I suspect Mr. Gregory feels that DC’s law is entirely sensible and justified, but that as an enlightened member of the Press, it should not apply to him.
I could be wrong, of course.
… really?
Because nothing will be accomplished. Gregory will have resources behind him to fight this, he hasn’t caused any harm, and the most that would happen in is some sort of probation, but probably no conviction ever. No one will be any safer as a result, and some real criminals will escape conviction because the necessary resources were wasted on this case. Prosecution would not serve the interest of justice.
Uh, what? You don’t get probation if you aren’t convicted.
The guy wants something to be illegal so he takes the item to one of the few places where it is actually already illegal, DC, and rubs their noses in the fact that he is doing the thing they have made illegal? He has made it clear to me that making things illegal doesn’t stop people from doing them, even in front of a TV camera. I hope that was his point.
Do we know whether the magazine that he held was still had a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition or whether it could be restored to that capacity?
All that we know for certain is that he said that it could. It could have been a prop or it could have been modified but then he’d be a liar.
DC’s law makes it illegal to have a magazine capable of holding more than 10 bullets or capable of being restored to a condition where it holds more than 10 bullets. If what Gregory held up is permanently incapable of holding more than 10 bullets, then he shouldn’t be prosecuted. If it was still capable, this will be an interesting exercise in corporate criminal liability.
If Gregory just wanted to show the TV audience what a 30-round magazine looks like, why didn’t he just film that segment outside DC city limits?
Part of me says prosecuting him is silly. But another part of me thinks about gun owners who’ve been arrested on felony charges after airline mishaps temporarily strand them in New York City overnight, and I find myself saying “Screw him.”
So I don’t have a good answer here.
Nailed it in one, I think.
you can say that about all the people who own them now who haven’t caused any harm. Welcome to the world of useless laws.
I would say there is substantive difference between obtaining something to make a public argument that it should be outlawed, and having one for its intended use.
That said, we have no idea if the magazine was working. Maybe they pulled the spring out before they brought it to the office. Maybe it was just a dummy.
Right. If he was caught by the police beforehand and they had the actual magazine in evidence, I’d say charge him. I don’t see how they can convict with only video evidence. It’s just like when Zack Galiafinackis smoked weed on Bill Maher’s show.
Considering John Brown got hanged while David Gregory would be at worst liable for a year in prison (assuming among other things he’s even charged, brought to trial, and doesn’t accept a probation), I don’t find the two situations comparable. For that matter the gun rights people can easily use it as a way to illustrate the silliness of gun laws.
Should George Bush (41) have been prosecuted for possession when he had Crack Cocaine on his desk in the Oval Office? Seems like kind of a similar question to me.
Never mind
Without arguing the usefullness of the law, those who have a magazine filled with bullets and attached to a rifle at least pose a potential threat. In this case it was no more harmful than similar sized hunks of metal. There was no intention to put bullets in the magazine or load it into a weapon. So even if there was a justification for the law in the first place, it wouldn’t include these circumstances. I haven’t seen the text of the law, but it sounds stupid if it allows prosecution in these circumstances.
ISTM that if the magazine weren’t real, NBC wouldn’t have called the police concerning the legality of it. It would still be difficult to prove though.
well you don’t need to see the text of the law to know if it’s legal. All you need to do is call the police and ask. This is what the network did. And they were told no, it was illegal.
Actually, you can’t rely on the police for a legal opinion. But I was just qualifying my statement that the law sounded stupid. I haven’t seen the text, so I don’t know what it actually says.