David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law

[OfficerObie59]

This is even further afield: the ATF has no jurisdiction over state laws (which, for present purposes, includes the District of Columbia Code).

Do you know that for certain?

Agreed:

The truth is, the issue isn’t really about throwing David Gregory and the production staff of "Meet the Press" in the slammer anyway -- that would just be an amusing side benefit, especially if they were put in with the same threatening and demeaning treatment and terrifying characters you and I would be subjected to for the “crime” of possessing verboten boxes and springs. It’s about, at a time when the frenzied citizen disarmament mob is howling for new ways to infringe on the Second Amendment, putting two of the nation’s most prominent “gun law” enforcers on record to explain why that should happen to some but not to others, and what their lawful authority for making such distinctions is.

http://www.examiner.com/article/d-c...sked-who-authorized-violation-of-magazine-ban

 

[Kevlar]

If he gets convicted will it make him a prohibited person?

No.

A violation of § 7-2506.01 is a misdemeanor, with a maximum potential penalty of a $1000 fine and/or 1 year incarceration (§ 7-2507.06).

 

[drgrant]

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.

This isn't about "political views" that mother****er would push a button and KILL US ALL if he could get away with it, and you know it. (Just ask him if he supports direct gun confiscation, if the answer is "yes" then he has just threatened you with deadly force, by proxy. ) He's not being honest at all. All these people would love to see us all eradicated or at a minimum, disarmed, even if it means people have to die in the process.

Regardless, nobody here is getting to use "the power of the state" rather we're just laughing at his potential misfortune- him getting ****ed by the very law he SUPPORTS. The guy who supports these kinds of laws is now shitting his pants because he violated one of those laws and got caught doing it. Sorry if you love the law so much you deserve to get ****ed by it. I have no sympathy for those in that position. ZERO.

There are plenty of people who run afoul of this lame law that I would support the defense of. I would not support defending someone whose goal in life is to abuse the power of the state to kill me or deprive me of natural rights.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

No.

A violation of § 7-2506.01 is a misdemeanor, with a maximum potential penalty of a $1000 fine and/or 1 year incarceration (§ 7-2507.06).

Actually this is even better, because DC could just whack them with a fine and still say they are enforcing the law but still let them off, without letting them off, so to speak.

They still won't even do that- they don't want "Anti gun crusader convicted of gun crime" on the front of the Post. Lame.

-Mike

 

[RKG]

Let's be honest though, the DC police are likely looking for an "out" here and will take "the ATF said so". If they think they can get away with it without it coming back to haunt them in the press or a future prosecution.

I could be wrong, but we all know that laws don't apply to the beautiful people until they really, really break them, over and over again.

I agree the DC PD would love to find an "out," but I'd be very surprised if they hid behind "the defendant received false legal advice from a third party;" that would open a huge floodgate.

 

[bullseye]

I agree the DC PD would love to find an "out," but I'd be very surprised if they hid behind "the defendant received false legal advice from a third party;" that would open a huge floodgate.

ATF says its OK to violate local gun laws, Oh, this will be funny, wait, didn't ATF say it OK to have felons buy guns and bring them to Mexico, Heck, the Mag is nothing, move on.

 

[Seamsealer]

An interesting question is "How would this be handled if Wayne LaPierre or Alan Gottlieb did the exact same thing and whipped out a 30 rounder as a prop in a DC TV interview?".

You can bet Gregory sprung the magazine on Lapierre in that interview. Lapierre was probably shocked to see him pull this out his a$$ on the show. He deserves to be charged and pay the price. Remember, we would be found "unsuitable to carry." You know what happens after that.

 

[BillO]

I'd like his ass thrown in jail

 

[Billsail]

I'd like his ass thrown in jail

Wow, you and your little brother (with the little "o") are on opposite sides of the fence.

 

[JohnZ]

No.

A violation of § 7-2506.01 is a misdemeanor, with a maximum potential penalty of a $1000 fine and/or 1 year incarceration (§ 7-2507.06).

I wasn't really expecting an answer. I was just trying to point out the irony of him possibly becoming a PP because he broke a gun law. I know we should not be celebrating the enforcement of bad laws and all that but this just tickles something inside. I hope this follows him for the rest of his life. Ride on airforce one - sorry that gun violation in your background prevents it. Whitehouse correspondent - sorry the clearance didn't come through. Every employer is now doing background checks of their employees to CYA. I know it makes me a bad person but I smile when I think of him having to explain this over and over and over. I guess he doesn't have to worry about a MA LTC either. If he ever does see the light and this is on his record, I'll feel bad for him but at this point I just can't.

 

[That Guy]

An interesting question is "How would this be handled if Wayne LaPierre or Alan Gottlieb did the exact same thing and whipped out a 30 rounder as a prop in a DC TV interview?".

It's true that LaPierre might have been charged already had it been him that did the exact same thing. And everyone on this board would be beside themselves with anger because A) they don't have proof of whether that was a real magazine or if it really held more than 10 rounds and B) we all think the law is asinine.

There is no proof that Gregory was holding a real magazine. XCty (I think it's him - forgive me if I'm wrong) keeps saying DC law allows him to be charged even if what he was holding wasn't a real magazine? Please provide some cite for that bit of info because it makes no sense, even within idiotic guns laws. You're telling me that even if he was holding a 10 rounder, the mere act of him saying it was a hi cap mag makes it an illegal mag? Come on.

This thread is the epitome of everything the NES community rails against - the abuse of government power to further your own political views. It is truly an amazing thing. Whichever poster said the NRA should be offering to represent him should he be charged was 100% right. Calling for someone to be charged under a law you vehemently oppose is hypocrisy. Calling for someone to be charged under a law you oppose when there is no way to even prove he broke that law is calling for the government to abuse its power to further your own agenda. It's wrong and it's disgusting.

 

[Boris]

It's true that LaPierre might have been charged already had it been him that did the exact same thing. And everyone on this board would be beside themselves with anger because A) they don't have proof of whether that was a real magazine or if it really held more than 10 rounds and B) we all think the law is asinine.

There is no proof that Gregory was holding a real magazine. XCty (I think it's him - forgive me if I'm wrong) keeps saying DC law allows him to be charged even if what he was holding wasn't a real magazine? Please provide some cite for that bit of info because it makes no sense, even within idiotic guns laws. You're telling me that even if he was holding a 10 rounder, the mere act of him saying it was a hi cap mag makes it an illegal mag? Come on.

This thread is the epitome of everything the NES community rails against - the abuse of government power to further your own political views. It is truly an amazing thing. Whichever poster said the NRA should be offering to represent him should he be charged was 100% right. Calling for someone to be charged under a law you vehemently oppose is hypocrisy. Calling for someone to be charged under a law you oppose when there is no way to even prove he broke that law is calling for the government to abuse its power to further your own agenda. It's wrong and it's disgusting.

no, a terrorist blowing himself up while setting a bomb or a dickhead getting in trouble with the law he crusades for is IRONY. some may even call it poetic justice. in any case, **** that a**h*** (by ATF or cops or by his prison bunkmate)

 

[xtry51]

I'd actually prefer LaPierre go on TV with one and get arrested, then have the NRA fight the case. At least then I'd feel like he had some balls and was serious about fixing things.

 

[bill o]

Wow, you and your little brother (with the little "o") are on opposite sides of the fence.

I can't believe he ripped off my screen name.

 

[n1bsbri]

Mark Steyn weighs in on this, makes a bunch of good points.

[h=1]Not the absurdity he thought he was exposing[/h]

 

[That Guy]

Those were all excellent points. And if the NRA came to the defense of David Gregory it would go even further in making those points.

 

[cekim]

Those were all excellent points. And if the NRA came to the defense of David Gregory it would go even further in making those points.

If and only if he was willing to change his stance on the law. Until then he gets what he deserves for advocating the persecution of his fellow citizens by being prosecuted.

 

[center442]

If and only if he was willing to change his stance on the law. Until then he gets what he deserves for advocating the persecution of his fellow citizens by being prosecuted.

Exactly. If Gregory said tomorrow that he now realizes how stupid laws like this are I'd argue in his defense. But he won't do that because he would have to admit that he was wrong. He would have to admit that one of the most-loved tenets of liberalism, gun control in the form of a magazine ban, is flawed.

If Mr. Gregory was attacked because of a 1st Amendment issue I'd support him even though I might hate what he says. But he holds one of my civil rights, the 2nd amendment, in contempt. He has no problem using his free speech to attack my right to keep and bear arms, and that is his right. It may be small-minded of me, but I can't work up much outrage over seeing him caught up in violating the very laws that he supports and encourages for his fellow citizens. To paraphrase a line I often hear from gun-grabbers "Why does any reporter need to wave around a high-capacity mag?"

Until he changes his tune I'm content to see him twist in the wind.

 

[Tyke]

If his feet are not held to the fire...this issue goes away...the law stays on the books...and upstanding moral citizens will get jammed up in the future.

 

[Mikel131]

I can't believe he ripped off my screen name.

Better check again
BillO
Join Date
Dec 2005
Location
Eastern Massachusetts
Posts
1,142
Feedback Score
35 (100%)

 

[bill o]

Better check again
BillO
Join Date
Dec 2005
Location
Eastern Massachusetts
Posts
1,142
Feedback Score
35 (100%)

Thank you for this amazing research. I was being ironical, hence the wink.

 

[JimB]

if they don't prosecute Gregory the lase means nothing.

 

[seth72]

There are people on NES who have said that a federal standard capacity magazine ban would never pass because of the Heller decisions. Speciffically, because standard capacity magazines are in common use today.

But, if that is true then how is it that DC is still apparently banning standard capacity magazines? Either DC is not abiding by the SCOTUS ruling, or banning commonly used magazines is allowed under the ruling.

 

[LittleCalm]

My recollection is that after the 2008 Heller case, Heller brouight another case seeking to declare the DC AWB and its 10 round mag limit unconstitutional. He lost that case 2-1 at the circuit court and it never went to the supreme court. That case would be used as precedent in support of upholding a federal ban or at least for allowing states to have AWBs. But I defer to the NES consitutional law scholars.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Mark Steyn weighs in on this, makes a bunch of good points.

[h=1]Not the absurdity he thought he was exposing[/h]

If and only if he was willing to change his stance on the law. Until then he gets what he deserves for advocating the persecution of his fellow citizens by being prosecuted.

Indeed...from the link:

There are two possible resolutions: Gregory can call in a favor from some Obama consigliere who'll lean on the cops to disappear the whole thing. If he does that, he'll be contributing to the remorseless assault on a bedrock principle of free societies – equality before the law. Laws either apply to all of us or none of us. If they apply only to some, they're not laws but caprices – and all tyranny is capricious.

Or he can embrace the role in which fate has cast him. Sometimes a society becomes too stupid to survive. Eleven-year-old girls fined for rescuing woodpeckers, serving Marines put on the no-fly list, and fifth-generation family cats being ordered into separate compounds with "electric wire" fencing can all testify to how near that point America is. But nothing "raises awareness" like a celebrity spokesman. Step forward, David Gregory! Dare the prosecutor to go for the death penalty – and let's make your ammo the non-shot heard round the world!

 

[That Guy]

If you are making the case that, that magazine is real for the purpose of the interview, Then it is real. He can say what ever he wants now, It was a real magazine as he made it to be such. He was not under interragation for a suspicion of a crime, So that falls under spontaneous remarks or utterances.

Thus no further proof is needed.

That's a pretty good legal theory, Perry Mason. Except for the tiny insignificant detail of it being completely wrong.

A remark made without a lawyer present, not under questioning by the police is not an admissible confession - it's hearsay. It may or may not be admitted as evidence at all if a case went to court (depending on the case, the judge, etc), but it would never make it to court on that alone. It could be used as further evidence of guilt if he were dumb enough to hand over the magazine, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Without additional evidence - of which there appears to be none - this case doesn't make it to court and the statement is worthless.

Put it this way - if I went on TV tonight and claimed I murdered Jimmy Hoffa, it may be enough evidence to begin an investigation, but barring some other evidence cropping up, the case isn't even making it to court, much less getting me convicted.

 

[xtry51]

That's a pretty good legal theory, Perry Mason. Except for the tiny insignificant detail of it being completely wrong.

A remark made without a lawyer present, not under questioning by the police is not an admissible confession - it's hearsay. It may or may not be admitted as evidence at all if a case went to court (depending on the case, the judge, etc), but it would never make it to court on that alone. It could be used as further evidence of guilt if he were dumb enough to hand over the magazine, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Without additional evidence - of which there appears to be none - this case doesn't make it to court and the statement is worthless.

Put it this way - if I went on TV tonight and claimed I murdered Jimmy Hoffa, it may be enough evidence to begin an investigation, but barring some other evidence cropping up, the case isn't even making it to court, much less getting me convicted.

Excited utterances are indeed admissible, even when law enforcement is not present, especially during the commission of a crime. You need to study some more law.

 

[That Guy]

It's not considered a confession, which what I said. Read my post where I mentioned that it may or may not be admissible depending on the court. I also said that it would never stand on it's own in court. If you have some legal precedence that you can show me where a spontaneous utterance alone was enough to convict someone, I'd love to see it. In fact, I'll make a $20 donation in your name to the pro-2A organization of your choice if you can provide me with a case where a person was convicted based on a spontaneous utterance with no other evidence whatsoever (I'll end up making the same donation later in my own name when you can't come up with one).


ETA: I didn't realize I had failed to fix a mistake in my other post - it is not labeled "hearsay." That term only applies to second hand admissions of guilt.

 

[soloman02]

That's a pretty good legal theory, Perry Mason. Except for the tiny insignificant detail of it being completely wrong.

A remark made without a lawyer present, not under questioning by the police is not an admissible confession - it's hearsay. It may or may not be admitted as evidence at all if a case went to court (depending on the case, the judge, etc), but it would never make it to court on that alone. It could be used as further evidence of guilt if he were dumb enough to hand over the magazine, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Without additional evidence - of which there appears to be none - this case doesn't make it to court and the statement is worthless.

Put it this way - if I went on TV tonight and claimed I murdered Jimmy Hoffa, it may be enough evidence to begin an investigation, but barring some other evidence cropping up, the case isn't even making it to court, much less getting me convicted.

You do realize JWPaolilliJr is a former police officer right?

You do realize people have been convicted on merely a witness' and police officer's testimony right?

A video of you holding a magazine and claiming it is a 30 round mag (illegal in DC where video was taken) is more than enough to convict.

Watch the following video and learn.

[video=youtube_share;6wXkI4t7nuc]http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]

 

[That Guy]

Simply show me a case where someone has been convicted only on a spontaneous utterance with no other evidence, then. Shouldn't be hard, right? $20 in your name to the pro-2A organization of your choice to show me that.