can question the power of the press, radio and television and when they have it in for you, as they do with guns and gun ownership, we are in trouble.

But as the going gets rougher, as it will, it behooves the majority of responsible gun-owning sportsmen, to show some well-considered restraint in answering some of the phony charges and figures that will be thrown against us.

Vehement name-calling and harangues against these sources. although justified in most instances, merely give the antigun forces more ammunition to use against us.

We have seen some of our own editorial material completely twisted and taken out of context and used as an illustration of the "irresponsibility of this country's shooters." We don't deny it hurts. But, as the saying goes, there are other ways to skin a cat. We fully intend to use these other ways.

In issues to come, Guns and Ammo magazine, will keep you posted as to what is happening on the antigun front. But more than that, we will make an increased effort to tell you, as responsible gunowners and sportsmen, what you can do to more effectively counter the poison being spread about us.

We shooters, as represented by the industry and publications such as G. & A., have not been exactly idle. Though we may not get the "press coverage" our opposition does, there have been a number of effective moves behind the scenes designed to counter the seemingly overwhelming attacks against responsible gun ownership. You will be hearing more about these moves in coming months.

In the meantime, we must take some measure of cheer that things are not worse on the legislative fronts than they already are. And don't think they couldn't be. It is certainly difficult to imagine, but many of the really obnoxious pieces of legislation, those that would virtually make it impossible to own firearms, are never even introduced on Federal or State levels. We have two groups to thank for this-many of the straight-thinking legislators who are on our side behind the scenes, and those representing the responsible segment of this country's shooters who are able to put the message across. Let's keep our heads and back both groups.

T. J. SIATOs, Editorial Director.

Senator DODD. Mr. Siatos, your real purpose in writing these articles or publishing them and writing that editorial, was to arouse opposition to this bill, isn't that right?

Mr. SIATOS. That is correct, sir.

Senator DODD. Well, you certainly succeeded. I just don't know what to say here about it. I don't know what to say to a man like you who knows better, writing these malicious misstatements about this legislation. You can be against this bill for good reasons, and many people are. But for a publication and an editor to put out this kind of stuff about any piece of legislation is just about as bad as things can get. I am not suggesting that you are the only one, but you are the leader in that pack.

Have

you ever been associated with the Minutemen?

Mr. SIATOS. No, sir.

Senator DODD. Did you ever distribute any of their literature?
Mr. SIATOS. No, sir.

Senator DODD. Are you sure about that?

Mr. SIATOS. I can't recall any instance that we did, sir.

Senator DODD. Do you think you could forget it?

Mr. SIATOS. I simply can't recall any instance when we distributed

Senator DODD. I would like to get you on the record about this and I want to ask you, specifically, if in 1962 you distributed-passed out some of the original Minutemen pamphlets and literature in Los Angeles, Calif.

Mr. SIATOS. No. sir; I categorically deny that, Senator.

Senator DODD. Very well, we will have testimony about that from others. I say I don't ask this lightly, and I don't ask this question.

49-588-65--41

unless I have a reason for it and I am not trying to damage you, but we have this information from a high law enforcement authority of the State of California.

Mr. SIATOS. That we distributed Minutemen literature?

Senator DODD. That you did.

Mr. SIATOS. That I personally did?

Senator Dodd. Yes.

You say you have nothing to do with it. You never distributed any?

Mr. SIATOS. Minutemen literature? Some of the original Minutemen pamphlets and literature?

Senator DODD. It said "Join the Minutemen" on it. I can only tell you what the information was.

Mr. SIATOS. We have received literature from time to time from organizations such as the Minutemen which we simply throw_away, but I honestly cannot recall any time ever having distributed, personally distributed, Minutemen literature.

Senator DODD. All right.

I only ask you because this doesn't come from just gossip or some anonymous letter or some informant we don't know anything about. I can say as much as I can say now until the witness appears but I say it comes from one of the highest law enforcement officers of the State of California.

You say you have never been a member of the Minutemen?

Mr. SIATOS. No, sir.

Senator DODD. Have you been a member of any organization similar to it, these paramilitary groups?

Mr. SIATOS. No, sir; I have not.

Senator DODD. You know they are collecting a lot of heavy destructive weapons.

Mr. SIATOS. Yes, sir.

Senator DODD. Do you think they ought to be allowed to do this? Mr. SIATOS. No, sir; we are completely opposed to that in every way, shape and form, Senator.

Senator DODD. By the way, what is the circulation of your magazine?

Mr. STATOS. Audit Bureau of Circulation is, the latest figure will be, 175,000.

Senator DODD. This is a lot of people.

All right, Mr. Siatos, that is all.

Mr. SLATOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Mr Siatos' prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY THOMAS J. SIATOS, PUBLISHER AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR OF GUNS & AMMO MAGAZINE IN OPPOSITION TO S. 1592 AMENDING THE FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT

(Addendum of summarized or excerpted statements from citizens and organizations received by Thomas J. Siatos in opposition to S. 1592)

The following statement in lieu of a personal appearance as an interested public witness is submitted by Thomas J. Siatos, publisher and editorial director of Guns and Ammo magazine, to the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, in opposition to S. 1592 amending the Federal Firearms Act. The statement represents the personal views, and recommendations, of Mr. Siatos. In an attachment to the statement, Mr. Siatos presents statements and excerpts

of statements he has received from readers of Guns and Ammo magazine, organizations, associations, private individuals, administrative bodies and others throughout the Nation who have communicated to Mr. Siatos their reasons for opposing S. 1592 or reporting their opposition to it. Original copies of all statements contained in the addendum are available for reference.

Mr. Siatos' pertinent credentials qualifying him as an expert witness and commentator on the subject before the committee (subcommittee) are—

1. He is a recognized national authority on technical aspects of guns, ballistics, and ammunition.

2. He is publisher and editorial director of the Nation's largest monthly magazine serving the special interests of sporting gun owners, hunters, marksmen, gun collectors, and gun hobbyists. Guns and Ammo currently has a national monthly circulation of 175.000.

3. He is the author of numerous articles, manuals, and books on firearms and sports shooting.

4. He is an expert marksman who has hunted game in many regions throughout the world.

5. For several years, he has been a student and historian of antigun legislation and philosophies not only in the United States, but in other nations. 6. He served 34 months with the U.S. Marine Corps during World War II. Most of this time he was on combat duty in the Pacific theater. He was discharged honorably with the rank of sergeant.

Comments

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In my opinion, S. 1592 is unworkable in that it will not disarm criminals who want to be armed. The original stated objective of this legislation was to keep mail-order firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals-for example, a potential assassin of a President of the United States. The history of antigun legislation shows that antigun laws do not prevent persons who are bent on committing violent acts with guns from obtaining guns, any more than the Volstead Act made it impossible for citizens to purchase liquor. The Sullivan Act has not prevented or measurably reduced crimes committed with guns in New York, but at the same time the ratio of violent crimes committed with all types of deadly weapons has increased. S. 1592 would not prevent a dedicated and determined assassin (or robber, or narcotics addict) from procuring a gun somewhere to accomplish his purpose. We have a dual objective—a willingness and a keen desire to assist the law enforcement personnel, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to attempt to prevent highly restrictive legislation which would discourage or eliminate the use of firearms by the average law-abiding citizen. Not guns, but crime and the people who commit crimes should be on trial, and the answer to the crime problem does not lie in merely passing another law but in attacking causes and conditions that breed crime and criminals.

2. S. 1592 is rooted deeply in the wave of black reculsion, sorrow, and emotionalism which held the Nation in angry thralldom during the shocking "4 days" beginning with the rifle murder of President John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963, and ending with his burial in Arlington National Cemetery, November 25, 1963. Public appeals for restrictions against easily obtained mail-order guns were voiced, and favorably received by most segments of the American public, during those 4 days. But in the year and a half since the tragic "4 days" the restrictive legislation developed federally by Senator Thomas J. Dodd has grown from a plain statute governing availability of certain types of firearms through coupon or mail-order purchase to a mammoth, detailed piece of legislation which will, in effect, make it difficult if not impossible for many American citizens to own and use firearms-a right that dates back to constitutional law to 1791 and in custom to our earliest colonial history.

3. The multiplicity of dealer fees, registration requirements, occupational fees, gun transportation restrictions, and new burdens of paperwork inherent in S. 1592 will, if carried to their logical enforcement conclusion, in many cases force legitimate dealers of sporting guns out of business and open the door for future restrictive amendments sponsored by antigun enthusiasts (who are always with us) which could virtually eliminate gun ownership use by lawabiding hunters, sports shooters, and gun hobbyists. When I say that S. 1592 could "open a door" for more to come, I am not idly predicting without good and sufficient precedent. For example: Did the easy-going taxpayer of the

year 1913 imagine a 1965 version of form 1040A, or the future significance of the annual milestone date April 15 when the first basic Federal income tax law with its "insignificant" 7 percent ceiling was passed?

4. S. 1592 would create a potentially huge new Federal policing and bureaucratic organization under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury "or his agent," opening up manifold new opportunities for Federal involvement in the affairs of private citizens and small and large business. At this moment in our Nation's internal development, I submit that we should be seeking ways to minimize, rather than increase, the American citizen's statutory responsibilities to individual Federal bureaus and departments. I believe any proposed legislation establishing such a new bureau or administrative power should be scrutinized carefully to determine its possible future influence upon individual personal freedom guaranteed by common law and the U.S. Constitution. I am in agreement with the National Wildlife Federation that in all sections of S. 1592 dealing with unlawful acts that the numerous uses of the term "under such conditions as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe" could lead to complete registration as well as regulations and redtape, no matter how sincerely conceived. I further believe that if this loosely worded but perhaps significantly broad empowering phrase is relegated to an individual interpretation that ownership and legitimate use of firearms could become so difficult as to be impossible for many citizens.

5. In my opinion, one of the principal general criticisms that can legitimately be leveled against S. 1592 in its present form is that it specifically implies a Federal distrust of U.S. citizens who have given no cause to be distrusted. I refer here to gun sportsmen, hunters, and enthusiasts who are respected, lawabiding members of their communities, who have never been suspected or convicted of a violent crime with a gun or other dangerous weapon, but who would be penalized under S. 1592 for violent deeds committed by a conspicuous and wellpublicized criminal minority. C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, in his concluding testimony before the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, put the case this way: "Sportsmen are not opposed to the hoped for objectives of S. 1592. But they disagree with the methods it would employ. The certain inconvenience of S. 1592 far outweighs its scant promise of effectiveness, in our opinion. Sportsmen see in S. 1592 not so much a direct program for reducing armed crime as they see a threat and a continued harassment of their recreational use of firearms. They see an obstacle to their freedom of choice and movement, without the hint of a compensating social benefit."

6. Although S. 1592 specifically defines categories of caliber, bore, firepower, and other measuring characteristics of various firearms, in my opinion the total effect of the bill is, by implication, to tar all firearms generically with a black brush. Since the days of Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill, and on through Tripoli, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, and now in Vietnam, the educated and experienced use of firearms by Americans, whether they were volunteers or conscripted, in time of crisis has been a critical factor in national safety and survival. Indeed, it is a military tradition that, in our peace-loving and peaceseeking Nation, the cadres of young Americans who have already been trained or were self-trained in the careful and effective use of firearms normally form the leadership core of hastily formed infantry units in time of war or preparation for emergency defense against aggressors. "Proper training in the safe and effective use of firearms is as important to the health and security of our Nation now as it was in the early days of our national history," says the National Police Officers Association of America in a formal resolution.

7. S. 1592 represents an infringement upon the American citizen's right to possess and bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Recommendations

1. Codification of Federal and State gun laws within the clear intent of the U.S. Constitution, and with the further intent to protect the rightful heritage of law-abiding American citizens to have and to hold firearms in lawful pursuit of gun sports, for his self-protection, and in the light of the armed citizens' importance in time of national defense emergency.

2. Legislate effectively toward elimination of castoff military firearms, especially those that can be described as "destructive devices."

3. Legislate against crime and the criminal-not against guns and their lawabiding owners and users.

4. Work toward stricter enforcement of existing laws and court-prescribed penalties for violent crimes committed with a gun or the threat of a gun (as well as other deadly weapons).

5. Clarify, and be more specific, in the phraseology dealing with the delegation of authority and administrative discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury “or his agent."

6. Clearly separate and define the difference between a firearm, per se, and a "destructive device."

7. Consider a general down-the-line reduction of license fees now set forth in S. 1592. I believe they are disproportionate and in many cases prohibitive. Senator DODD. Before hearing the next witness, I want to say I think the country must wake up to this vast reservoir of weapons referred to here today. I have been 4 years trying to bring the attention of the public to it. I haven't been alone. But I think it is fair to say that various communication mediums have worked with us so I am going to insert in the record at this point a transcript of the December 21, 1964, newscast of Walter Cronkite, CBS News. The transcript is a detailed filmed telecast with the purpose of showing a veritable arsenal of armaments within eyeshot of Times Square in New York City.

It tells of the purchase of bazookas, mortars, flamethrowers and rifles and so on, and I would like to, of course, commend CBS News for a public service, because it was a public service, and should be made a part of our record, and I so order it.

(The transcript referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 137" and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 137

EXCERPT FROM THE "CBS EVENING NEWS WITH WALTER CRONKITE,"

DECEMBER 21, 1964

CRONKITE. Thousands of copies of this sketch have been distributed by New York police.

This man is wanted for questioning in the firing of a high-explosive shell at United Nations headquarters a week and a half ago.

The weapon was a cut-down bazooka-aimed from across the East River-it fired a shell like this one-8 pounds, 18 inches long-it can carry almost 2 pounds of explosives. Fortunately, it fell harmlessly in the river.

This duplicate shell was purchased by CBS News a few days ago. It was purchased for a reason. You may have wondered-as we did-how difficult it is to obtain these-and even more powerful instruments of death. What sort of credentials are required?

Well, the answer is: No credentials at all.

David Lowe of "CBS Reports" has gone on a shopping spree-in New Yorkwithin 1 mile of the U.N. Building. Here's what happened.

DAVID LOWE. Last Wednesday in a store on West 42d Street, in a transaction that took less than 30 minutes, we bought two bazookas, a 61-millimeter mortar, three teller mines, a flamethrower, and various inactivated shells.

(Film-natural sound of purchase in store.)

DAVID LOWE. When asked why we were buying enough equipment to supply a small army, we said they were for Christmas gifts. The next day we went to another military surplus goods store in downtown Manhattan. We asked for inexpensive rifles. The clerk made a phone call, told us they were available and we settled on a price of $11.50 each. A few minutes later we picked up the weapons from a wholesaler a block from City Hall.

(Film, store.)

CLERK. I checked them out, everything's OK. Got 10 rifles-right? NEWSMAN. Two, four, six, eight, nine, ten, eleven-we have one too many. Look, to carry that thing downstairs, if we each carry five, we should make it down safely. You got two boxes? Put five in a box, we'll each carry one.