David Gregory Under Police Investigation Over Gun Magazine On 'Meet The Press'

[listopencil]

I found this to be hilarious, and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

David Gregory Under Police Investigation Over Gun Magazine On 'Meet The Press'

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:16 am EST | Updated: 12/26/2012 1:41 pm EST


UPDATE: NBC News had requested and was denied permission to use a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press." Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson looked into an email allegedly from the Metropolitan Police Department which said that the network contacted the police before the segment. The MPD's Aziz Alali confirmed it, telling Jacobson:

"NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied."

EARLIER: David Gregory is being investigated by police over the gun magazine that he showed on Sunday's "Meet the Press."

Gregory held up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine during his contentious interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre. He was asking LaPierre whether fewer victims would have died in the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School if the gunman had not had access to so many bullets.

Araz Alali, police officer and spokesman, confirmed to Politico on Tuesday that the Metropolitan Police Department is looking into “The 'Meet the Press,' David Gregory incident.” "There are D.C. code violations, D.C. code restrictions on guns, ammunition. We are investigating this matter. Beyond the scope of that, I can’t comment any further," he said.

The code in question says, “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," and has been mentioned by numerous conservatives making the argument against Gregory.

CORRECTION: The headline has been updated to say that Gregory was holding a gun magazine, not a clip, on "Meet the Press.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...03&ir=Politics

[frazod]

I wonder what would have happened if Alex Jones pulled out an "illegal" 30-round magazine to use as a "demonstration."

I'm sure they wouldn't have prosecuted him, though.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by frazod

I wonder what would have happened if Alex Jones pulled out an "illegal" 30-round magazine to use as a "demonstration."

I'm sure they wouldn't have prosecuted him, though.

yeah no shit

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Munson

So what is the point of having a law banning high capacity magazines if you aren't going to enforce it?

Exactly. The statute should now be challenged as arbitrary and capricious and summarily overturned. Thanks David.

[A Salt Weapon]

Some animals are more equal than others.
A pro-obama, gun-grabbing liberal, tv guy, whose kids go to obama's kids school is without a doubt more equal it would appear. Also I believe his wife holds a govt job as well. He is a member of the "laws don't apply to us" class. Not surprised that no charges resulted. Not surprised in the least. What a ****ing joke this countries laws have become. ****ing hypocrites.
Posted via Mobile Device

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Some animals are more equal than others.
A pro-obama, gun-grabbing liberal, tv guy, whose kids go to obama's kids school is without a doubt more equal it would appear. Also I believe his wife holds a govt job as well. He is a member of the "laws don't apply to us" class. Not surprised that no charges resulted. Not surprised in the least. What a ****ing joke this countries laws have become. ****ing hypocrites.
Posted via Mobile Device

I've never seen such a flagrant violation of the law! Holding an object of unknown authenticity for discussion on a news show! Cage that animal and throw away the key!

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by notorious

So, a person unknowingly ships a high-cap mag or rifle through the NY or Chicago airport and gets caught goes through a shit-storm of court proceedings and lawyer fees, but a dipshit on TV KNOWINGLY breaks the law (bullshit law) after being told "no" by the police doesn't get into any trouble?


WTF?

So, did that happen? Unknowingly?

Ships it to an airport = Holds it for discussion on news program

Seems like pretty much the same thing.

[KC Dan]

Questions: Was he or was he not in possesion on the show of a high capacity magazine? Was he holding it?

And if the law states: “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,"

Was he in violation of the law?

[Munson]

Originally Posted by frazod

I wonder what would have happened if Alex Jones pulled out an "illegal" 30-round magazine to use as a "demonstration."

I'm sure they wouldn't have prosecuted him, though.

They would've SWAT-teamed his ass.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

Questions: Was he or was he not in possesion on the show of a high capacity magazine? Was he holding it?

And if the law states: “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,"

Was he in violation of the law?

Is "possess" defined, for the purposes of the law? Get back to me on that.

Also, sometimes laws are so poorly worded as to leave them unenforceable in some situations. If you saw one of those magazines on the sidewalk and picked it up, not knowing exactly what it was, did you "possess" it for purposes of that law? What if you recognized what it was and took it straight to the police station? Did you "possess" for purposes of the law?

I don't think a journalist holding it for purposes of discussion on a news show meets the intention of the law--that's why he wasn't prosecuted.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Is "possess" defined, for the purposes of the law? Get back to me on that.

Also, sometimes laws are so poorly worded as to leave them unenforceable in some situations. If you saw one of those magazines on the sidewalk and picked it up, not knowing exactly what it was, did you "possess" it for purposes of that law? What if you recognized what it was and took it straight to the police station? Did you "possess" for purposes of the law?

I don't think a journalist holding it for purposes of discussion on a news show meets the intention of the law--that's why he wasn't prosecuted.

I believe I will. Here is the reasoning provided to NBC news to NOT prosecute. They state that he DID violate the law but are choosing not to prosecute at their discretion. Do I think they should have, no but anyone else may not have been so fortunate.

"The device in the host’s possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C.

It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to “possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm” or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a “magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.” Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000,

The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter,especially in a city and a nation that have been plagued by carnage from gun violence. Of course,the recent tragic, heart-breaking events, particularly at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, which appear to have led to the program in question, also underscore our belief in the vigorous enforcement of such laws.

Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a 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.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...r-15-magazine/

[Bump]

how come nobody goes on shooting rampages in Canada? since pretty much everyone there has guns...

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I've never seen such a flagrant violation of the law! Holding an object of unknown authenticity for discussion on a news show! Cage that animal and throw away the key!

Hey pal, I didn't write the law or support it. It has been used 212 times last year against citizens in DC, to not enforce it against a person that blatantly violated it is a joke. The law is a joke and is used as nothing more than to infringe the rights of citizens. To selectively enforce it is a mockery of the judicial system.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Is "possess" defined, for the purposes of the law? Get back to me on that.

Also, sometimes laws are so poorly worded as to leave them unenforceable in some situations. If you saw one of those magazines on the sidewalk and picked it up, not knowing exactly what it was, did you "possess" it for purposes of that law? What if you recognized what it was and took it straight to the police station? Did you "possess" for purposes of the law?

I don't think a journalist holding it for purposes of discussion on a news show meets the intention of the law--that's why he wasn't prosecuted.

I understand your point about possession but in this case he checked with the local police, they told him that he wasn't allowed to do it, and he did it anyway. From what I understand he did knowingly possess an illegal gun magazine. If you start considering the intent of the law you get to some seriously shaky ground though. I think the intent of the law is to lessen the likelihood that an irresponsible person, like a dangerous and violent criminal, has the ability to fire a lot of rounds with minimal effort. We can debate whether the law is effective in accomplishing that end, but I think that is the intent of the law. In that regard there is no difference between what he did and a gun dealer moving that magazine through DC. I would even say that there is no difference between what he did and someone using that magazine at firing range or for sport hunting. Actually, I already said that earlier in the thread but it bears repeating.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

I believe I will. Here is the reasoning provided to NBC news to NOT prosecute. They state that he DID violate the law but are choosing not to prosecute at their discretion. Do I think they should have, no but anyone else may not have been so fortunate.

"The device in the host’s possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C.

It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to “possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm” or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a “magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.” Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000,

The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter,especially in a city and a nation that have been plagued by carnage from gun violence. Of course,the recent tragic, heart-breaking events, particularly at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, which appear to have led to the program in question, also underscore our belief in the vigorous enforcement of such laws.

Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a 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.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...r-15-magazine/

So it's pretty much de minimis non curat lex, they are overlooking it because the illegal activity has been considered trivial in nature.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I understand your point about possession but in this case he checked with the local police, they told him that he wasn't allowed to do it, and he did it anyway. From what I understand he did knowingly possess an illegal gun magazine. If you start considering the intent of the law you get to some seriously shaky ground though. I think the intent of the law is to lessen the likelihood that an irresponsible person, like a dangerous and violent criminal, has the ability to fire a lot of rounds with minimal effort. We can debate whether the law is effective in accomplishing that end, but I think that is the intent of the law. In that regard there is no difference between what he did and a gun dealer moving that magazine through DC. I would even say that there is no difference between what he did and someone using that magazine at firing range or for sport hunting. Actually, I already said that earlier in the thread but it bears repeating.

They considered the intent of the law. Given the way they loosely use the word "possess" they pretty much have to consider it. Otherwise, if I saw one on the sidewalk, they are encouraging me to leave it there for someone else to take rather than pick it up to turn in or discard.