• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

David Gregory violated law on news show?

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,486
Location
WA USA
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...er-nbc-moderator-violated-law/?iref=allsearch

Washington Metropolitan Police Department is investigating whether NBC’s David Gregory violated D.C. gun laws when he displayed what he described as a 30 round magazine as part of an interview during Sunday’s “Meet the Press.”

“So here’s a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets....."

It’s not known whether the magazine Gregory had in his hand was authentic or a prop. D.C. police spokeswoman Gwen Crump told CNN the department is investigating the matter and would have no further comment at this time.
Click to expand...
I suppose it could have been a prop or a magazine modified to hold ten or fewer cartridges. Even if he was foolish enough to bring a high cap mag to DC, he is probably smart enough to not say anything to the police without his lawyer present. :)

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...er-nbc-moderator-violated-law/?iref=allsearch


I suppose it could have been a prop or a magazine modified to hold ten or fewer cartridges. Even if he was foolish enough to bring a high cap mag to DC, he is probably smart enough to not say anything to the police without his lawyer present. :)

Ranb
Click to expand...

Ran - we just had an instance locally where an "unkown individual" effectively created an unregistered assault weapon on camera for a TV news report on assault weapon law compliant rifles.

I stipulate "UI" because the station isn't talking and DOJ isn't investigating - there must be some section of the California Penal Code I'm not familar with that allows reporters or others to commit felonies during the course of investigative reporting.
 
BStrong said:
I stipulate "UI" because the station isn't talking and DOJ isn't investigating - there must be some section of the California Penal Code I'm not familar with that allows reporters or others to commit felonies during the course of investigative reporting.
Click to expand...
No, it is something else. In WA before July 2011 when no one (including the police and licensed dealers) were allowed to use a silencer on a firearm, the police routinely and openly used them. They claimed the AG exempted them from prosecution. Licensed dealers were also permitted to give silencer demonstrations to the police without fear of arrest. This changed shortly after I asked the WA AG for the same exemption from prosecution and was told that it did not exist. The law was amended during the next legislative session.

This is actually a form of corruption. While the police are allowed or feel they are entitled to break BS laws that have no victims, they are still willing to arrest the others for doing the same. Some people are just teflon coated.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Not being familiar with regard to Washington DC laws it could be that the purchase\acquisition and manufacture of high capacity magazines are illegal while ownership of one is not provided it was owned prior to the ban being enacted. I'm pretty sure that that's how it works here in California.
 
Tempest in a tea pot. The DC police have a lot of time on their hands>

Ranb said:
... In WA before July 2011 when no one (including the police and licensed dealers) were allowed to use a silencer on a firearm, the police routinely and openly used them.
Click to expand...
Why would the police want to use silencers. What advantages do they provide?
 
SezMe said:
Tempest in a tea pot. The DC police have a lot of time on their hands>


Why would the police want to use silencers. What advantages do they provide?
Click to expand...
SWAT operations against multiple persons in a fortified position, such as a terrorist gang barricaded in a building with multiple sally points. Take out the reasr guard without alerting the people guarding the front.
 
Aw, c'mon lefty. How often does that happen? And if it does, you call in the SWAT teams, not the local, run-of-the-mill beat cop.
 
SezMe said:
Aw, c'mon lefty. How often does that happen? And if it does, you call in the SWAT teams, not the local, run-of-the-mill beat cop.
Click to expand...

SWAT teams are the police. He never said who had them other than the police. And for the record SWAT teams are also the run of the mill beat cops when they aren't doing SWAT-type stuff. It's a collateral duty. Don't believe what you see in a Samuel Jackson movie about it. Even LAPD's SWAT team is usually on the beat, not hanging out together somewhere waiting to be called upon. Considering the frequency (or should I say the lack thereof) of them being called upon it would be a tremendous waste of money to have fully qualified police officers (they have to be that first) sitting on their butts "Just in case" and not out policing.
 
leftysergeant said:
SWAT operations against multiple persons in a fortified position, such as a terrorist gang barricaded in a building with multiple sally points. Take out the reasr guard without alerting the people guarding the front.
Click to expand...

Actully, suppressors are far more useful for entry teams - no hearing damage for officers if they must fire during the course of the ooperation, and they can also communicate better w/o attempting to be heard over the sound of gunfire.

I know rural departments that use suppressed rifles for animal control as well.
 
SezMe said:
Why would the police want to use silencers. What advantages do they provide?
Click to expand...
Silencers are just mufflers for guns. They are just as useful on guns as they are on cars. I keep hearing from people that ear plugs or muffs are just as effective but these same people are the ones that would object to wearing hearing protection to protect their ears from unmuffled engine noise.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...er-nbc-moderator-violated-law/?iref=allsearch


I suppose it could have been a prop or a magazine modified to hold ten or fewer cartridges. Even if he was foolish enough to bring a high cap mag to DC, he is probably smart enough to not say anything to the police without his lawyer present. :)

Ranb
Click to expand...

Apparently he sought and was denied permission to use this on his show, but did so anyway:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ory-over-purported-high-capacity-magazine-on/

Now the gun nuts have a gun law they can get behind:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...avid-gregory-breaking-dc-gun-laws_691989.html
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Apparently he sought and was denied permission to use this on his show, but did so anyway:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ory-over-purported-high-capacity-magazine-on/
Click to expand...
LaPierre replied: "I don't believe that's going to make one difference. There are so many different ways to evade that even if you had that" ban.
Click to expand...
If you can believe what David Gregory claimed (that it held 30 cartridges), then I guess one should not have a problem believing LaPierre's claim that the ban is easy to evade and will not make a difference.

§ 7-2506.01. "Persons permitted to possess ammunition" is the section that bans magazines greater then ten rounds. I have been looking but am unable to find an exception for the police and magazines possessed prior to 1981.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
That might be one of the many unenforceable laws on the books. So the cops don't bother.

My frinstance would be that in order to ban the possession, the gov has to buy them at fair market value. With no exemption for previous ownership, the law is an "illegal method of taking, without due process".
 
casebro said:
That might be one of the many unenforceable laws on the books. So the cops don't bother.

My frinstance would be that in order to ban the possession, the gov has to buy them at fair market value. With no exemption for previous ownership, the law is an "illegal method of taking, without due process".
Click to expand...

Did he own it or just show it and somene else owned it? Good luck jailing a journalist for filming something illegal.

I suppose people picking up that stylish but illegal Ikea monkey should be jailed, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom