David Gregory breaks law, gets away with it

[TimothyC]

NBC's David Gregory Won't Be Charged For Showing Ammo Magazine

by Avie Schneider
January 11, 2013 7:55 PM

When NBC News' David Gregory displayed what he said was a high-capacity ammunition magazine on Meet the Press last month, it prompted Washington, D.C., law enforcement officials to investigate whether he had broken a city law.

As Mark reported Dec. 26, D.C.'s official code says in part: "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."

But on Friday, D.C. prosecutors announced that Gregory would not be arrested or charged with a crime.

As The Washington Post reported:
"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."

In the letter, Nathan explained: "Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Obama's address to the nation.

The Associated Press noted that Nathan said there were other legal ways to prove the point and that "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." He said it was a "very close decision" to not bring charges.

Gregory picked up and showed the magazine during his conversation with the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre. Gregory asked LaPierre whether it's possible that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Conn., could be prevented if such high-capacity magazines were made illegal. LaPierre said such a ban would do no good because determined killers would find other ways to carry out such attacks.

Gun control is only for the little people.

[Grumman]

In the letter, Nathan explained: "Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Obama's address to the nation.

Given Washington DC's history on the subject of gun control, I can't say I believe that. I think they only did it because he's on their side of the debate.

[Aaron MkII]

How well is it enforced?

See our laws on guns are all on the federal level, towns and provinces can only give you a fine, so what would he have got?

[Simon_Jester]

Gun control is only for the little people.

Timothy, would it have made any sense to press charges?

We don't press charges for assault and battery every time someone swings a punch, either.

[Vendetta]

Surely it depends on the context of his ownership of the magazine? If it was his own that he brought in for show and tell and he's had it for ages in violation of the law in question, then yes it makes sense.

If it was acquired specifically for the piece in question then it doesn't make sense to press criminal charges in this case, but the local police should request that if NBC want to do any similar features in future they inform them in advance and potentially ask if the police themselves have a prop they can borrow.

[Grumman]

If it was acquired specifically for the piece in question then it doesn't make sense to press criminal charges in this case, but the local police should request that if NBC want to do any similar features in future they inform them in advance and potentially ask if the police themselves have a prop they can borrow.

They did inform them in advance, and while the ATF said it was fine by them, the DC police said no.

In an e-mailed response to the Patriot Perspective blog, police wrote:

“NBC contacted [D.C. police] inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated.” A police spokeswoman confirmed that the e-mail was authentic.

I wouldn't have cared whether he was sentenced or not, as long as he had to stand up in court and argue that his possession of a high capacity magazine should not be against the law. He didn't have to, so he has no reason not to be a hypocritical piece of shit in the future.

[Enigma]

Spending thousands to prosecute David for temporary handling of a mag is quite stupid and a waste of time. Why should they go ahead?

[Beowulf]

Surely it depends on the context of his ownership of the magazine? If it was his own that he brought in for show and tell and he's had it for ages in violation of the law in question, then yes it makes sense.

If it was acquired specifically for the piece in question then it doesn't make sense to press criminal charges in this case, but the local police should request that if NBC want to do any similar features in future they inform them in advance and potentially ask if the police themselves have a prop they can borrow.

Context doesn't matter. The law in question is a strict liability law. If you possess it, you're breaking the law. The lawmakers do that because it's easy to prove that. Laws that require Mens Rea to break are harder, and so they don't like to make them as much, even though that would be fairer.

Spending thousands to prosecute David for temporary handling of a mag is quite stupid and a waste of time. Why should they go ahead?

The DC police have spent thousands on prosecuting people for possession of ammunition, even though they didn't have a gun on them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The point is that the police have just said it's okay for a news reporter to possess a "deadly assault clip" (dumber phrases have never been coined) while ranting about how evil they are, but it's illegal for the common person to do so for their own needs. This is an INTENSELY preferential application of the law, and even people like me who don't mind if they're classified as Class III DD's like silencers to sharply reduce their circulation, find that kind of behaviour to show that the D.C. police are part of a government apparatus whose objective is civilian disarmament no matter what, uncaring about the actual application of the law, ignoring the form and function of the law, and instead using it as a hammer to achieve their own ends, like a dictatorial regime.

[Vendetta]

Context doesn't matter. The law in question is a strict liability law. If you possess it, you're breaking the law. The lawmakers do that because it's easy to prove that. Laws that require Mens Rea to break are harder, and so they don't like to make them as much, even though that would be fairer

The legality of posessing the item might not be affected, but whether it's worth the police resources to prosecute it is. The DC police have so far decided not to spend those resources at this time, and this is probably the best course of action as it allows them to spend their budget on useful prosecutions instead.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Duchess

That is a fair point. The hypocrisy of the banners is one of the ongoing embarrassments of pro-gun control positions, if you ask me. There's so much that could be sensibly justified, if only the pro-control side didn't keep sending anti-control people into an incandescent rage with the little details.

[TheFeniX]

If the magazine was illegal to possess in D.C., where did Gregory get it from? Found it in the AGs letter.

"OAG also appreciates that the magazine was immediately returned to the source that NBC
understood to be its lawful owner outside of the District and that the magazine in question, with
NBC's assistance, has been surrendered to MPD."

Figures.....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wonder if the owner was aware the magazine would be used illegally in this fashion or was deceived by NBC. He could sue them for loss of his property by confiscation (which is what happened to the mag) if so in the latter case.

[Block]

Yeah he should sue them for what? 10 bucks?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The whole criminal deception thing should carry higher penalties.

[Dominus Atheos]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

I disagree with that. I think journalists should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

[Block]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

Depends on the reasoning and crime. If they're breaking and entering to gather information, I'd have a problem with that. This, no, I have no problem, because he wasn't holding it to use, it was basically just a prop so that people could see what he was talking about.

[Grumman]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

The ideal journalist is an adversary of the corrupt; it is the journalists who the government would like to declare illegitimate who are most deserving of protection.

This, no, I have no problem, because he wasn't holding it to use, it was basically just a prop so that people could see what he was talking about.

If someone on the other side of the fence did the same, being denied permission by the DC police to display a high capacity magazine as a prop but doing so anyway, do you believe he should be entitled to the same protection? Do you think the attorney general would give him the same protection?

[Simon_Jester]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

The ideal journalist is an adversary of the corrupt; it is the journalists who the government would like to declare illegitimate who are most deserving of protection.

On the other hand, then we have to get down into a debate about whether it was 'true, righteous' journalism that had this guy using the magazine as a prop. Arguments like that are death on objectivity, and I do NOT want the criminal justice system to get into the habit of skipping objectivity because the person on trial is "a really nice guy," so to speak.

[Block]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

The ideal journalist is an adversary of the corrupt; it is the journalists who the government would like to declare illegitimate who are most deserving of protection.

This, no, I have no problem, because he wasn't holding it to use, it was basically just a prop so that people could see what he was talking about.

If someone on the other side of the fence did the same, being denied permission by the DC police to display a high capacity magazine as a prop but doing so anyway, do you believe he should be entitled to the same protection? Do you think the attorney general would give him the same protection?

What other side of the fence? If it were someone giving a class then sure, that would be fine with me. That's really the only other demonstration with no intent to use kind of purpose I can think of.

[Grumman]

What other side of the fence?

The pro-gun side. If a DC journalist used a high capacity magazine on his show as a prop, to show the little box with a spring in it, easy to manufacture and easy to conceal, that people like Gregory think should or even can be legislated out of availability, do you believe the attorney general would have made the same decision?

[Dominus Atheos]

I don't know about the DC attorney general, but I'd still think it was wrong if a right-wing journalist who showed some type of banned gun as a prop while talking about how it wasn't dangerous and "guns don't kill people, people do" crap, then got arrested and charged. I'd be outraged for sure.

[Block]

What other side of the fence?

The pro-gun side. If a DC journalist used a high capacity magazine on his show as a prop, to show the little box with a spring in it, easy to manufacture and easy to conceal, that people like Gregory think should or even can be legislated out of availability, do you believe the attorney general would have made the same decision?

My response was with no knowledge of what side he is on in the debate so no that wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't know about the DC attorney general, but I'd still think it was wrong if a right-wing journalist who showed some type of banned gun as a prop while talking about how it wasn't dangerous and "guns don't kill people, people do" crap, then got arrested and charged. I'd be outraged for sure.

I'll give you this, you've always been consistent.