NBC is dealing with an unexpected legal problem after a segment by David Gregory, who displayed what he said was a high-capacity ammunition clip on “Meet the Press.” D.C. law prohibits the possession of high-capacity ammunition clips. This may have been a case where a picture — or consultation with counsel — might have been in order. There is no exception for the media in such possession cases.
On the show with the National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, Gregory showed him the clip and said “Here’s a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets. Now, isn’t it possible that if we got rid of these . . . if we replaced them and said, ‘Well, you can only have a magazine that carries five bullets, or 10 bullets,’ isn’t it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?”
The predictable response from LaPierre was “I don’t believe that’s going to make one difference.” The less predictable response came from gun owners and gun control advocates who noted that the possession of such a clip is a crime. The D.C. law states “No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device.” This does not require that the clip be attached to a weapon and does not appear to require that it have rounds in the clip.
The reported investigation could also ensnare those NBC employees who obtained and transported the clip.
I honestly believe that Gregory is not blameful and that the law should have some flexibility for news or artistic speech when the clip is empty of rounds. What do you think?
Source: Washington Post
gregory should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Moron.
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Interesting argument that mega magazines shouldn’t be banned because guns can be so quickly reloaded that the size of the magazine does not matter. I would guess that reloading fast enough to be as fast as simply continuing to fire with a mega magazine must take some skill and experience. I would suggest as it doesn’t matter to skilled and experience persons it shouldn’t matter to them when they are “hunting” if we ban them so that inexperienced mass murders will have to stop and reload.
As to prosecuting David Gregory, any prosecutor who dis that is obviously looking for some publicity. They can exercise prosecutorial discretion.
Did LaPiere bring it and then have some one complaint? Wouldn’t put past him.
I have an idea lets work on gun control instead of Gregory control.
Bron,
P.S. I agree with you that Gregory is a lamebrain.
Bron,
David Gregory…a liberal? That’s a laugh! You have got to be kidding.
NBC’s David Gregory To Headline Conference For Major Republican Advocacy Group
By Josh Israel on May 12, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/05/12/482926/david-gregory-republican-nfib/
***
Mark Sanford emails expose how David Gregory plays the game
By John Amato
July 19, 2009
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/05/12/482926/david-gregory-republican-nfib/
Hmm, so we should consider the context and usage of an inanimate object before enforcing a law against it? What a concept.
I honestly believe that Gregory is not blameful and that the law should have some flexibility for news or artistic speech when the clip is empty of rounds. What do you think?
Why should the news media be exempted for an empty magazine that is illegal to possess? An average person could be arrested for doing the same thing in that jurisdiction. If the 30 round magazine is so terrible to possess then why was this reporter not hooked up? The argument might be “oh well he was just a reporter, there was no harm in showing it as an example.” Well I would counter that with “so is the same magazine shown by a regular person to his friend as a curiosity any different?”
Last I checked there was nothing in the law that said the news media was exempted from possession of illegal weaponry. Maybe this reporter should be locked up. So why would one say “oh he was just showing a magazine, no harm.” if the possession of such a magazine is so outrageous? It might actually be that in reality the possession of the magazine is not a big deal to anyone but something to which the threat associated with it is greatly exaggerated.
So if the state is prepared to let this reporter off the hook they better also let every other citizen off when their possession was jsut as innocuous.
High capacity.. low capacity. It really doesn’t matter. Can change a magazine so quick or use a stripper clip in a gun with fixed mag it won’t matter to a bunch of unarmed victims.. A man with a revolver and a bolt action rifle is nearly unstoppable unless someone else has a gun or possibly a bow and arrow. As far as NBC s legal trouble I want to say Ha! ha! ha! But; I digress. He is no more a threat than you or me. Non issue.
“he is an elite, liberal member of the MSM.” (bron)
Liberal. eh? News to me.
Someone needs to hit the reset button.
That’s flat-out idiotic.
The DC police have better things to do than arrest a journalist for showing an object to a camera. And the DC courts should be paying attention to more important cases than “the criminal show and tell guy on TV” — they should all be ashamed of themselves for that dumb detestable charade. And Gregory’s lawyers should sue for false arrest and false light.
Great publicity for MTP…ABC will probably have some on their show with a machine gun next week….
sauce for the goose.
he should be locked up if he violated the law. doesnt matter why. but he wont be because he is an elite, liberal member of the MSM. A poor black person would be in jail in about 30 seconds.
Flaunting the law on national television and after a terrible shooting. What kind of insensitive, lame brain is he?
Would this be an opportunity to remove/replace a mouthpiece for the GOP with a more engaging journalist that might actually challenge the delusional talking points of the John McCain/Lindsey Graham Show?
I think that the event is probably harmless, but I do see a legitimate interest by law enforcement to investigate in order to make sure the magazine (it is not a “clip”) isn’t associated with an illegal assault rifle within the District.
I wouldn’t be surprised if LaPierre was the source, bringing it in from NRA HQ across the Potomac River in Virginia where there are no restrictions.
And although I disagree with many NRA arguments, LaPierre is probably correct that the magazine capacity would not prevent psychotic people from doing the damage they do (I know in most, if not all, of the recent cases the shooters changed magazines several times to continue their carnage; a process that takes only a few seconds, not many).
This is a perfect example of just how unworkable a total ban on anything can be.
Years ago, lawmakers were debating on limiting export of a new solid state technology that could conceivably be used in weapons. A representative of the company who made the product came to give testimony, and ended his testimony by asking the subcommittee members if any of them had ever seen the item in question. Of course, they had not. So he took off his tie tac and passed it around. The tiny silicon chip was embedded in his tie tac. The congressmen decided there was not a whole lot they could do to restrict the item.
Short of murdering someone (hyperbole) for demonstration purposes, I find little reason to fault the media for show and tell. They have so many other faults that have no legal remedy. Slaying of truth being one.
I agree – the law is both too aggressive and too rigid – there should be commonsense exceptions and exclusions for inadvertence (the law used to require mens rea).
That having been said, I can’t help but feel a little schadenfreude about a journalist advocating tougher gun laws being ensnared by those same gun laws that he feels are too lenient.
This is so ridiculous. They won’t stop the sale of these things but David Gregory is being investigated and NBC for showing one on TV. What happened? Was he too negative about the NRA?
Meet the Press and Dick Gregor could do an expose from inside the lockup when they get sent to the Big House. Somebody wasn’t thinking!
“here is no exception for the media in such possession cases.”
I don’t agree with this supposition at all.