Bryan Miller's letter "Know Thy Weapons" to the Washington Post

By Phil Lee, 9/27/04 (Rev. 9/24/06)

Bryan Miller's letter to the editor "Know Thy Weapons," 9/27/04, page A18,  claimed the handgun used (by Bennie Lee Lawson) to kill FBI agent Mike Miller was a MAC-10.  

Yet, in a May 8th, 2003: CeaseFire PA press release (see http://www.ceasefirepa.org/pr/20030508.htm or our copy), he claimed the handgun was a TEC-9.  He repeated that claim in a Freedom States Alliance 5/22/2003 press release (link http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/print/0,2060,563413,00.html no longer works).

His sister, Lisa Miller Delity, also claimed the handgun was a TEC-9 in the June 2003 CeaseFire Maryland bulletin (http://www.ceasefiremd.org/Bulletins/June03.pdf, page 4) and in her short biography on the CeaseFire web page (link no longer works; see our copy).  She claimed it was a MAC-10 in her "Special" to The Sentinel article "It Will Be Ten Years, This Fall" (original link http://www.thesentinel.com/284203322578879.php no longer works so see our PDF copy)

Both siblings have claimed the handgun used was a TEC-9 and both have claimed it was a MAC-10.  Now I wonder which claim is false?  

Well, according to BATFE Special Agent Mark Kraft ("Firearms Trafficking 101 Or Where Do Crime Guns Come From?", Project Safe Neighborhoods, January 2002, Volume 50, Number 1, pp 6-10, United States Department of Justice) both claims are false.  According to Special Agent Kraft, Bennie Lee Lawson began his shooting spree with a "fully automatic MAC-11."  Also, Mr. Miller is wrong about the pistol used to kill FBI Agent Martinez in that event; she was killed with her own handgun while struggling with Lawson.

Why do both siblings seem to have trouble getting right which gun and the type of gun used?  And why do they cite their brother as reason for banning semiautomatic firearms when he was killed with a "fully automatic" machine gun not covered by their ban?

Mr. Miller and his sister Lisa Miller Delity have both shown they are willing to deliberately distort events.  While I feel for their loss, it does not excuse a deliberate distortion of the public record.

[Note: A letter to the editor of the Washington Post giving these corrections and links was sent and ignored by the Post. So, a letter was sent to the Post Ombudsman indication that the their failure to correct the record was evidence of the Post's bias and willingness to support misrepresentation of the facts.  If the Post has taken action on this point, they have not made me aware of it.]