Q. The mayor of Miami said today that he would withhold any assistance from the city, including police, if federal authorities decide to return Elian Gonzalez to Cuba, and that if there were any violence in the streets he would hold you and Attorney General Reno personally responsible for that. That seems to sound like an invitation for the community to block federal authorities and an assurance to them that the Miami police will stand aside.

A. Well, I like the mayor very much, but I still believe in the rule of law here. We all have to, whatever the law is, whatever the decision is ultimately made, the rest of us ought to obey it.

Gun Control

Q. Mr. President, Charlton Heston is on the college speaking circuit and he said last night it amazes me that the president is so stubborn when it comes to guns. And he notes that there are already 22,000 gun laws on the books by his count, which he says that the administration does not enforce. Could you do more to enforce existing gun laws? And how do you feel about the attack that the N.R.A. has mounted on you and your administration?

A. Well, let me answer the question on the merits. Gun prosecutions are up under our administration and I have asked in this budget for a significant increase to enforce the laws, including more prosecutors, more A.T.F. agents. But, again, I would make the main point, the N.R.A.'s position is that if somebody does something wrong, throw the book at them, but do not have any preventive measures when it comes to guns. They believe that unlike every other area of our life, there should be no prevention. So they say, they didn't want us to have the Brady bill. They said it was too burdensome, but it hasn't been burdensome. They don't want us to close the gun-show loophole, they say it's too burdensome. They're not even for the research into smart-gun technology or for banning large-ammunition clips. There's a case where we have a law on the books, it can't be effectively enforced. These assault weapons are illegal, but the big ammunition clips can be imported because of a loophole in the law, so a law we have can't be effectively enforced. You know, I think that it's just wrong to say that because of the Second Amendment and because there are a lot of people that like to hunt and sport shoot, that prevention plays no role in this. How would you feel if I said, for example, the following: you know, all these people that go through airport metal detectors, 99.999 percent of them are law-abiding, good people, and it is really a pain to go through those metal detectors if you got a money clip in your pocket or a rodeo belt buckle on or something else, and you have to go through two or three times and take your belt off or whatever. It's just too burdensome and I'm just sick and tired of it and I'm going to take these metal detectors down in the airports. And the next time a plane blows up, we're going to throw the book at them.

Now, you're laughing, but what if I said, you know, most people who drive are good, honest, responsible people. And we should just, we ought to repeal the laws, the driver's license laws and repeal the speed limits, and the next time somebody does something wrong and has a 25-car pile-up, we'll just throw the book at them. I mean, a sensible society has a balance between prevention and punishment. . . . And in terms of their attacks on me, you know, that's what I get hired to do, that's part of the president's job description, being attacked by people who disagree with him. That doesn't matter. I still think Charlton Heston is a great actor and I love his movies and I still watch him every time I get a chance. And I loved having him here at the White House not very long ago when he got one of the Kennedy Center Awards. But that's irrelevant to me. The only question is, what is best for the safety of the American people? And guns are no different than any other area of our life. We need a balance between prevention and punishment.

Q. A federal judge with whom you have disagreed in the past today said it was his opinion that you had committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act by releasing those Kathleen Willey letters during the independent counsel investigation. What do you think of that ruling and do you agree with the take of one of your legal advisers earlier today who called this judge ''a loose cannon''?

A. Did one of my legal advisers do that? Well, he does seem to have somehow acquired a significant percentage of the cases involving the White House. That's an interesting story, but anyway. You know, obviously we don't agree with the ruling and I can say that when the decision was made to release those letters, I didn't even have any conversation with anybody about the Privacy Act. I never thought about it, never thought about whether it applied or not, and decided to do it reluctantly only because it was the only way I knew to refute allegations that were made against me that were untrue. And I think they plainly did that, and I would not have done it otherwise. But, I think in terms of the law, there are other reasons that I disagree with the law, with the idea that the Privacy Act, which was generally designed to protect people who had business with the federal government or were complaining about something that the government was doing or had reasons for confidentiality and having to give the government records. There are all kinds of reasons for the Privacy Act. And so I just don't believe that. I think that the opinion of our counsel's office and many other judges who've ruled on this is that act does not apply to this kind of correspondence in the White House. And so we disagree and we'll proceed accordingly.