David Gregory violated law on news show?

[DDWW]

If he gets a journalistic exemption then I should get one also. I wrote several articles in the past for firearm related magazines.

“Yes officer, this is a unregistered machine gun but I am a journalist doing research for a future article! Yupper that will work.


DDWW

 

[tyr_13]

You can't just flagrantly ignore a law like that, especially if it's true that he sought permission and was denied. Not enforcing the law on him would totally undermine the point he was making anyway. I can't see how it's alright to let him off. Just because other people get away with it is no good reason to not enforce it. Do something illegal on TV and you should fully expect to be brought up on charges. It reminds me of the MTV show where the woman abused her boyfriend.

 

[lobosrul]

Not if it's possession of a human head. Apparently, you have to prove you didn't harvest the head yourself. And I'd like to know why the police didn't just believe my story and felt they had to check it out? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Sure, I did some stuff to the head, but only after it wasn't connected anymore.

Oh yeah, possession of someone else's kid can be trouble too.

I don't consider children to be objects. I guess I should have said non-living objects, that never were alive. But I guess a special exemption would be needed for objects made of leather.

My point being: if David Gregory shouldn't be prosecuted because it was "victimless", then I should be able to drive through DC with an empty 30 round mag in plain sight on the passenger seat without fear of prosecution. As there is no victim.

 

[Polaris]

You can't just flagrantly ignore a law like that, especially if it's true that he sought permission and was denied. Not enforcing the law on him would totally undermine the point he was making anyway. I can't see how it's alright to let him off. Just because other people get away with it is no good reason to not enforce it. Do something illegal on TV and you should fully expect to be brought up on charges. It reminds me of the MTV show where the woman abused her boyfriend.

I'm not familiar with the show in question, but in that case there actually is a victim of a crime. In the case of the magazine there is no victim, the law is stupid, and instead of prosecuting him, the law should be flushed. Amnesty for those previously convicted.

 

[marplots]

I don't consider children to be objects. I guess I should have said non-living objects, that never were alive. But I guess a special exemption would be needed for objects made of leather.

Well, there was that one time when I had that Jarvik 7 and they made a big deal out of it, claiming the guy needed it to "remain in circulation" or something. But I take your point.

Seems like possession of anything stolen would fall under victim though. In our future enlightened society, all will be owned by all and stealing will be impossible.

 

[Aepervius]

And if he did, it was victimless.

So is posssessing a few grams of cocaine, but I am pretty sure you'll get arrested for that.
Or even any other ilelgal substance or objects. Victimless does not matter for law enforcement.

If what he did was illegal, then he should get the same enforcement/punishment as anybody else having done the same thing.

There is one thing I hate beyond mesure is selective enforcement of law depending ont he accused, or victim.

 

[marplots]

Does it matter if the item was functional or not?
At some point, you ought to evade the law as the item no longer fits the defined version, like a de-mil or Hollywood prop.

 

[Polaris]

So is posssessing a few grams of cocaine, but I am pretty sure you'll get arrested for that.
Or even any other ilelgal substance or objects. Victimless does not matter for law enforcement.

If what he did was illegal, then he should get the same enforcement/punishment as anybody else having done the same thing.

There is one thing I hate beyond mesure is selective enforcement of law depending ont he accused, or victim.

Possession of a few grams of cocaine should also be legal. I understand that law enforcement does not comprehend "victimless". I also think that the government should not be in the business of creating victimless crimes.

I too hate selective enforcement - but I err on the side of having fewer people prosecuted than more. I equally hate a system with a vested interest in seeing as many people in jail as possible.

 

[Ranb]

Does it matter if the item was functional or not?
At some point, you ought to evade the law as the item no longer fits the defined version, like a de-mil or Hollywood prop.

It probably does matter if it is functional.

D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01:

b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

If the magazine is not capable of holding more than ten rounds, or doesn't hold any at all, then it should be legal. Gregory claimed it held 30 rounds and the object looked like a real AR-15 30 round magazine, so if the show was made in DC, it sounds like trouble for those who obtained it.

Ranb

 

[Beerina]

I think there is a difference between filming an illegal act and committing an illegal act.

Which was, of course, my point too.

When a police representative says "we don't need you to do that" it's not an order, just a suggestion.

It's a well-crafted bit of rhetoric to properly gain control of the situation. Presumably it works most of the time, and works better than direct orders, which also may or may not be valid. It's the kind of "process" I would write down for police officers were that the kind of processes I wrote.

See also customs officers at airports, who if they pull you aside, sometimes act like arrogant asses, the purpose of which isn't to get off on a little lackey's power trip but rather is calculated to fluster you into goofing or something.

Seen on Facebook:

View attachment 27356

Why was having the prop so important to Gregory? Couldn't you just say "30-round magazine" and "10-round magazine" and get the point across? Is there supposed to be some sort of shock value in showing a "high-capacity" magazine?

I guess I don't understand the motivation.

I do have to say, I would find it terribly delicious to see Gregory's legal team fight these charges on 2nd amendment grounds. I'm torn on whether I would like to see him punished. On one hand, I think the D.C. laws are unjust. On the other hand, I'm pretty confident Gregory is in favor of those laws. Also, the Facebook picture above raises a fair point: why should Gregory be exempted?

The last few times DC gun laws went up against the Constitution in the Supreme Court, things haven't worked out too well for them. It would probably not be in DC's interest to challenge this technicality overlapping with journalism.

It also makes government out to be heavy-handed asses, which is decidedly not in their interests at the moment (or ever.)

 

[SezMe]

If the magazine is not capable of holding more than ten rounds, or doesn't hold any at all, then it should be legal. Gregory claimed it held 30 rounds and the object looked like a real AR-15 30 round magazine, so if the show was made in DC, it sounds like trouble for those who obtained it.

That's what I was thinking. Staff should have filled the magazines with bubble gum or, more seriously, epoxy.

 

[Ranb]

The last few times DC gun laws went up against the Constitution in the Supreme Court, things haven't worked out too well for them. It would probably not be in DC's interest to challenge this technicality overlapping with journalism.

It also makes government out to be heavy-handed asses, which is decidedly not in their interests at the moment (or ever.)

I was thinking it is not in DC's best interest to play favorites. How do you think gun owners feel about a "technicality" overlapping with their otherwise legal and completely benign gun collecting intentions?

I think it is entirely in the DC police's best interests to follow the letter of the law in this case. Failure to do so will make them look corrupt.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

That's what I was thinking. Staff should have filled the magazines with bubble gum or, more seriously, epoxy.

Any real lawyers feel free to correct me. I think any lawyer is going to tell Gregory to keep his mouth shut while they suggest that the magazine was a non-functioning prop.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...orney-general_n_2440237.html?utm_hp_ref=media

D.C. attorney general Irvin Nathan said on Wednesday that he hopes to have a decision on the case soon, Politico reported. "We have received the report of the investigation of MPD," he said. "That report is now with our line prosecutors. I’m expecting their recommendation shortly and then I will make the decision, and I hope I will make that decision this week."

Not sure why it is taking so long. Gregory claimed he had an actual 30 round magazine. Since possession is enough to be in violation of the law, it should be a slam dunk as far as an arrest is concerned. I know a conviction is another story all together.

NBC reportedly sought permission to show the gun magazine on-air before the segment. The D.C. police department confirmed that the network had asked if the display was permissible, and denied the request. However, it was also reported that NBC asked the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and was told that it could show the gun magazine.

Is this like asking dad after mom told you not to do it? Why ask the BATFE when local law trumps federal law in this case?

This is a stupid law and I don't really want to see anyone arrested for it. But when an elitist like Gregory flouts the law on live TV and the authorities don't take the same action they do when finding others who possession these items, it makes DC law enforcement look bad. Are they going to give everyone else the same treatment? Probably not.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

No charges for Gregory.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ory-wont-be-charged-for-showing-ammo-magazine

"D.C. attorney general Irvin B. Nathan announced his decision Friday afternoon by releasing a letter to an attorney for NBC. Nathan wrote that though the device Gregory held up 'meets the definition' of the criminal statute, he wrote that prosecution 'would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/11/miller-david-gregory-gets-scott-free/

In 2012, the police arrested at least 105 people for charges that included possession of a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. The OAG charged 15 of those people in cases that included a “high-capacity feeding device or extended clip.”

Ted Gest, the OAG’s spokesman, explained that, “This does not mean that the 105 arrests were presented to us and we charged only 15. Most of the arrests never made it to us — MPD either didn’t bring them to us or brought them to the U.S. Attorney.”

I wonder what Feinstein would think if police in any area refused to arrest persons who are obviously violating provisions of her AWB if it is passed. Would she side with Nathan?

Ranb

 

[triforcharity]

I think the biggest problem is that I don't believe they could prove it was a functioning magazine.

I think the law in DC is really ******* stupid!

 

[rwguinn]

I think the biggest problem is that I don't believe they could prove it was a functioning magazine.

I think the law in DC is really ******* stupid!

It is exactly the kind of law that keeps the pee-pul safe![/idiot mode]

And exactly the kind of law currently being put forward as what we need to stop the problem of idiots and insane people getting hold of firearms...

 

[casebro]

I suspect it is an 'add on' prosecution. That those actually charged were also charged with other weapons violations.

But this case is still a non-enforcement, 14 amendment issue? Wait 'til the NAACP finds out...

 

[Newtons Bit]

No charges for Gregory.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ory-wont-be-charged-for-showing-ammo-magazine


http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/11/miller-david-gregory-gets-scott-free/


I wonder what Feinstein would think if police in any area refused to arrest persons who are obviously violating provisions of her AWB if it is passed. Would she side with Nathan?

Ranb

That is quite disheartening. I am saddened to see that the laws of our nations capital no longer apply to everyone.

 

[Polaris]

That is quite disheartening. I am saddened to see that the laws of our nations capital no longer apply to everyone.

Feinstein already is hunky-dory with the concept of the law applying to everybody but her.