David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law

[Projectile]

I bet that turd owns a few firearms himself.

 

[bill o]

Petitioning the state is absurd, I agree.

However, these laws, no matter how unjust or seemingly unconsitutional, are the law of the land in DC, and until they have been repealed, they must be followed and enforced.

They could be followed and enforced. Or they can be ignored by the people, police, and prosecutors, and nullified by juries.

 

[Projectile]

Or, you could just have Obama make a phone call for you to one of his henchmen:


An official from the D.C. police told a member of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that David Gregory COULD display a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press" Sunday ... TMZ has learned.

Well-placed law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... a staffer from "Meet the Press" called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun control. We're told the ATF person contacted the D.C. police to find out if the District of Columbia -- the place where the show is broadcast -- had a law prohibiting such a display.

Our sources say the D.C. police official informed ATF David could legally show the magazine, provided it was empty. An ATF official then called the staffer from "Meet the Press" to inform them they could use the magazine.



Read more: http://www.tmz.com#ixzz2GBzmDS7H

 

[bill o]

I've got news for you. Gregory would hang you by your bal#s for doing whwat he did if he could get the chance. If he gets a pass then we all get a pass, period.

What legal theory leads you to that conclusion? You're saying that if the government refuses to prosecute someone on the flimsy evidence of appearing on TV holding what looks like it might be an illegal magazine, that the law forbidding those mags is unenforceable?

 

[GM-GUY]

The magazine was identified by him as a 30rd capacity. Either he gets charged, or all others bagged on the law (transiting, not a gang-banger in a drive-by) get their convictions expunged, or he goes on TV and apologized and says he lied.

Those are the only ways out of it.

I am also disturbed that a duly debated, passed, and enacted law can be 'waived' by some pencil pusher somewhere.

 

[Billsail]

Or, you could just have Obama make a phone call for you to one of his henchmen:


An official from the D.C. police told a member of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that David Gregory COULD display a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press" Sunday ... TMZ has learned.

Well-placed law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... a staffer from "Meet the Press" called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun control. We're told the ATF person contacted the D.C. police to find out if the District of Columbia -- the place where the show is broadcast -- had a law prohibiting such a display.

Our sources say the D.C. police official informed ATF David could legally show the magazine, provided it was empty. An ATF official then called the staffer from "Meet the Press" to inform them they could use the magazine.



Read more: http://www.tmz.com#ixzz2GBzmDS7H

Of course!

Well, that's a wrap.

 

[not new guy]

Above the law.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

That's a 10 year no questions asked crime here in Massachusetts... I say lock him up, I know I'd be locked up for it.

2 1/2 year with not LTC. An FID brings it down to a year.

 

[bill o]

The magazine was identified by him as a 30rd capacity. Either he gets charged, or all others bagged on the law (transiting, not a gang-banger in a drive-by) get their convictions expunged, or he goes on TV and apologized and says he lied.

Those are the only ways out of it.

I am also disturbed that a duly debated, passed, and enacted law can be 'waived' by some pencil pusher somewhere.

Charged on the basis of what evidence? "Sorry Detective, a staff member threw the cheap non-functioning prop away after the show. I refuse to answer any more questions. Am I free to go?"

A decision to not prosecute one person does not void the convictions of another person. That's legal fantasy.

 

[Billsail]

The ATF needs to explain why they became involved in "politics".

The DCPD needs to explain why they gave him a "pass".

Of course, who knows if any of this new "revelation" is true.

This response is in regard to post #95.

 

[bullseye]

Charged on the basis of what evidence? "Sorry Detective, a staff member threw the cheap non-functioning prop away after the show. I refuse to answer any more questions. Am I free to go?"

A decision to not prosecute one person does not void the convictions of another person. That's legal fantasy.

I don't know, they probably have a decent witness in Wayne the NRA guy. His expert witness testimony is probably right up there, I mean being the president of the NRA probably knows the difference between a block of wood and a real 30 round mag.

 

[Kevlar]

2 1/2 year with not LTC.

Minimum of 2.5 years (10 year maximum).

An FID brings it down to a year.

Minimum of one year (10 year maximum).

 

[ntomsw]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50297849

 

[Realtor MA]

If he pissed of the DC Police they surely can turn around now and make his life difficult.
a) his people apparently phoned and announced their intentions to the police department b) there are photos/videos showing him holding the magazine up and proclaiming that it's a 30 rounder
They may not get a conviction but they can run up his legal bills and torture him a little and I doubt any judge would throw the case out based on his not guilty plea.
ONe way or the other he's going to look like a turd. Because he either spit in the face of the DC police or he lied to his viewers. Pick one

ETA and if by any chance he's one of those hypocritical elitist gun owners who thinks only he and his friends should have guns then maybe he'll lose his license.

 

[ntomsw]

Screw him. They would nail me to a wall, and they should nail him to a wall. I have no sympathy for stupid people. He thought he was so cool waving around that 30 round mag, how cool does he feel now? Dumbass.

 

[Garys]

Of course!

Well, that's a wrap.

Hardly. Just as we tell people not to rely on what the police tell them regarding firearms laws, the ATF can't assure a TV producer that an act may or may not violate a local law. It might be a defense, but it's certainly no bar to prosecution in and of itself.

That's beyond rank hearsay, it's mere rumor.

 

[mcb]

They may have learned a hard lesson, never go to the cops for legal advice, a half competent firearms attorney could have provided better guidance for short money.

Somehow I think discretion of prosecution will be in his favor.

 

[Garys]

They could be followed and enforced. Or they can be ignored by the people, police, and prosecutors, and nullified by juries.

So people get to pick and choose which laws they want to obey or enforce? That's the liberal way of thinking, not what law abiding people do.

 

[Maclen]

If found guilty of possession, Mr. Gregory will probably be force to pay the fine and that fine will probably be split between him and the network.

 

[bill o]

So people get to pick and choose which laws they want to obey or enforce? That's the liberal way of thinking, not what law abiding people do.

Yes, it's part of being an adult and it's a libertarian - not liberal - way of thinking.

 

[yanici]

What legal theory leads you to that conclusion? You're saying that if the government refuses to prosecute someone on the flimsy evidence of appearing on TV holding what looks like it might be an illegal magazine, that the law forbidding those mags is unenforceable?

That's not what I said. I said that if he, Gregory, gets a pass then any future cases deserve the same discretion. He said outright and publicly that it was a 30 round mag. Not flimsy evidence.

 

[SteelShooter]

Or, you could just have Obama make a phone call for you to one of his henchmen:


An official from the D.C. police told a member of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that David Gregory COULD display a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press" Sunday ... TMZ has learned.

Well-placed law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... a staffer from "Meet the Press" called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun control. We're told the ATF person contacted the D.C. police to find out if the District of Columbia -- the place where the show is broadcast -- had a law prohibiting such a display.

Our sources say the D.C. police official informed ATF David could legally show the magazine, provided it was empty. An ATF official then called the staffer from "Meet the Press" to inform them they could use the magazine.



Read more: http://www.tmz.com#ixzz2GBzmDS7H

So, you can just suspend the laws for your buddies whenever you feel like it?

 

[Garys]

Yes, it's part of being an adult and it's a libertarian - not liberal - way of thinking.

Hardly, but if you really believe it, turn in your LTC and carry anyway. Practice civil disobedience and then defend it in court. Ghandi did it.

 

[RKG]

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cops-probe-nbc-gregory-on-gun-clip-85481.html

Good. Liberals who violate the law with absolutely zero intent to harm anyone or anything should be held to the same standard as otherwise law-abiding gun owners who have the same lack of intent.

The very fact police resources are being wasted on this violation at all is proof of how foolish the law is. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

To be serious for a moment, this is exactly the point.

What I expect Gregory to argue to the D.C. P.D is that no crime was commited because Gregory was using the magazine just to make a statement and he obviously had no intention to shoot anyone or commit any other crime with it. But that is exactly our argument, and in the process Gregory becomes the poster child for the hypocrisy of criminalizing the innocent possession of a device that has the capacity to be criminally employed.

 

[Garys]

To be serious for a moment, this is exactly the point.

What I expect Gregory to argue to the D.C. P.D is that no crime was commited because Gregory was using the magazine just to make a statement and he obviously had no intention to shoot anyone or commit any other crime with it. But that is exactly our argument, and in the process Gregory becomes the poster child for the hypocrisy of criminalizing the innocent possession of a device that has the capacity to be criminally employed.

Which is why they might have to prosecute him. Unless they are going to try to claim some sort of First Amendment exemption for the press. Which also wouldn't surprise me. If they don't prosecute him, it merely serves to underscore the hypocrisy of the law and more importantly the hypocrisy of how the law is enforced.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

a staffer from "Meet the Press" called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun control. We're told the ATF person contacted the D.C. police to find out if the District of Columbia -- the place where the show is broadcast -- had a law prohibiting such a display.

Irrelevant, if the law is being followed. Court precedent is quite clear - the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel applies only when the government official making the representation an act is lawful is from the same level of government as that under which the offense is charged. In other words, "a fed told me it was OK" is not a valid defense to a state (or DC) level charge, and "a local copy told me it was legal" is not a defense to a federal charge.

 

[FreeWillie]

If found guilty of possession, Mr. Gregory will probably be force to pay the fine and that fine will probably be split between him and the network.

Yep you're probably right. More important he will be a felon and forever denied the right to vote or own a firearm.

 

[Garys]

Irrelevant, if the law is being followed. Court precedent is quite clear - the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel applies only when the government official making the representation an act is lawful is from the same level of government as that under which the offense is charged. In other words, "a fed told me it was OK" is not a valid defense to a state (or DC) level charge, and "a local copy told me it was legal" is not a defense to a federal charge.

In MA at least, Promissory Estoppel must be in writing.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

The issue will quickly die. Threatening to prosecute Gregory for illegal possession of a high-cap magazine will only underscore the absurdity of the law and the DC authorities will not want to do that.

Then the idea of not threatening to prosecute also exposes the absurdity of the law......

 

[beaker]

+1

It is wonderful irony.

After some thought, I want this to go as far as possible just short of a conviction. It will show the nation how stupid the law is without setting the liberals on the warpath of enforcement should the ban be instituted at the federal level.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2