David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law

[06LemansC6]

Put it this way - if, say, a photograph of me holding what looked like a 2003 date stamped AR 15 thirty rounder suddenly surfaced, I'd like to think the police would still have to come up with more proof than that photo that I actually possessed an illegal mag.

Are you willing to bet that you wouldn't be charged? Are you willing to bet your freedom and LTC on it? I don't know you and may be going out on a limb here, but I doubt that you would be stupid enough to pose for a photograph with a clearly date stamped post MA AWB magazine.

This douche knew the law and decided to ignore it. Just because there is or isn't "concrete proof" doesn't mean much. He and NBC knew the law and made the conscious decision to piss on the very law they are promoting.

 

[bill o]

Again, the way the law is written it need not be a functioning magazine to be charged and found guilty. He spoke on air saying it was. It will be up to him to prove he was lying.

It's TV, dude. It's not real. And the burden of proof is the other way around. The accused doesn't have to prove anything.

 

[TWtommers]

Again, how can people be calling for him to be prosecuted based on waving something around on TV that may or may not have really been a 30 round mag? Unless he admits his guilt, there is no way to prosecute him for this (barring an enormous, costly investigation and sifting through private emails of NBC employees, etc - an invasion of privacy no one here would ever call just if it were happening to an NES member based on similar circumstances).

If he had actually loaded the magazine on television, that would be proof of it being a real mag, but other than that, he's just a clown making outlandish claims on TV - not a crime and not something we should advocate jailing someone over.

Put it this way - if, say, a photograph of me holding what looked like a 2003 date stamped AR 15 thirty rounder suddenly surfaced, I'd like to think the police would still have to come up with more proof than that photo that I actually possessed an illegal mag.

- - - Updated - - -


I think is point is in reference to it being an abusive prosecution, not a legal one.

I want him to be heavily investigated. I want to see him sweat. I want to see the MPD make some sort of example out of him. I don't want him to go to jail.

Why? I want gun owners to be able to capitalize off of this incident. What better example of how patently silly these bans are than to point to the trouble a journalist (who CLEARLY wasn't using this magazine for anywhere near its designed purpose) got into simply for handling it on TV.

Its nearly impossible to PROVE that the magazine he was handling was, in fact, a hi cap mag or even a component of one. Of course, I've never seen a fake magazine that looked that real but what do I know. My prediction is that the MPD will be throughly pissed off at the studio and Gregory. However, I don't see them wanting to prosecute so they'll settle for some hefty fines and a PSA on a future program.

Truthfully, the gun community should be running to his side citing the uselessness of the laws while quietly enjoying his suffering.

 

[06LemansC6]

And the burden of proof is the other way around. The accused doesn't have to prove anything.

Wouldn't it be great if the US court system ACTUALLY worked this way?

 

[TWtommers]

It's TV, dude. It's not real. And the burden of proof is the other way around. The accused doesn't have to prove anything.

In a court of law, yes. The prosecution won't go anywhere. But the point made earlier is valid. Either he has to admit that it was a real mag and he broke the law OR that it was a fake mag that he CLAIMED was real to illustrate how easy it is to get one and how scary they are. He's either a felon or a fraudulent journalist. Remember, he's trying to pass himself off as a journalist on the show in question. Honesty is supposed to be expected.

 

[06LemansC6]

Truthfully, the gun community should be running to his side citing the uselessness of the laws while quietly enjoying his suffering.

Best idea in this thread. Wouldn't it be awesome if he was charged and the NRA publicly offered to fund his defense?

 

[bill o]

In a court of law, yes. The prosecution won't go anywhere. But the point made earlier is valid. Either he has to admit that it was a real mag and he broke the law OR that it was a fake mag that he CLAIMED was real to illustrate how easy it is to get one and how scary they are. He's either a felon or a fraudulent journalist. Remember, he's trying to pass himself off as a journalist on the show in question. Honesty is supposed to be expected.

I don't think he really has to do anything. As far as honesty in journalism... are you serious?

 

[xtry51]

It's TV, dude. It's not real. And the burden of proof is the other way around. The accused doesn't have to prove anything.

You really are living in a dream world aren't you? Have you ever even been involved in an actual criminal case? I assure you the real thing isn't what you've seen on TV.

The prosecution has video of him holding a mag and calling it a real one. Prop or not, that's enough based on DC Law to arrest and prosecute.

Conviction is up to the jury. But there is certainly enough to bring charges.

 

[bill o]

The prosecution has video of him holding a mag and calling it a real one. Prop or not, that's enough based on DC Law to arrest and prosecute.

Conviction is up to the jury. But there is certainly enough to bring charges.

I saw a guy making moonshine on Discovery Channel tonight. I'm on the horn with the revenuers now, hoping they'll really put the screws to him.

 

[OfficerObie59]

It's TV, dude. It's not real. And the burden of proof is the other way around. The accused doesn't have to prove anything.

Okay, now you're just being disingenuous.

This is "Meet The Press", not "Moonshiners", "American Guns", or "Amish Mafia".

And you're confounding the formal burden of proof with the fact that putting on an effective defense also requires some proof--specifically, proof that the magazine was fake--in order to overcome David Gregory's own statement.

 

[ntomsw]

That was a real 30 round AR mag, I mean really?

He should be prosecuted for real too.

 

[KH56010]

Wasn't he on TV showing the mag to a "gun expert"? Pretty good witness to get a conviction?

 

[DJ_99Wing]

 

[TWtommers]

I don't think he really has to do anything. As far as honesty in journalism... are you serious?

Of course I'm serious. Lying, as a journalist, is a serious charge. You may not believe but I will bet that the prospect of having to publicly admit he lied about the magazine being genuine will keep him from using that defense. Journalsists (especially today) are certainly biased and contort the news for their own goals for sure. However, straight out lies, fraud, and plagiarism are still the things that make careers go away when they are uncovered.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I saw a guy making moonshine on Discovery Channel tonight. I'm on the horn with the revenuers now, hoping they'll really put the screws to him.

You actually think reality TV is real?

You may not believe but I will bet that the prospect of having to publicly admit he lied about the magazine being genuine will keep him from using that defense.

He doesn't have to admit or prove anything. The prosecution must prove the mag he showed meets the DC definition of prohibited item.

 

[bill o]

Okay, now you're just being disingenuous.

This is "Meet The Press", not "Moonshiners", "American Guns", or "Amish Mafia".

And you're confounding the formal burden of proof with the fact that putting on an effective defense also requires some proof--specifically, proof that the magazine was fake--in order to overcome David Gregory's own statement.

Ok, let me re-state my position very clearly, so you know I'm not being disingenuous.

Based on the existing video evidence and on-air statements, I would oppose prosecution.

If he had disassembled the mag on live TV, and shown the components, I would oppose prosecution.

If he had filled it with 31 dummy rounds, then cycled them flawlessly through an AR, I would oppose prosecution.

If he had used the 30 round mag as a weapon to beat the shit out of Wayne LaPierre on camera, I would oppose prosecution for possession of a hi-cap.

If a gang member uses a 30 round mag to kill a bunch of innocent people, I would oppose him being charged with possession of an illegal magazine, even if it meant he were to go free.

If one of you were charged with possession of a post-ban 30 round mag, I would oppose your prosecution no matter what. I would hope that the police would knowingly turn a blind eye, that the prosecutors wouldn't waste resources on such frivolity, that the court would dismiss the case at the first opportunity, that you got off on some technicality, or that one or more jurors nullified the law against the judge's instructions.

I see it as a miscarriage of justice whenever anyone suffers from state action of an unjust law, and I do not consider the victim's political beliefs when deciding whether or not prosecution is deserved.


Now, let's talk about who's being disingenuous. David Gregory appears to be honest and I respect his right to say whatever he wants. He truly believes that confiscation and supply reduction of hi-caps would reduce crime and he's trying to persuade the people and politicians of that. I find his views morally reprehensible, but I respect his honesty.

On the other hand, many fake libertarians on this forum say they oppose laws banning certain tubes with springs. Yet they get giddy like schoolgirls at the prospect of using the laws they want to repeal to make someone else suffer and sweat, for the sole reason that they dislike the accused and want to use the muzzle of the government's gun for persuasion. They are using government power as a hired service to persuade leftists that their Constitutionally protected speech and lobbying is wrong.

I respect the right of the fake libertarians to say whatever they want, of course. But if you're using state power as a tool of persuasion, then you're just as much a statist as David Gregory. Just be honest about your views and label yourself as a conservative authoritarian.

 

[bill o]

You actually think reality TV is real?

Sarcasm, Rob.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Ok, let me re-state my position very clearly, so you know I'm not being disingenuous.

Based on the existing video evidence and on-air statements, I would oppose prosecution.

If he had disassembled the mag on live TV, and shown the components, I would oppose prosecution.

If he had filled it with 31 dummy rounds, then cycled them flawlessly through an AR, I would oppose prosecution.

If he had used the 30 round mag as a weapon to beat the shit out of Wayne LaPierre on camera, I would oppose prosecution for possession of a hi-cap.

If a gang member uses a 30 round mag to kill a bunch of innocent people, I would oppose him being charged with possession of an illegal magazine, even if it meant he were to go free.

If one of you were charged with possession of a post-ban 30 round mag, I would oppose your prosecution no matter what. I would hope that the police would knowingly turn a blind eye, that the prosecutors wouldn't waste resources on such frivolity, that the court would dismiss the case at the first opportunity, that you got off on some technicality, or that one or more jurors nullified the law against the judge's instructions.

I see it as a miscarriage of justice whenever anyone suffers from state action of an unjust law, and I do not consider the victim's political beliefs when deciding whether or not prosecution is deserved.


Now, let's talk about who's being disingenuous. David Gregory appears to be honest and I respect his right to say whatever he wants. He truly believes that confiscation and supply reduction of hi-caps would reduce crime and he's trying to persuade the people and politicians of that. I find his views morally reprehensible, but I respect his honesty.

On the other hand, many fake libertarians on this forum say they oppose laws banning certain tubes with springs. Yet they get giddy like schoolgirls at the prospect of using the laws they want to repeal to make someone else suffer and sweat, for the sole reason that they dislike the accused and want to use the muzzle of the government's gun for persuasion. They are using government power as a hired service to persuade leftists that their Constitutionally protected speech and lobbying is wrong.

I respect the right of the fake libertarians to say whatever they want, of course. But if you're using state power as a tool of persuasion, then you're just as much a statist as David Gregory. Just be honest about your views and label yourself as a conservative authoritarian.

I agree with almost everything you are saying here. This is the difference. Gregory wants people that posses the mags to go to jail. We are just giving him what he wants. If nobody investigated this, he should actually be pissed! Actually, even if there was no law, he should realize how much of a demon he is for even holding such an evil killy device. Imagine the carnage he could of caused with that empty mag.

 

[TWtommers]

Now, let's talk about who's being disingenuous. David Gregory appears to be honest and I respect his right to say whatever he wants. He truly believes that confiscation and supply reduction of hi-caps would reduce crime and he's trying to persuade the people and politicians of that. I find his views morally reprehensible, but I respect his honesty.

On the other hand, many fake libertarians on this forum say they oppose laws banning certain tubes with springs. Yet they get giddy like schoolgirls at the prospect of using the laws they want to repeal to make someone else suffer and sweat, for the sole reason that they dislike the accused and want to use the muzzle of the government's gun for persuasion. They are using government power as a hired service to persuade leftists that their Constitutionally protected speech and lobbying is wrong.

I respect the right of the fake libertarians to say whatever they want, of course. But if you're using state power as a tool of persuasion, then you're just as much a statist as David Gregory. Just be honest about your views and label yourself as a conservative authoritarian.

Forgive me, I snipped the first portion of your post in the quote because I agree with it.

Gregory IS being disingenuous. He is not being "honest". I say this because he WANTS a ban on high capacity magazines on a federal level but he is violating DC's law on high caps. If he were honest, he would have turned himself in already for violating the law he supports. Court arguments aside, I think we all know (as rational people and gun owners) that the mag he held was not fake so he did commit a crime. Yet, he sits quietly hoping he gets a pass (as most of us would).

It is because I don't support the law that this "fake Libertarian" wants this process to drag out. While I don't want to see him prosecuted or convicted (something I called out earlier) I do want attention to be drawn to this situation to illustrate the stupidity of this law. I am hoping that his grandstanding turns out to work against him in the sense that it will paint the law he supports as assinine.

 

[cekim]

Why should someone like this be prosecuted? It proves a point to them and anyone else who ago agrees with them that the law is absurd because:
1. It did not take into account his intent.
2. It is just a piece of metal.
3. No one was hurt or even at risk of being hurt.

So, even if you cannot convince them that 2A was designed specifically to limit the power of government to ban such things and and the constitution in general designed to prohibit bans period, you can them thinking about other absurd aspects of our modern legal system that don't pass muster against the design of the constitution and the rights of a free people.

 

[bill o]

If you want to call attention to the stupidity of the law, then call your legislators, march in the streets (I'll be right next to you), give money to civil rights groups that are successfully litigating, educate people about jury nullification of the law, sign petitions, write a blog and letters to the editor, support politicians who love liberty more than power, bring new shooters to the range. Counter the speech you don't like with more speech, not government coercion, even when coercion is expedient.

 

[Buryingthesun]

The man is a hypocrite

Do as I say not as I do I guess

 

[TWtommers]

If you want to call attention to the stupidity of the law, then call your legislators, march in the streets (I'll be right next to you), give money to civil rights groups that are successfully litigating, educate people about jury nullification of the law, sign petitions, write a blog and letters to the editor, support politicians who love liberty more than power, bring new shooters to the range. Counter the speech you don't like with more speech, not government coercion, even when coercion is expedient.

Well, short of a blog I've done all you've suggested and have been left with a fat bucket of fail. So, I'll take the "Enforcement of an insane law against the ridiculous man who wants to mainstream it for $500, Alex!" Ideals are wonderful things but they are rarely capable of forcing change on their own. Ask our founding fathers.

 

[cekim]

If you want to call attention to the stupidity of the law, then call your legislators, march in the streets (I'll be right next to you), give money to civil rights groups that are successfully litigating, educate people about jury nullification of the law, sign petitions, write a blog and letters to the editor, support politicians who love liberty more than power, bring new shooters to the range. Counter the speech you don't like with more speech, not government coercion, even when coercion is expedient.

Legislators, their stupidity and the stupidity of the laws they write are a reflection of the people who elect them and those that advocate amongst those who elect them for these laws.

It is often the case that people push for laws that they would not want to obey and do not expect to be enforced against them.

Casual upper middle class pot smokers will vote for the war on drugs. Fudds will vote for gun bans. Cell phone driver/talkers will vote for bans. ...and so on.

The reality of politics is there is precious little that NEEDS to be done by government in any given span of time.

They need to keep the courts open, they need to defend the country when attacked, they need to enforce your deeds to property and protect your rights.

The rest is theater. The sheep want demagogues to get them excited over this or that and then "do something" about it. Disrupting the demagogues with actions like this creates a valuable check on what they are willing to do the the future.

 

[scottb]

Why should someone like this be prosecuted? It proves a point to them and anyone else who ago agrees with them that the law is absurd because:
1. It did not take into account his intent.
2. It is just a piece of metal.
3. No one was hurt or even at risk of being hurt.

So, even if you cannot convince them that 2A was designed specifically to limit the power of government to ban such things and and the constitution in general designed to prohibit bans period, you can them thinking about other absurd aspects of our modern legal system that don't pass muster against the design of the constitution and the rights of a free people.

+1

 

[Matt_SERE]

...BUT he is a Journalist!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/27/david-gregory-wsj-greta-van-susteren_n_2369357.html

David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren

She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intent to comment a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBC’s David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.

CNN's Howard Kurtz also rejected some critics' claims that Gregory is hiding (he won't be hosting "Meet the Press" this Sunday because he is on vacation). "Gregory had no intent to commit a crime; he was committing journalism instead. Gun owners often say they want the government to leave them alone; why then are some clamoring for Gregory to be prosecuted?" Kurtz wrote.




http://www.baltimoresun.com/enterta...regory-guns-pathetic-20121226,0,4048502.story

Piers Morgan, David Gregory and guns - We're pathetic - Is this the big national dialogue promised after Sandy Hook?


By David ZurawikThe Baltimore Sun
7:52 a.m. EST, December 27, 2012
Remember all the big, high-sounding media talk right after the massacre at Sandy Hook about how maybe now we will have a "national dialogue" about guns? Remember how many members of the media vowed to put aside their own little, selfish, partisan agendas and get serious about making this a safer and saner country for our children?

Well, here we are 12 days out, and what's that big media conversation on guns about?

Whether or not "Meet the Press" host David Gregory broke a law by waving an empty ammunition clip on the air Sunday during an interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and how many people have signed petitions to deport CNN talkshow host Piers Morgan for verbally insulting any gun advocate foolish enough to come on his joke of an interview show.

Could the media be more pathetic?

 

[cekim]

Greta? What is his "intent” of which you speak?

I don't recall the AWB having "intent" as an element of the crime. You are a lawyer, you should know this.

Oh wait? You mean to say that it is ethically, morally and constitutionally wrong to enforce a law banning hunks of metal when there was no evil intent and no harm done?

Hmm, your ideas intrigue me, do you have a newsletter?

 

[Dench]

...BUT he is a Journalist!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/27/david-gregory-wsj-greta-van-susteren_n_2369357.html

David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren

She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intent to comment a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBC’s David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.

CNN's Howard Kurtz also rejected some critics' claims that Gregory is hiding (he won't be hosting "Meet the Press" this Sunday because he is on vacation). "Gregory had no intent to commit a crime; he was committing journalism instead. Gun owners often say they want the government to leave them alone; why then are some clamoring for Gregory to be prosecuted?" Kurtz wrote.




http://www.baltimoresun.com/enterta...regory-guns-pathetic-20121226,0,4048502.story

Piers Morgan, David Gregory and guns - We're pathetic - Is this the big national dialogue promised after Sandy Hook?


By David ZurawikThe Baltimore Sun
7:52 a.m. EST, December 27, 2012
Remember all the big, high-sounding media talk right after the massacre at Sandy Hook about how maybe now we will have a "national dialogue" about guns? Remember how many members of the media vowed to put aside their own little, selfish, partisan agendas and get serious about making this a safer and saner country for our children?

Well, here we are 12 days out, and what's that big media conversation on guns about?

Whether or not "Meet the Press" host David Gregory broke a law by waving an empty ammunition clip on the air Sunday during an interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and how many people have signed petitions to deport CNN talkshow host Piers Morgan for verbally insulting any gun advocate foolish enough to come on his joke of an interview show.

Could the media be more pathetic?

Well I guess someone needs to find the citation in the law that its ok to break X law as long as its done for "journalism."

 

[MetalgodZ]

If you want to call attention to the stupidity of the law, then call your legislators, march in the streets (I'll be right next to you), give money to civil rights groups that are successfully litigating, educate people about jury nullification of the law, sign petitions, write a blog and letters to the editor, support politicians who love liberty more than power, bring new shooters to the range. Counter the speech you don't like with more speech, not government coercion, even when coercion is expedient.

I'm sorry if I don't see how insisting that government laws be fully applied in every applicable case is counter to the goals of either forcing the general public to face their absurdity, or getting the laws repealed.

All of the voters in MA want the laws that they're voting for? OK. F*** them all. Tax audits for everyone, with prosecutions for those that don't report their goods bought out of state. Fines/prosecution for anyone bringing in alcohol (it's illegal, you know). Prosecution for everyone who's got a loose piece of brass in their shoe (or car, or house, or in an envelope in their mailbox) without an LTC/FID. Traffic tickets for driving 66 MPH on the 'Pike. Don't duck out on that permit for installing your new kitchen cabinets, or you'll have to rip them all out and pay to have it restored to the prior finished condition before asking your government permission to proceed with your home renovations that aren't hurting anyone.

I don't want any of it, but I'd rather see it all prosecuted to the full extent of the laws, as currently written, than the noose slowly improved as the stupidest members of society vote for thicker rope, better knots, and a longer drop.

And David Gregory needs to be prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail for a year.

 

[xtry51]

I'm sorry if I don't see how insisting that government laws be fully applied in every applicable case is counter to the goals of either forcing the general public to face their absurdity, or getting the laws repealed.

All of the voters in MA want the laws that they're voting for? OK. F*** them all. Tax audits for everyone, with prosecutions for those that don't report their goods bought out of state. Fines/prosecution for anyone bringing in alcohol (it's illegal, you know). Prosecution for everyone who's got a loose piece of brass in their shoe (or car, or house, or in an envelope in their mailbox) without an LTC/FID. Traffic tickets for driving 66 MPH on the 'Pike. Don't duck out on that permit for installing your new kitchen cabinets, or you'll have to rip them all out and pay to have it restored to the prior finished condition before asking your government permission to proceed with your home renovations that aren't hurting anyone.

I don't want any of it, but I'd rather see it all prosecuted to the full extent of the laws, as currently written, than the noose slowly improved as the stupidest members of society vote for thicker rope, better knots, and a longer drop.

And David Gregory needs to be prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail for a year.

This.

When you allow a class of people to be left alone and basically above the law, thus leaving police to arbitrarily enforce it as they wish, you destroy any possibility of real freedom or equality. This is EXACTLY the same mentality that gave us Jim Crow and gun laws in the first place.