Ah, that’s the thing: they may have been worried about the legality of a real magazine, but once they got that information, then they could decide to keep the real 30-rounder back in Virginia and go get a prop one instead for use in the show.
this whole thread reminds me of one of the most important historical documentaries ever made
imo he needs to be made an example of, but of course the police can not prosecute him because he is the ruling elite and they are the serfs …
That’s very possible. It just makes Gregory a liar which isn’t especially good for a journalist. Although I suppose it’s possible that Gregory himself didn’t know if it was real or not.
DC law mirrors CA law in many ways, it could be illegal to have a prop if you’re not a certified armorer for a film production company. The story is similar to the outrage when Marky Mark Wahlberg made the movie* “Shooter”*
They had him actually shoot real guns during production, the problem being he is a violent felon and prohibited. Nothing happens because the law is not fairly applied, we have the elite and we have the peasants. If some unimportant liberal facebooker had done the same thing she would be arrested.
Welcome to the wonderful world of gun laws!
That was my first thought. Has it been established that this magazine was in fact genuine and not fake?
+1
Not true. Crack can be smoked in a pipe but it can also be (and is) broken down with something acidic and injected. And as far as it being “harmless” on it’s own, that’s false as well. While it can’t really be used in a manner an addict/recreational drug user might prefer without some sort of object, just ingesting it or crushing it and snorting it would be “harmful” to some degree.
No. According to your linked article -
When Bush gave his speech on the evening of Sept. 5, McMullan and the undercover agent were both at the White House. The undercover agent stood in the Oval Office to maintain “chain of custody” over the crack – a legal phrase that refers to the government’s requirement that it prove any drugs presented in court as evidence are the same drugs used in the crime.
the crack cocaine was actually still in police custody.
It is stupid - which is why this dumbass shouldn’t be on TV arguing that the law should be expanded. Actually being subject to the law he so loves might make him see it for what it really is.
If the DC police aren’t going to charge David Gregory with violating DC law, why should they charge anyone else, within their jurisdiction, who is holding a 30 round magazine?
If the DC police aren’t going to arrest anyone who’s holding a 30 round magazine, then the DC legislature should change the law.
It does allow prosecution in these circumstances and it is stupid, but non-malice-filled gun owners get caught up in these kind of stupid laws with regularity, and get prosecuted, so yes, they should prosecute David “Laws are for Little People” Gregory. Goose, gander, you know how it goes.
It would be absurd to call Gregory a liar for using a prop.
When someone points at a graph on a whiteboard, do you scream, “That isn’t quarterly profits! That’s dry erase marker!”?
Doesn’t matter. The law in question applies to a “device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition”
Your absurd analogy notwithstanding, the quote was:
If he were holding anything other than a magazine capable of holding 30 rounds, I’d call him a liar.
TMZ posted this for what it’s worth:
[
]('Meet the Press' Got the Green Light for Magazine Demo with David Gregory)It goes on to say that the police say they were called and said no.
So different staffers may have called different officials, or they may have called the ATF to make sure.
Is replacing the mechanism “readily restored”? Honestly, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know. Would it have to be filled with cement or something?
You are free to call it as you like. I still say you’re being unreasonable. The quote is fine for my sensibilities.
I can’t stop you from calling him a liar, but unless police can prove that what he showed to LaPierre met the definition of what DC prohibits, he won’t get charged with a crime.
Yes, replacing the spring would count as “readily restored”. I could do that in a minute or so. The ATF (and I assume the same is true of the DC Metro PD) routinely stretch their definitions to absurd lengths to cover as many possible cases as imaginable. I am even skeptical that they’d call “filled with cement” exempt either, as one could chisel away at the cement long enough to restore it to full functionality.
Pulling the spring out does not change an illegal device to a legal device. Cement, in my opinion, would work.
Relying on the ATF is not a defense. The ATF is a federal agency and not an authority on local DC law, even though local DC law also derives from federal authority. The ATF is not the law enforcement agency charged with enforcing DC-specific law.
More interesting is the claim that the following sequence of events occurred:
[ul]
[li]Show calls ATF, asks for advice[/li][li]ATF agent says, “It’s legal under federal law, but let me check with DC for you and see if it’s OK.”[/li][li]ATF then calls back and says, “I checked with DC and they say it’s all right as long as it’s unloaded.”[/li][/ul]
If believed by a finder of fact, I think that story might establish a defense of estoppel by reliance – it’s as least arguable. The only problem would be the claim that DC police also called directly and said, “No, definitely not legal.” The show could not succeed on an estoppel claim if they disregarded the direct guidance of the DC police on DC law in favor of the indirect, relayed, hearsay guidance of the ATF communicating what they understood someone else say about DC law.