Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Page / 30
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:40:59 AM EDT
Think close to 100,000 public schools, heck my high school had two officers always around.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:42:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OODA_Loop:
It points out the hypocrisy of the anointed press and the futility and stupidity of the law itself.


It also ignores that there are already laws on the books.

They do this to try to make it seem easy to get items they think should be prohibited. But those items/transactions are prohibited!!! They are selling a false narrative to the public.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:44:17 AM EDT
Ha!
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:44:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 7:45:14 AM EDT by Gopherboy128]
Originally Posted By pcsutton:

A cop in every school? Anybody know how many schools there are in this nation?


2009-10: 98,817
Source
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:47:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TangledThorns:
Wow, that is funny. Shows how ignorant the media is in regards to local gun laws.


http://thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/david-gregory-violates-dc-gun-law-on-national-tv/

And from the DC Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog:

3. Unlawful Possession of Ammunition – As I mentioned above, in the District of Columbia, unless you are a licensed firearms dealer, you can only possess ammunition for the type of firearm that you are lawfully registered to own. Possession of unlawful ammunition is a crime and can result in a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. It is also illegal to own what is considered a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” which means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

I chose to highlight these three major gun laws because they are the ones most likely to catch someone off guard that has no idea they are in violation of the Washington, DC gun laws.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:47:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 7:48:32 AM EDT by TangledThorns]
I sent this to Drudge, RCP and Mediaite.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:48:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Frost61:
Think close to 100,000 public schools, heck my high school had two officers always around.

Didn't Bill Clinton put 100,000 cops on the street?


Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:49:39 AM EDT
He even looks like a peice of shit
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:50:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 8:03:11 AM EDT by dfowler21]
Not true. Federal law says you can purchase a long gun in any state as long as it is allowed by your state of residence and the state you purchase in. Some states only allow you to purchase in contiguous states though. NC just removed that clause from our laws recently. See USC 922 (b) (3)

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf. It's page 8 according to the page numbers but it is page nine of the PDF itself because of the title page.

Good luck actually making it happen. Scottsdale Gun Club wouldn't let me do it. They insisted on shipping it to my FFL in NC. I can't blame them. The ATF is a capricious organization.
Originally Posted By scottedward58:


If you are a say Florida resident it is illegal to buy a gun while you are in Nevada. The only legal way to do it is like buying over the internet, you pay for it at the dealer in NV and he ships it to your local dealer in FL where you fill out the 4473 and do the background check.


Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:51:08 AM EDT
shop that pic into a QVC screen cap with a $100 price tag
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:52:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By d1jinx:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used.


Yup... that's my thought. But who knows?
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:57:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:59:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By d1jinx:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used.


Yup... that's my thought. But who knows?


That is a good point.


How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:01:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By d1jinx:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used.


Yup... that's my thought. But who knows?


That is a good point.


How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE.


breaking the law is still breaking the law.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:05:22 AM EDT
His dog must now be shot. It's the only fair resolution.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:07:37 AM EDT
updated...

From Westlaw’s listing of DC’s gun laws:

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness
Division I. Government of District.
Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety.
Subtitle J. Public Safety.
Chapter 25. Firearms Control.
Full text of all sections at this level Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations.
Full text of all sections at this level Subchapter VI. Possession of Ammunition.
Current selection§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(b) 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. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:08:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By eracer:
Too bad Mr. LaPierre didn't pick up on that....


I hoped he was going to call him on it.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:09:15 AM EDT


Quick and dirty. Suggestions welcome.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:10:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:11:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 8:11:53 AM EDT by UKjohn]

Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p401/lightfoot007_bucket/misc/gregorywanted2.jpg

Quick and dirty. Suggestions welcome.

nice , look up to my post
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:12:48 AM EDT
Will he be prosecuted?


Press gets a pass because he's just showing how evil it looks. You really think he'll be prosecuted?
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:13:55 AM EDT
Feel free to educate him on his facebook page.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:14:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:15:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By d1jinx:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used.


Yup... that's my thought. But who knows?


That is a good point.


How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE.


If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.

IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.

My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.

IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.


There's no "a cop gave it to me" exemption for "possession".
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:15:57 AM EDT
freakin IN....

if this bonehead gets a free pass,I`ll then believe the chair is against the refrigerator.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:16:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By A_Sibley:
Originally Posted By bookertbab:
Why do these assholes think reloading is such a big deal anyway. This kook reloaded many times. So what if he has to do it a few more. It only takes a few seconds. Getting rid of 30 round mags will do nothing.


Come on.

If it's not a big deal, then why are we fighting tooth and nail to avoid having neutered magazines?


Because we can fight arbitrary bans because they're arbitrary.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:16:55 AM EDT
I saw on the tv they are picking him up right now..get ready they are for sure gonna lock him up for this...come on..get a grip.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:17:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By d1jinx:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used.


Yup... that's my thought. But who knows?


That is a good point.


How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE.


If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.

IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.

My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.

IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.


Would it be okay for David Gregory to borrow some child porn or meth from the police as well?
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:17:55 AM EDT
I would not get a free pass. Gregory should not as well.

Put him in jail.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:18:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spade:
Feel free to educate him on his facebook page.


Dammit, I need to get facebook.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:18:39 AM EDT
Plus carrying those 30 round mags aren't easy, heavy for a small guy if you got like 8 on you or 6
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:18:46 AM EDT
So no matter which camp is tossing out "solutions" it seems that it's settled on "more government".

Yay.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:18:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p401/lightfoot007_bucket/misc/gregorywanted2.jpg

Quick and dirty. Suggestions welcome.


ha... good job.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:20:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 8:21:52 AM EDT by Kharn]
Hmm, 5 minutes ago there was a nice pic on MTP's Facebook of Gregory with the two magazines clearly visible on the table as he was looking over his notes before the show.
As soon as I commented asking about compliance with DC's mag ban, the entire discussion was zapped.

Kharn
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:24:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kharn:
Hmm, 5 minutes ago there was a nice pic on MTP's Facebook of Gregory with the two magazines clearly visible on the table as he was looking over his notes before the show.
As soon as I commented asking about compliance with DC's mag ban, the entire discussion was zapped.

Kharn


Keep asking.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:25:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By scottedward58:


If you are a say Florida resident it is illegal to buy a gun while you are in Nevada. The only legal way to do it is like buying over the internet, you pay for it at the dealer in NV and he ships it to your local dealer in FL where you fill out the 4473 and do the background check.


I'm pretty sure you can buy long guns in neighboring states - but handguns HAVE to go through an FFL in your state. Face to face also can ONLY be in your state.

Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:26:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 8:27:04 AM EDT by RabidMonkeyPox]
keep posting that picture on NBC's facebook page of the magazine law.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:27:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 8:28:04 AM EDT by hammet]
Here is the link to the DC attorney general

http://oag.dc.gov/DC/OAG
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:27:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By A_Sibley:
Originally Posted By bookertbab:
Why do these assholes think reloading is such a big deal anyway. This kook reloaded many times. So what if he has to do it a few more. It only takes a few seconds. Getting rid of 30 round mags will do nothing.


Come on.

If it's not a big deal, then why are we fighting tooth and nail to avoid having neutered magazines?


It's not a big deal for a nut facing an unarmed and defenseless crowd of kids to reload as many times as he wants. He has all the time in the world when he's the only one with a weapon. It is a very big deal to force a citizen to have to reload to defend his family from an armed threat.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:28:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RRA_223:
Originally Posted By scottedward58:


If you are a say Florida resident it is illegal to buy a gun while you are in Nevada. The only legal way to do it is like buying over the internet, you pay for it at the dealer in NV and he ships it to your local dealer in FL where you fill out the 4473 and do the background check.


I'm pretty sure you can buy long guns in neighboring states - but handguns HAVE to go through an FFL in your state. Face to face also can ONLY be in your state.

You can buy any long gun in any state, as long as the laws of both states agree. Some states still have laws reflecting the now-void federal law that long guns may only be sold to residents of contiguous states.

Kharn
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:28:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:28:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By A_Sibley:
Originally Posted By bookertbab:
Why do these assholes think reloading is such a big deal anyway. This kook reloaded many times. So what if he has to do it a few more. It only takes a few seconds. Getting rid of 30 round mags will do nothing.


Come on.

If it's not a big deal, then why are we fighting tooth and nail to avoid having neutered magazines?


Because I don't have magazine pouches sewn into my pajamas.

At night, if I'm grabing my home defense gun, I don't have anywhere to put a reload.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:30:15 AM EDT
Oh my, does this mean bans on things like 30 shot magazines don't work?
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:30:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RabidMonkeyPox:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By d1jinx:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used.


Yup... that's my thought. But who knows?


That is a good point.


How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE.


breaking the law is still breaking the law.


who ever gave it to him is guilty too

Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:30:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 8:32:05 AM EDT by Spade]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
...

If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.

IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.

My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.

IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.


There's no "a cop gave it to me" exemption for "possession".


Please read what I wrote.

We're not talking about someone saying a cop GAVE it to him, and basically owning it or having it long-term I'm talking about a reporter TEMPORARILY BORROWING one for the brief time to shoot a news story and then returning it. In that hypothetical case, it's not clear that it would rise to the standard of "possesssing" that would be enough for a prosecutor or judge to gie a shit about. My point is that it wouldn't really be any different from a cop at the range letting some kid shoot his AR or something like that. Obviously that kid is not in illegal possession of an AR for the few minutes e is holding it.

The argument would become so technical that it would be pointless. If a cop had let David Gregory touch a magazine, is that a crime? What about if he left him hold it for 5 minutes? What about loaning it for 2 hours? What if a cop was AT the studio, just off-camera? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that TECHNICALLY a law might have been broken, but it would be in such an ambiguous way that no judge or prosecutor would care ... IF in fact we are talking about borrowing it temporarily from law enforcement.


Okay, fine, whatever. That's great and you might be right.

But who cares?

From Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”



It doesn't matter if he's technically okay. We should hammer it anyway. The perception is what counts. Use 3,4,5, and 12.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:31:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
[snip]

How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE.


If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.

IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.

My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.

IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.



LE doesn't have the authority to exempt individuals from law. PERIOD. LE may themselves be exempted but they don't have the power to extend that exemption.

Your selective outrage seems to fit the gun-grabber narrative. That if he didn't meaningfully posses it, it's okay because he couldn't go out and kill kids with it.

My outrage is based on the reasoning that if these items are so inherently evil that law-abiding people cannot possess them, then no one should be able to possess them. If we are to believe that anyway...

The law is the law. And even the "thought leaders" must follow it--particularly if they are advocating for more laws.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:31:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
...

If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.

IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.

My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.

IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.


There's no "a cop gave it to me" exemption for "possession".


Please read what I wrote.

We're not talking about someone saying a cop GAVE it to him, and basically owning it or having it long-term I'm talking about a reporter TEMPORARILY BORROWING one for the brief time to shoot a news story and then returning it. In that hypothetical case, it's not clear that it would rise to the standard of "possesssing" that would be enough for a prosecutor or judge to gie a shit about. My point is that it wouldn't really be any different from a cop at the range letting some kid shoot his AR or something like that. Obviously that kid is not in illegal possession of an AR for the few minutes e is holding it.

The argument would become so technical that it would be pointless. If a cop had let David Gregory touch a magazine, is that a crime? What about if he left him hold it for 5 minutes? What about loaning it for 2 hours? What if a cop was AT the studio, just off-camera? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that TECHNICALLY a law might have been broken, but it would be in such an ambiguous way that no judge or prosecutor would care ... IF in fact we are talking about borrowing it temporarily from law enforcement.


"I'm holding it for a friend"
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:32:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Skip237:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By d1jinx:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used.


Yup... that's my thought. But who knows?


That is a good point.


How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE.


If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.

IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.

My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.

IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.


But unlike an NFA story I doubt the police were in the same room with the magazine as an NFA owner would be.

Don't NFA items have to stay within line of sight?
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 8:33:16 AM EDT
Page / 30
Top Top