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 politics, 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?

Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir.

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

[graphic]

On March 28 Senator Dodd of Con

necticut 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 2", excluding shotguns, which means that practically every fire

[graphic]

The Real Facts

[graphic]
[graphic]

ANTI-GUN PLOT THICKENS!

The latest "gun control" bill
introduced by Senator
Thomas Dodd of Connecticut,
could prove the worst
disaster ever to hit this
nation's gun owners.
It could mean you may lose
the right to own a gun.

cuss only Dodd's latest efforts, S-1591
and S-1592, one of them running over
17 pages.

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 Exactly why are these bills so dan-made big-game rifles would be illegal. gerous? Let's analyze them paragraph 9 Included in this section would be by paragraph. It is time consuming, but Hare guns such as are used on private if you love your guns or want to stay in boats and yachts as life-saving devices. business, you had better take the time.

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.

7 For the dealer or gunsmith who may
have a stripped-down gun in his posses-

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
mail order of firearms of any type.

(2) It could prohibit a hunter or
target shooter going from one state to
the other and taking his guns with
him or having them shipped unless
he complied with the law of every
state through which he passed, or
presumably flew over. In other words,
very possibly you would hunt only in
your own state, or you would not do
it at all.

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 to $100 per year. A manufacturer's license currently costing $25 would be increased to $500. A dealer having any so-called destructive devices, including tracer or incendiary ammunition, would require an additional license of $1,000 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 their records to collect an extra $24, it would definitely be to their advantage to do so to collect an additional $400 plus penalty. But that would only be

[graphic][merged small][graphic]

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...

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

licensed, and even then that is question-
able.

2 Section 2-3: It will be illegal for any
dealer to sell a firearm except to a
resident of his state. In other words,
if somebody calls at your shop and
wants to buy a gun while on a hunt-
ing or target-shooting trip and he is
from out of your state, it will be
impossible for you to sell him same.
Supposedly, this excludes rifles and
shotguns.

2In the case of rifles or shotguns, it
requires that the buyer presents docu-
ments to the dealer proving his identity
beyond doubt. It fails to specify what
these documents would be and they
can be very easily construed by licens-
ing authorities to require a birth certif-
icate or some proof or statement from
a local chief of police. In other words,
they would find some way so that a
dealer could make no sales to out-of-
state customers. It would, of course,
make it totally impossible for one col-
lector to trade with another.
23 License fees: These are increased to:
a prohibitive and exorbitant sum. Cur-
rently, 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 to prove to the satisfaction of the Alcoho! and Tobacco Tax Unit that no one of 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 you not be granted a license. In other words. if for any reason they do not like your looks, your politics, your religion or

[graphic]

THE REAL
FACTS BEHIND
S 1592

anything else, you may not be allowed a license in the first place. You will also be required to have a business premise which, if they so choose, could mean that, unless it had a minimum floor space, a minimum number of employees, which they could arbitrarily set, you would be granted no license. 2 Section 3-5-A; It will be illegal for anyone, except for scientific or other highly specialized purpose, and then only covering one gun, to import or bring into the United States, any firearm of any nature, meaning that there will be no more surplus firearms, there will be no more fine foreign sporting guns of any type.

27 Section 3-4-G: This would require

that all records of any type whatsoever
be made available on demand to any
governmental authority, city, state,
county, any subdivision thereof, for any
purpose whatsoever at any time they
so choose. In essence, this means that
anybody who would like to rummage
through a dealer's records would have
the right to do so.

Section 3-4-1: This would require all
firearms to be identified or caused to
be identified in a manner prescribed by
regulation, meaning that if they do not
like the way a gun is marked, they
could require it to be marked in some
other fashion. Would you like to see
your wheellock re-marked? And if they
didn't like the orders or regulations
the first time, they could require further
additional markings whenever it suited
their purpose.

If by now all hunters, target shooters, manufacturer of gun accessories, reloaders, collectors are not firmly con

vinced of the seriousness of this and plish these ends. Only your individual other bills, don't read on.

While we have referred to this bill as
a Dodd bill, it is only one of the many
that have been introduced. However,
this one is specifically pushed and en-
dorsed by President Johnson and par-
tially is his creation, and we quote:
"Here the Federal Government's juris-

diction is limited. State and local action
will be necessary. But at minimum, ce
must make effective local regulation
of firearms possible by increasing Fed-
eral control over interstate shipment of
firearms. In addition, limits must be im-
posed on the importation into this
country." "Mail order sales to individ-
uals would thus stop."

Further and even more to the point,
"Other provisions of this legislation are
designed to make it feasible for the
state to impose effective controls over
firearms within their own boundaries.
I urge the governors of our states and
mayors and other local public officials
to review their existing legislation,..
End of quote.

In other words, once they are able to pass these Federal laws, this is an open demand on the state, cities, counties to impose the true restrictive legislation which, summed up in a few brief words, is registration, then confiscation.

Many states will never confiscate outright provided you register your guns. You'll never get to buy any more. But an easier method is to impose a tax and each year this tax will be increased to the point where very shortly the cost of owning a gun will be more than the gun costs, thus prohibiting ownership. It is as simple at that.

Unfortunately, in past years when various gun bills have been introduced, they have been directed only at limited segments of the firearms trade such as importation, mail order, etc., etc. Each faction of the gun business or the gun-owning fraternity has said, "This doesn't bother me, I'll ignore it. I'll sell the other guy down the river as long as I'm not bothered." Well, there's nobody left to sell down the river. All of usthe antique man, the modern gun man, the dealer, the mail-order firm, the collector, the small manufacturer, the manufacturer of accessories, either they will hang together or, most assuredly, they will all hang separately.

What can you do? Write your congressman. Write your senator. Write the President. Let him know unequivocally of your stand in this matter. If you wait for Joe to do it, it's going to be too late. Only by massive, concerted action on the part of the individual is there any hope of stopping this gun legislation. No one firm can possibly hope to accom

letters to your representative will have any meaning, and if you don't write. now, tomorrow will be too late. Dodd has said that he is going to rush this. legislation through,

It is essential that your representative be given some alternative, not a sop to. his conscience but a true, legitimate, realistic alternative to these ridiculous bills, and there are fortunately a num ber of congressmen and senators who. have seen fit to introduce sensible legislation restricting not the firearm but penalizing heavily the individual who. uses a firearm in committing a crime.

A very good example of such a bill is H. R. No. 5642 introduced by Rep. Bob Casey (Texas), which proposes: very severe penalties on anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime. (See Rep. Casey's letter in "Pinwheels & Flyers.") Bills such as this get at the heart of the matter. Any of these congressmen or senators who are sin-. cerely interested in prohibiting the use of firearms in crime will be glad to endorse and vote for bills of this type. Those who keep on insisting on firearms control are not interested in the prevention of crime; no matter how much the protest, they are simply interested in removing firearms from the private

citizen.

Do not be misled by well-intentioned, proposals of compromise on the part of some gun people. Compromise with, Dodd on his S-14, his S-1180 bills has: merely resulted in his S-1591 and S-1592. In other words, every time a compromise has been made or agreement attempted, more restrictive and unreasonable legislation has been introduced. One more compromise and there. may be no more private ownership of firearms.

Dealers, collectors, gun clubs, others. who have wide contact with the gunowning and using fraternity can writethe names of their senators and congressmen on a batch of postcards, and every time one of your customers, fellow collectors, club members, gets within range, have him write a personal message on the back of these cards which you can then mail off to the various representatives. A letter, telegram or phone call is better, but a post card is better than nothing.

The name of your congressman or senator can be obtained from your local post office, library, chamber of commerce, possibly your newspapers, or Democratic or Republican headquarters.

The issues are clearly drawn. Further retreat, so-called compromise, will result in a complete loss of your liberties. Now is the time to fight.

Senator DODD. Did a lawyer give you that kind of advice that it would be redundant? An editor might give it to you, I suppose, but I never heard a lawyer advising his client not to show up at a congressional hearing because the testimony he would give would-might be redundant.

Mr. SIATOS. That was actually what happened, Senator. This can be confirmed.

Senator DODD. It was a lawyer's advice?

Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir.

Senator DODD. What is the name of the lawyer?

Mr. SIATOS. Mr. Robert Gottlieb.

Senator DODD. Is he in Los Angeles?

Mr. SIATOS. Yes; he is.

Senator DODD. Was that his reason, the only reason he gave?
Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir.

Senator DODD. It is a very interesting piece of legal advice, I must

say.

Why did you say, for example, that

Under this bill, this bill means that anybody who would like to rummage through a dealer's records would be able to do so.

The bill specifically vests that authority in the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.

Mr. ŠIATOS. Again we are editorializing, and we say anyone, of course, with the legal authority to do so under such a bill as S. 1592. Senator DODD. Well now, in the April 1965 issue, you wrote an editorial, I assume you wrote the editorial in Guns and Ammo, did you; did you write the editorial?

Mr. SIATOS. I can't recall, sir. I don't write the editorials every month and I can't recall the particular issue.

Senator DODD. Well, I am told that you wrote this one. This is the one in which you said:

But for the most part the antigun tirades have been insidious half-truths, downright lies with a goodly measure of slander thrown in.

That was in reference to this bill. You signed that editorial so I think it is fair to say you wrote it.

Mr. SIATOS. I recall that particular passage there. But we were referring specifically to what we at that time felt was very unfair treatment in the press and not specifically to your bill.

Senator DODD. I will put that in the record and let it speak for itself.

(The editorial referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 136" and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 136

The antigun storm has broken in full fury-from coast to coast, from border to border. Antigun forces, starting shortly after the first of the year, have thrown their full weight and resources into a major effort aimed at bringing about a more stringent control of firearms. They are proposing everything from the control of mail-order sale of firearms to the outright elimination or prohibition of the private ownership of guns.

The antigun factions have brought their heaviest artillery barrage of propaganda to bear. It has become virtually impossible to pick up a newspaper, or magazine, listen to the radio or look at television without coming across an antigun stand of some sort. A few of the editorial stands taken by the news media are sensible and well-considered. These suggestions the shooting fraternity have taken to heart and for the most part heartily endorsed-even coming up with additional suggestions initiated by responsible segments of shooting organizations and the firearms industry.

But for the most part, the antigun tirades have been insidious half-truths, downright lies with a goodly measure of slander thrown in.

There can be little doubt that there are unrelenting efforts being made in some quarters to eventually make it very difficult, if not actually impossible, for a private citizen to buy, own and enjoy fireams for recreational or self-defense purposes. This has become apparent to even the most naive of apologists among

us.

It is certainly understandable that any straight-thinking gun owner could become overly incensed at the unfair, if not downright insidious and untruthful way most of the news media has been handling the firearms problem. No one

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »