did david gregory break the law on meet the press holding up that magazine

[Stephanie]

Laws are only for the little people in this country...Gregory is a joke anyway

 

[OODA_Loop]

The proletariat can break the law as long as they are cracking down on the bourgeois.

Did the police do any follow up as to where the clip may have ended up?

Brian Terry does not have faith in the police following up where illegal gun items end up.

 

[saveliberty]

I see, so a gun law does not serve the best interests of the public? I can live with that.

 

[Si modo]

It's a shame that the white guy got a pass on a gun crime. Not as if that ever happens, gun crime or not.

 

[Pogo]

It's a shame that the white guy got a pass on a gun crime. Not as if that ever happens, gun crime or not.

Sooooooooo.... where are the riots? Did I blink?

 

[Si modo]

It's a shame that the white guy got a pass on a gun crime. Not as if that ever happens, gun crime or not.

Sooooooooo.... where are the riots? Did I blink?

Are you crazy?

 

[KissMy]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

 

[Dubya]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

 

[KissMy]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

The police investigation proved the magazine David Gregory had was real & was not a prop. Metro PD turned their results over to the prosecutor who decided not to prosecute. The problem here is that others have been charged & punished for the same thing. If you are connected, you get off. Us little people get punished. These laws are stupid & have not saved any lives. The sheeple are being driven by fear to allow more laws to punish us & not them.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The police investigation proved the magazine David Gregory had was real & was not a prop. Metro PD turned their results over to the prosecutor who decided not to prosecute. The problem here is that others have been charged & punished for the same thing. If you are connected, you get off. Us little people get punished. These laws are stupid & have not saved any lives. The sheeple are being driven by fear to allow more laws to punish us & not them.

What reason did the prosecutor give for deciding not to prosecute?

 

[OKTexas]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

He demonstrated criminal intent by doing it after the police told him no. But you knew that didn't you?

 

[KissMy]

[...]

The police investigation proved the magazine David Gregory had was real & was not a prop. Metro PD turned their results over to the prosecutor who decided not to prosecute. The problem here is that others have been charged & punished for the same thing. If you are connected, you get off. Us little people get punished. These laws are stupid & have not saved any lives. The sheeple are being driven by fear to allow more laws to punish us & not them.

What reason did the prosecutor give for deciding not to prosecute?

Office of the Attorney General Lee Levine letter to NBC regarding Meet the Press David Gregory's possession of the illegal 30 round magazine.

"The device in the host’s possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C.

It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to “possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm” or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a “magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.” Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000,

The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. 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. Of course,the recent tragic, heart-breaking events, particularly at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, which appear to have led to the program in question, also underscore our belief in the vigorous enforcement of such laws.

Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a 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.

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 following the previously mentioned events in Connecticut and the President’s speech to the nation about them. There were, however, other legal means available to demonstrate the point and to pursue this line of questioning with the guest that were suggested to NBC and that could have and should have been pursued.

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."

 

[KissMy]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

Why & how do we get prosecuted for speeding if we did not notice the 30mph sign when leaving a 45mph zone? There is no "Criminal Intent" or "mens rea" involved with accidental speeding. These laws only punish little people. David Gregory's children are guarded by armed security while at school, our children are not. David Gregory wants to keep it that way. What ever happened to "all citizens are created equal"????? David Gregory got to walk on an illegal weapons possession crime that would have & has gotten any of the rest of us prosecuted. If David Gregory can do it, we should all be allowed to do it!!!!!!

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The police investigation proved the magazine David Gregory had was real & was not a prop. Metro PD turned their results over to the prosecutor who decided not to prosecute. The problem here is that others have been charged & punished for the same thing. If you are connected, you get off. Us little people get punished. These laws are stupid & have not saved any lives. The sheeple are being driven by fear to allow more laws to punish us & not them.

What reason did the prosecutor give for deciding not to prosecute?

Office of the Attorney General Lee Levine letter to NBC regarding Meet the Press David Gregory's possession of the illegal 30 round magazine.

"The device in the host’s possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C.

It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to “possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm” or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a “magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.” Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000,

The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. 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. Of course,the recent tragic, heart-breaking events, particularly at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, which appear to have led to the program in question, also underscore our belief in the vigorous enforcement of such laws.

Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a 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.

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 following the previously mentioned events in Connecticut and the President’s speech to the nation about them. There were, however, other legal means available to demonstrate the point and to pursue this line of questioning with the guest that were suggested to NBC and that could have and should have been pursued.

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."

Thank you for posting this.

 

[MikeK]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

Why & how do we get prosecuted for speeding if we did not notice the 30mph sign when leaving a 45mph zone? There is no "Criminal Intent" or "mens rea" involved with accidental speeding. These laws only punish little people. David Gregory's children are guarded by armed security while at school, our children are not. David Gregory wants to keep it that way. What ever happened to "all citizens are created equal"????? David Gregory got to walk on an illegal weapons possession crime that would have & has gotten any of the rest of us prosecuted. If David Gregory can do it, we should all be allowed to do it!!!!!!

I agree. And this notion of "prosecutorial discretion" could serve as precedent in the case of someone in the future who might be charged with criminal possession of a magazine and who is not engaged in anything criminal but can afford to defend on the same grounds as the Gregory example.

 

[Pogo]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

He demonstrated criminal intent by doing it after the police told him no. But you knew that didn't you?

Neither criminal intent nor an infraction of the law are established by "police telling you no". Police don't make laws. In this case two different sets of police had given NBC two different answers on whether it would be legal, not that either answer would have been binding anyway, because again, it's not the job of police to interpret the law. But you knew that, didn't you?

And once again, there's a precedent: George H.W. Bush displaying something he said was "turning our cities into battle zones and (it's) murdering our children".

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A3723_031.do

Bush and Gregory are doing the same thing here. Anyone remember a campaign to get George Bush arrested for possession of crack?
Didn't think so. So get over it already.

 

[KissMy]

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

He demonstrated criminal intent by doing it after the police told him no. But you knew that didn't you?

Neither criminal intent nor an infraction of the law are established by "police telling you no". Police don't make laws. In this case two different sets of police had given NBC two different answers on whether it would be legal, not that either answer would have been binding anyway, because again, it's not the job of police to interpret the law. But you knew that, didn't you?

And once again, there's a precedent: George H.W. Bush displaying something he said was "turning our cities into battle zones and (it's) murdering our children".

President George Bush Sr states... Stock Footage & Video Clips | NBCUniversal Archives

Bush and Gregory are doing the same thing here. Anyone remember a campaign to get George Bush arrested for possession of crack?
Didn't think so. So get over it already.

Bush was a government official handling a bag marked evidence that was given to him by law enforcement. It is so not the same as a civilian possessing an illegal item.

 

[Pogo]

He demonstrated criminal intent by doing it after the police told him no. But you knew that didn't you?

Neither criminal intent nor an infraction of the law are established by "police telling you no". Police don't make laws. In this case two different sets of police had given NBC two different answers on whether it would be legal, not that either answer would have been binding anyway, because again, it's not the job of police to interpret the law. But you knew that, didn't you?

And once again, there's a precedent: George H.W. Bush displaying something he said was "turning our cities into battle zones and (it's) murdering our children".

President George Bush Sr states... Stock Footage & Video Clips | NBCUniversal Archives

Bush and Gregory are doing the same thing here. Anyone remember a campaign to get George Bush arrested for possession of crack?
Didn't think so. So get over it already.

Bush was a government official handling a bag marked evidence that was given to him by law enforcement. It is so not the same as a civilian possessing an illegal item.

Of course it is. Since when is somebody exempt from the law because they're a "government official"? You're actually suggesting that laws only apply to "civilians" -- whatever that means?

Think it through. They're the same thing. If crack is illegal to possess, then George H.W. Bush was in violation of the law, same as David Gregory was. Whether either of them got a go-ahead from some police official is irrelevant, since police have no power to give or withhold "passes".

Had the DA in 1989 wished to, (s)he could technically have pursued a case against the POTUS for this action. Obviously under the circumstances that pursuit would have gone nowhere considering the intent. Just as Bush didn't intend to either sell or ingest the crack, so Gregory didn't intend to shoot anyone. Both were illustrative props. There's no difference except which illegal article was brandished.

Bottom line: if you take the position that David Gregory should have been prosecuted, then you must also take the position that George H.W. Bush should have been prosecuted. You don't get a choice. Because as the Gregory hunters love to keep reminding us -- "the law is the law".

 

[ABikerSailor]

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) says they must show criminal intent to charge you with a gun crime because you posses a banned gun. (3:00) in video I bet that is only the case if you are David Gregory or some other protected political pet.

There are laws requiring criminal intent.

In this case, it's hard to determine if the magazine was a prop or not.

The right-wing interest just shows the lengths they will go to attack someone with a different point of view. Has anyone from the right suggested on this thread that David Gregory has gun rights, like they claim for their gun nuts? I haven't seen it, so why is that?

Why & how do we get prosecuted for speeding if we did not notice the 30mph sign when leaving a 45mph zone? There is no "Criminal Intent" or "mens rea" involved with accidental speeding. These laws only punish little people. David Gregory's children are guarded by armed security while at school, our children are not. David Gregory wants to keep it that way. What ever happened to "all citizens are created equal"????? David Gregory got to walk on an illegal weapons possession crime that would have & has gotten any of the rest of us prosecuted. If David Gregory can do it, we should all be allowed to do it!!!!!!

Got any proof that Sidwell Friends School in Washington DC has armed guards? That's where his kids go to school. Nothing about it on their wiki page.

Matter of fact, here's what the Washington Post says about the school...............

The National Rifle Association is airing a television ad (and has on its website this four-minute video) that says the private school that President Obama’s daughters attend, Sidwell Friends School, has 11 armed guards. It doesn’t.

In fact, it has no armed guards. My Post colleague Glenn Kessler, who writes The Fact Checker column, wrote about the issue here and quoted Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, as saying: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.”

Parents and students say they have never seen one either.

No, Sidwell Friends School has no armed guards