#40

NEAL KNOX REPORT
By NEAL KNOX

        Washington, D.C.  --  Open Letter To Washington Post:



Dear Editor:


     How funny!  The Post finally got around to reporting that
the D.C. Police had selected the Glock 17 as its new sidearm.

     Why, right there on the front page of the Metro section is a
drawing of their choice:  the infamous Glock pistol -- the very
same "plastic gun," which the Post was editorializing against
only a couple of years ago as "useful only to terrorists."

     When we gunowners told Congress and the Post that the
plastic-framed Glock was the standard Austrian Army sidearm, that
it was being adopted by many U.S. police departments, that it
merely represented the latest technology in the 50-year history
of plastics in firearms, and that it was easily detectable by
conventional security devices, we were scorned and ridiculed for
defending a "terrorist weapon."

     During House Hearings in December 1987, Maryland Attorney
General Joseph Curran railed against the Glock by name, saying no
self-respecting citizen would want to own one of those evil
things.  He wrote one section of the Maryland so-called "Saturday
Night Special" law specifically to ban the Glock.

     During that media-whipped "plastic gun" frenzy the New York
City Council did ban possession of the Glock -- until the Police
Commissioner casually revealed that gun was his favorite.

     About all that torrid history, your reporter said not one
word.  The illustration caption only said the gun "uses some
plastic parts."

     But the Post never looks back.  Now you're on a kick to ban
so-called "assault rifles," the latest target of those same folks
that seem to lead you around with factual blinders and a ring
through your "nose for news."

    Again your reports are as inaccurate and misleading as they
were about the Glock "plastic terrorist weapon."

     Sen. Howard Metzenbaum's latest bill would ban production
and sale to civilians of the Glock pistol, and all other semi-
auto handguns and rifles that are "capable of accepting" a 10-
shot magazine -- as well as not-uncommon 6-shot shotguns and
tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles.  But the Post acts as if
only the semi-auto AKM and UZI would be affected.

     You didn't report upon those Senate hearings last month --
where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms correctly
stated there is no definable difference between an "assault
rifle" and "conventional sporting arms."

     You didn't report that Metzenbaum said his objective is not
reducing criminal misuse of firearms.  When NRA offered to help
draft criminal-control legislation, Metzenbaum exploded "No,
we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking
about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."

     During a "plastic gun" hearing two years ago he said almost
exactly the same thing, that he wasn't interested in improving
airport security, only banning plastic guns.

     To avoid cluttering your readers' minds with facts -- like
police department recognition of the Glock as an outstanding
sidearm -- you virtually ignored the many "plastic gun" hearings,
where the FAA described the Glock as fully detectable.

     Instead, you treated the "plastic gun" issue almost
exclusively on the editorial page, where you could give full vent
to your imagination, and Handgun Control Inc.'s hyperbole, with
utter disregard for facts.  And that's the way you're treating
the effort to ban so-called "assault weapons" -- and as many
other guns as possible.

     There's a certain poetic justice that the Washington police
department now has adopted the very gun the Washington Post so
frequently condemned.  Will we see an editorial saying you were
wrong about that gun being desirable only to terrorists?  Fat
chance!

     Sincerely, Neal Knox, Firearms Coalition.