I was having considerable trouble attempting to follow the logic in The Post's Jan. 26 editorial "Gun Liability -- D.C. Liability."
First, The Post calls the recent D.C. Assault Weapons Liability Act a "dud" and asks for its repeal partly on the basis of the national impact the law would have. Then, without missing a beat, The Post declares the necessity of gun laws with a national impact, the only stipulation being that these laws be enacted by Congress, which ignores that for the past 20 years, Congress has been anything but eager to pass gun laws.
Even if scrapping the weapons bill would lead to more federal money, the idea is a dud. Trading District laws that some in Congress don't like for federal money makes no sense. What would be next? Should we outlaw abortion? How about bringing back the death penalty? Those two alone should be worth enough from Congress to ensure fiscal stability for years to come. Maybe if we got rid of rent control we'd be rich. Where would it end?
Still, the most bizarre point The Post makes is when it voices its concern for Rep. Thomas J. Bliley's (R-Va.) constituents. It is true that some of the people he represents, the gun dealers who sell the majority of weapons used in District crimes, would be adversely effected by this law. Who cares? The Post and the city government should be more concerned about constituents in the District who are getting shot than they are about those across the river who are selling the murder weapons.
Finally, as director of the Home Rule Coalition, which lobbied the Home Rule Act through Congress many years ago, I would like to think my work was not in vain. We didn't pass a Home Rule Act so that every time a controversial issue comes along, the District would immediately cave in to Congress. That would hardly be a model for statehood.
MICHAEL BEARD President Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Washington