User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:36:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Million man with 30 round magazine march on Washington.
A million 30 round magazines hit the capitol.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:39:27 PM EDT
[#2]
D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01
“(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.” I might revise my argument. Even if the mag had the spring and follower removed or was plugged with a dowel to only allow 10 rounds it might be able to be "readily restored or converted". But I still think theres a snowballs chance in hell it's going to happen. Then theres my internal struggle about not wanting anybody to be charged with a bullshit law....whether or not they have the same politics as me. I hope nobody gets charged with possessing something as simple as a magazine. Merry Christmas Y'all. I have company coming over soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:39:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: We could wield this David Gregory incident like the hammer of Thor a million ways to Sunday. Heres one idea..... http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1409087___ARF_NRA_Charity_rescue_fund____once_David_Gregory_s_charges_are_official___.html Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:40:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
I'd be happy just seeing it all over the news. That's a retarded law to bust anyone for. Ask Olofson about being busted for stupid shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:41:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Possession charges are pretty simple to prove in court...when you have the contraband seized and presentable as evidence. I would also be highly surprised to see this go anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:42:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
update: E-mail response: "From: "DC Police (imailagent)" <[email protected]> Subject: Email from DC Police (Intranet Quorum IMA00519327) Date: December 24, 2012 4:13:12 PM EST To: (OODA_Loop) The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Customer Service - Metropolitan Police Department" So how do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it actually was a "high capacity magazine"???? It looked like a DUCK, walked like a DUCK, quaked like a DUCK, smelled like a DUCK - and best of all - HE SAID IT WAS A DUCK!!! What if he held up a bag of oregano and said it was marijuana, or a mason jar filled with vodka and called it white lightning? I'm sure it was a 30 rounder......but what we know and what we can prove in court are two different things. Now you're just sounding obtuse. You and I know what that was, and he admitted it. Why is it necessary to argue with you over whether his best defense is that he lied? And you're in law enforcement? Yes I'm in law enforcement. Thats why I'm pointing out the folly of this. What evidence sre you going to bring into court? Sorry if my knowledge of the criminal justice system makes me sound obtuse. Without that specific magazine being seized you have no evidence. You think NBC will just hand it over? You think MPD is going to do a search warrant to look for it? Sorry to rain on the parade but beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard to meet with only a video and no actual evidence. Y'all can go back to your circle jerk about MPD actually investigating this now  Yet... you dudes will go kick in a door and shove guns in peoples faces because someone said someone else did something. Can't have it both ways, my man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:43:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Marcia Clark could even get a conviction on that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:44:14 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
[Dude, I could easily pass as a "firearms expert" in a court of law. If I saw a mag within 1-3 feet of my face I could easily tell it was real or not. Sight, Sound, even smell sometimes can give it away. Yeah, LaPierres' testimony could be damning. Does on a TV screen count without the actual piece of contraband? why not. You folks lock people up over "residue" in a plastic baggie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:53:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: [snip] Yes I'm in law enforcement. Thats why I'm pointing out the folly of this. What evidence sre you going to bring into court? Sorry if my knowledge of the criminal justice system makes me sound obtuse. Without that specific magazine being seized you have no evidence. You think NBC will just hand it over? You think MPD is going to do a search warrant to look for it? Sorry to rain on the parade but beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard to meet with only a video and no actual evidence. Y'all can go back to your circle jerk about MPD actually investigating this now NBC did DCPD the favor of documenting the crime along with the suspect's admission that he was violating the law. There is no affirmative defense in DC's law. The law doesn't require possession of a weapon, just a mag. Let the suspect go to court and prove his innocence like any other citizen. As well as being in the presence of the VP of the NRA.....a witness |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:54:29 PM EDT
[#10]
NBC Nightly News just showed the clip of Gregory holding the magazine as if to say that they're not worried about the outcome of all this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:55:03 PM EDT
[#11]
"The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail
regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention." ---------------------------------------------------- That MPD email response is unusually descriptive for a public reply. I just find that unusual. If I had to describe the underlying tone, it would be "pissed". If I were to read between the lines, I would say that they do not appreciate being thrust into this - that they don't make the laws, they enforce them - and don't like the position NBC has put them in. Put yourself in their shoes, suddenly they have thousands of law abiding gun owners (basically good guys) who are bitching and moaning to them about a dumb law which they have to enforce regardless of its stupidity and ineffectiveness. David Gregory has put them in a no-win situation politically and otherwise with his selfishness and apparent disregard for their established legal opinion. MPD has found themselves in a purse swinging mess where we're screaming bloody murder over something pretty petty - fully knowing that we want to absolutely hang Gregory over it due to his desire to stick it to us good guys. We got him - fair and square, over something so dumb.. BUT with something that the liberals themselves created - and we're going to keep twisting way past that point where Gregory cries "uncle". If I were in their public relations, I would not have been so descriptive about NBC's request being denied. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:55:05 PM EDT
[#12]
If WLP was on top of things he would have BUSTED Davids balls once he pulled out that mag and for his kids going to a school with security . I cant stand Ted Nugent but he would have mopped the floor with that prick
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:56:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [snip] Yes I'm in law enforcement. Thats why I'm pointing out the folly of this. What evidence sre you going to bring into court? Sorry if my knowledge of the criminal justice system makes me sound obtuse. Without that specific magazine being seized you have no evidence. You think NBC will just hand it over? You think MPD is going to do a search warrant to look for it? Sorry to rain on the parade but beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard to meet with only a video and no actual evidence. Y'all can go back to your circle jerk about MPD actually investigating this now NBC did DCPD the favor of documenting the crime along with the suspect's admission that he was violating the law. There is no affirmative defense in DC's law. The law doesn't require possession of a weapon, just a mag. Let the suspect go to court and prove his innocence like any other citizen. http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z111/Justice23_photos/mast.gif  My God, my daughter just saw this and asked what it was. I could only say " Ask the nice Policeman." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:57:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Million man with 30 round magazine march on Washington. A million 30 round magazines hit the capitol.
The DC cops would just view that as an opportunity to extort a billion dollars in criminal fines out of honest citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:02:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
"The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention." ---------------------------------------------------- That MPD email response is unusually descriptive for a public reply. I just find that unusual. If I had to describe the underlying tone, it would be "pissed". If I were to read between the lines, I would say that they do not appreciate being thrust into this - that they don't make the laws, they enforce them - and don't like the position NBC has put them in. Put yourself in their shoes, suddenly they have thousands of law abiding gun owners (basically good guys) who are bitching and moaning to them about a dumb law which they have to enforce regardless of its stupidity and ineffectiveness. David Gregory has put them in a no-win situation politically and otherwise with his selfishness and apparent disregard for their established legal opinion. MPD has found themselves in a purse swinging mess where we're screaming bloody murder over something pretty petty - fully knowing that we want to absolutely hang Gregory over it due to his desire to stick it to us good guys. We got him - fair and square, over something so dumb.. BUT with something that the liberals themselves created - and we're going to keep twisting way past that point where Gregory cries "uncle". If I were in their public relations, I would not have been so descriptive about NBC's request being denied. That may well also be part of the issue. MPD told NBC no. NBC did it anyways. DG may be in the good-ole-boy club but he disrespected MPD's authoritah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:18:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Let's look at the wording of this part of MPD's email:
NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. "not permissible?" - is that the same as unlawful, illegal, or criminal? Is this already hinting to us that they are leaning to "not allowed" rather than "criminal"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:28:46 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Let's look at the wording of this part of MPD's email: NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. "not permissible?" - is that the same as unlawful, illegal, or criminal? Is this already hinting to us that they are leaning to "not allowed" rather than "criminal"? I'm thinking that MPD will not give anyone permission in advance to break a law like that. Authorization would need to come from someone in the Governor's or DA.s office. Wouldn't it? It is hard to imagine someone at the local police dept saying "Go ahead and break the law on national TV, we won't do anything." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:29:27 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:30:38 PM EDT
[#19]
So NBC might actually get its wee-wee-slap for something this trivial?
Now you know what we feel like, assholes.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:32:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
update: E-mail response: "From: "DC Police (imailagent)" <[email protected]> Subject: Email from DC Police (Intranet Quorum IMA00519327) Date: December 24, 2012 4:13:12 PM EST To: (OODA_Loop) The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Customer Service - Metropolitan Police Department" Niiiiice!  I got the responce.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:32:03 PM EDT
[#21]
"Investigation" = delaying it long enough for y'all to forget about it & STFU.
The law is not applied equally. That's just the how it is in this country. Stop "believing". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:32:06 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Let's look at the wording of this part of MPD's email: NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. "not permissible?" - is that the same as unlawful, illegal, or criminal? Is this already hinting to us that they are leaning to "not allowed" rather than "criminal"? I'm thinking that MPD will not give anyone permission in advance to break a law like that. Authorization would need to come from someone in the Governor's or DA.s office. Wouldn't it? It is hard to imagine someone at the local police dept saying "Go ahead and break the law on national TV, we won't do anything." I don't know if permission can be granted at all for criminal activity unless you are employed in LE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:34:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Has anybody done a FOIA requested to get the email from NBC on when they requested permission? If we can get a date/time frame, then we will know if they did this knowingly against the law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:36:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: And the DC police have stated that they called and asked permission, that was denied.Quoted: Also, did he present it as a 30 rd mag on air that could be used to te effect that he admitted that it is a 30 rd mag, ths admitting to the crime? Couldn't have phrased it better myself. NBC went ahead regardless of the law - showing malicious intent to break the law. They new it was wrong, and did it anyway. Hang 'em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:38:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: And the DC police have stated that they called and asked permission, that was denied.Quoted: Also, did he present it as a 30 rd mag on air that could be used to te effect that he admitted that it is a 30 rd mag, ths admitting to the crime? Couldn't have phrased it better myself. NBC went ahead regardless of the law - showing malicious intent to break the law. They new it was wrong, and did it anyway. Hang 'em. As i just stated in thread #2, apparently MPD are NBC's bitches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:41:18 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Has anybody done a FOIA requested to get the email from NBC on when they requested permission? If we can get a date/time frame, then we will know if they did this knowingly against the law. THIS. We need evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:42:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Nothing will come of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:43:16 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Question for lawyers from someone who knows dick about law: If he gets away with this, could this set a precedent for people who might get in trouble with banned mags? Silly peasant, rules are for YOU. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:46:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
"The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention." ---------------------------------------------------- That MPD email response is unusually descriptive for a public reply. I just find that unusual. If I had to describe the underlying tone, it would be "pissed". If I were to read between the lines, I would say that they do not appreciate being thrust into this - that they don't make the laws, they enforce them - and don't like the position NBC has put them in. Put yourself in their shoes, suddenly they have thousands of law abiding gun owners (basically good guys) who are bitching and moaning to them about a dumb law which they have to enforce regardless of its stupidity and ineffectiveness. David Gregory has put them in a no-win situation politically and otherwise with his selfishness and apparent disregard for their established legal opinion. MPD has found themselves in a purse swinging mess where we're screaming bloody murder over something pretty petty - fully knowing that we want to absolutely hang Gregory over it due to his desire to stick it to us good guys. We got him - fair and square, over something so dumb.. BUT with something that the liberals themselves created - and we're going to keep twisting way past that point where Gregory cries "uncle". If I were in their public relations, I would not have been so descriptive about NBC's request being denied. Do you think they might be sympathetic letting that little bit of information out? (that he requested and they denied but he did it anyways) Giving free fuel to the fire? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:49:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this isn't prosecuted, can we move to have the law struck down as the people responsible for enforcement obviously don't beleive the law to be meaningful? Hopefully he's charged, convicted, then he appeals and the law is struck down. Thanks in advance David Gregory!!!!! Sweet, sweet Irony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:55:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: "The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention." ---------------------------------------------------- That MPD email response is unusually descriptive for a public reply. I just find that unusual. If I had to describe the underlying tone, it would be "pissed". If I were to read between the lines, I would say that they do not appreciate being thrust into this - that they don't make the laws, they enforce them - and don't like the position NBC has put them in. Put yourself in their shoes, suddenly they have thousands of law abiding gun owners (basically good guys) who are bitching and moaning to them about a dumb law which they have to enforce regardless of its stupidity and ineffectiveness. David Gregory has put them in a no-win situation politically and otherwise with his selfishness and apparent disregard for their established legal opinion. MPD has found themselves in a purse swinging mess where we're screaming bloody murder over something pretty petty - fully knowing that we want to absolutely hang Gregory over it due to his desire to stick it to us good guys. We got him - fair and square, over something so dumb.. BUT with something that the liberals themselves created - and we're going to keep twisting way past that point where Gregory cries "uncle". If I were in their public relations, I would not have been so descriptive about NBC's request being denied. Do you think they might be sympathetic letting that little bit of information out? (that he requested and they denied but he did it anyways) Giving free fuel to the fire? I think they've concluded that they are owned by NBC - and short of murder, NBC does what it wants. You or I put a Youtube video up waving a 30-round mag anywhere in D.C., is our path to instant detention. The word investigation means "delay" - and in all honesty if we lose the sight of the big picture while we're looking at one mag - they'll have run around our defenses and ambush us while we're swinging our purses. The time for arrest has passed - it's over. ETA - it's off Drudge. Unless MPD makes an arrest by Wednesday (due to holidays) this is old non-news. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:00:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
update: E-mail response: "From: "DC Police (imailagent)" <[email protected]> Subject: Email from DC Police (Intranet Quorum IMA00519327) Date: December 24, 2012 4:13:12 PM EST To: (OODA_Loop) The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Customer Service - Metropolitan Police Department" So how do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it actually was a "high capacity magazine"???? It looked like a DUCK, walked like a DUCK, quaked like a DUCK, smelled like a DUCK - and best of all - HE SAID IT WAS A DUCK!!! What if he held up a bag of oregano and said it was marijuana, or a mason jar filled with vodka and called it white lightning? I'm sure it was a 30 rounder......but what we know and what we can prove in court are two different things. Now you're just sounding obtuse. You and I know what that was, and he admitted it. Why is it necessary to argue with you over whether his best defense is that he lied? And you're in law enforcement? Yes I'm in law enforcement. Thats why I'm pointing out the folly of this. What evidence sre you going to bring into court? Sorry if my knowledge of the criminal justice system makes me sound obtuse. Without that specific magazine being seized you have no evidence. You think NBC will just hand it over? You think MPD is going to do a search warrant to look for it? Sorry to rain on the parade but beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty high standard to meet with only a video and no actual evidence. Y'all can go back to your circle jerk about MPD actually investigating this now Thanks for the smug response. Real helpful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:06:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
I think as many people as possible need to call/email the DA's office in DC and demand prosecution for the flagrant disregard for DC gun laws shown by David Gregory especially after the MPD told them it was NOT OK. Anyone got the phone number or email or address? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:12:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: ETA - it's off Drudge. Unless MPD makes an arrest by Wednesday (due to holidays) this is old non-news. It rolled to the next page due to other headlines being posted. It's not gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:13:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention." ---------------------------------------------------- That MPD email response is unusually descriptive for a public reply. I just find that unusual. If I had to describe the underlying tone, it would be "pissed". If I were to read between the lines, I would say that they do not appreciate being thrust into this - that they don't make the laws, they enforce them - and don't like the position NBC has put them in. Put yourself in their shoes, suddenly they have thousands of law abiding gun owners (basically good guys) who are bitching and moaning to them about a dumb law which they have to enforce regardless of its stupidity and ineffectiveness. David Gregory has put them in a no-win situation politically and otherwise with his selfishness and apparent disregard for their established legal opinion. MPD has found themselves in a purse swinging mess where we're screaming bloody murder over something pretty petty - fully knowing that we want to absolutely hang Gregory over it due to his desire to stick it to us good guys. We got him - fair and square, over something so dumb.. BUT with something that the liberals themselves created - and we're going to keep twisting way past that point where Gregory cries "uncle". If I were in their public relations, I would not have been so descriptive about NBC's request being denied. Do you think they might be sympathetic letting that little bit of information out? (that he requested and they denied but he did it anyways) Giving free fuel to the fire? I think they've concluded that they are owned by NBC - and short of murder, NBC does what it wants. You or I put a Youtube video up waving a 30-round mag anywhere in D.C., is our path to instant detention. The word investigation means "delay" - and in all honesty if we lose the sight of the big picture while we're looking at one mag - they'll have run around our defenses and ambush us while we're swinging our purses. The time for arrest has passed - it's over. ETA - it's off Drudge. Unless MPD makes an arrest by Wednesday (due to holidays) this is old non-news. I want the NRA to use this |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:17:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Not in my neck of the woods. RI =/= Wash D.C. Why is this confusing you? Having trouble figuring which thin blue line to use to excuse the inaction of the PoPo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:21:11 PM EDT
[#37]
fails to produce mag in question after search warrant etc, nail him on obstruction of justice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:21:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: [Dude, I could easily pass as a "firearms expert" in a court of law. If I saw a mag within 1-3 feet of my face I could easily tell it was real or not. Sight, Sound, even smell sometimes can give it away. Yeah, LaPierres' testimony could be damning. Does on a TV screen count without the actual piece of contraband? Next time I get pulled over for drunk driving, and there is dashcam video of me staggering around, and I tell the friendly occifer that I had 15 beers and yes I am really hammered but I *don't* blow into the little straw to give them physical evidence, I'll be sure to call you as an expert witness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:25:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Has anyone sent this to the NRA? Seems like they would have the clout to pressure MPD into doing something.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:41:55 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this isn't prosecuted, can we move to have the law struck down as the people responsible for enforcement obviously don't beleive the law to be meaningful? Hopefully he's charged, convicted, then he appeals and the law is struck down. Thanks in advance David Gregory!!!!! Epic! I can see the headlines in the future.. "SCOTUS repeals all federal gun laws in ironic Gregory case".. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:45:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
fails to produce mag in question after search warrant etc, nail him on obstruction of justice. They will produce a Hollyweed movie prop magazine and it will be forgotten about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:56:50 PM EDT
[#42]
We should get T-Shirts printed up with this image of him holding the mag and with a caption of "Gun Laws Don't Work" under it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:59:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
I'd be happy just seeing it all over the news. That's a retarded law to bust anyone for. I hope Gregory says the same thing - wouldn't that be nice for our cause! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:01:24 PM EDT
[#44]
I sent an email to MPD, but used my Arfcom email account.
I don't need to be on some some no-fly list for wanting liberty and justice for all. I feel better now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:02:47 PM EDT
[#45]
There may be a question of criminal intent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:03:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: fails to produce mag in question after search warrant etc, nail him on obstruction of justice. They will produce a Hollyweed movie prop magazine and it will be forgotten about. even better, then tell them see it isnt a magazine just like an ar-15 is not an assault rifle. they look the same, but internally they are completely different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:06:03 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
If I were in their public relations, I would not have been so descriptive about NBC's request being denied. Because to me the request shows that they knew that it was illegal and did it anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:12:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's look at the wording of this part of MPD's email: NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. "not permissible?" - is that the same as unlawful, illegal, or criminal? Is this already hinting to us that they are leaning to "not allowed" rather than "criminal"? I'm thinking that MPD will not give anyone permission in advance to break a law like that. Authorization would need to come from someone in the Governor's or DA.s office. Wouldn't it? It is hard to imagine someone at the local police dept saying "Go ahead and break the law on national TV, we won't do anything." I don't know if permission can be granted at all for criminal activity unless you are employed in LE. *cough ATF cough* |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:14:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
There may be a question of criminal intent. There is no intent element in that "crime" And I do hope he gets arrested for it. And fired. And all the other shit that happens to good people for "violating" stupid fucking laws that don't do a damn thing to curtail real criminals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:15:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: You tell meQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: update: E-mail response: "From: "DC Police (imailagent)" <[email protected]> Subject: Email from DC Police (Intranet Quorum IMA00519327) Date: December 24, 2012 4:13:12 PM EST To: (OODA_Loop) The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Customer Service - Metropolitan Police Department" So how do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it actually was a "high capacity magazine"???? It looked like a DUCK, walked like a DUCK, quaked like a DUCK, smelled like a DUCK - and best of all - HE SAID IT WAS A DUCK!!! What if he held up a bag of oregano and said it was marijuana, or a mason jar filled with vodka and called it white lightning? I'm sure it was a 30 rounder......but what we know and what we can prove in court are two different things. I'll bet Wayne can verify it was an actual 30 round mag.  |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
