Welcome to DC Gun Laws, David Gregory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2364637.html

As stupid as it might seem, David Gregory could very well be in trouble for this.
And, what about the producers, and anybody else involved with the show. Somebody actually "owns" that magazine that he was brandishing.

Hopefully, common sense would prevail, and any prosecutor would say that their was no criminal intent involved. But the law is very specific.

Hopefully, common sense would prevail, and any prosecutor would say that their was no criminal intent involved. But the law is very specific. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The "criminal intent" is merely the "intent to posses" .... and "intent" to posses is the willful and knowing possession of the unlawful item..... the still photo alone is sufficient.

"any prosecutor" with "common sense" will know that it is a violation of "equal protection" to NOT prosecute this knucklehead ....

...... BUT to prosecute John Doe Knucklehead.

And posters rely on the media for legal advice!!!!

The "criminal intent" is merely the "intent to posses" .... and "intent" to posses is the willful and knowing possession of the unlawful item..... the still photo alone is sufficient.

"any prosecutor" with "common sense" will know that it is a violation of "equal protection" to NOT prosecute this knucklehead ....

...... BUT to prosecute John Doe Knucklehead.

And posters rely on the media for legal advice!!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do they go after who actually owns the magazine in question, or David Gregory for "possessing" it on National Television.
I am assuming that someone "owns" it.

As low as the crime rate is in D C they didn't have anything else to do,

Do they go after who actually owns the magazine in question, or David Gregory for "possessing" it on National Television.
I am assuming that someone "owns" it. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Typically, in criminal law "possession" has nothing to do with "ownership" .... the government (state) doesn't have to prove literally "ownership" .. only possession....

and the literal wording of the quoted statute (which I "assume" is accurate) uses the word "possess" and not "owns" ... so that would be the required proof.

If there are some specific provisions of the DC law that would allow for "demonstrations" .... "exhibitions" ..... "educational events" .. etc..... he might get a "pass" ..... legitimately with some "cover" for the prosecution ... to not file charges. I don't think this "administration" is going to prosecute him for "attacking" the "gun lobby" on "assault weapons" ... do you?

As low as the crime rate is in D C they didn't have anything else to do, Originally Posted by i'va biggen

"Washington crime statistics report an overall downward trend in crime based on data from 12 years with violent crime decreasing and property crime decreasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Washington for 2012 is expected to be lower than in 2010.

"The city violent crime rate for Washington in 2010 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 207.47% and the city property crime rate in Washington was higher than the national property crime rate average by 53.31%."

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-stat...ashington.html

Or they are too busy ... to pay it any attention!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2364637.html

As stupid as it might seem, David Gregory could very well be in trouble for this.
And, what about the producers, and anybody else involved with the show. Somebody actually "owns" that magazine that he was brandishing.

Hopefully, common sense would prevail, and any prosecutor would say that their was no criminal intent involved. But the law is very specific. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Ummm, It was laying on my desk when I came in. I've never seen it before today.

UPDATE:

NBC News had requested and was denied permission to use a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press." Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson looked into an email allegedly from the Metropolitan Police Department which said that the network contacted the police before the segment. The MPD's Aziz Alali confirmed it, telling Jacobson:

"NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied."

Request was denied, and he did it anyway. LOL!
Stupid law to have have on the books to begin with.

UPDATE:

Request was denied, and he did it anyway. LOL!
Stupid law to have have on the books to begin with. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Stupid + Stupid = 2 x Stupid

A stupid gun law...in DC! Well shut my mouth!

I expect nothing to happen based on precedent; about 30 years ago Senator Ted Kennedy's body guard was stopped outside the capital building armed with a 9mm, unregistered (in DC) pistol and a FULLY AUTOMATIC 9mm Uzi submachine gun on his person. Both weapons were illegal to possess or carry in DC. The story was quickly covered up and the outcome is unknown.

Also during the misnamed assault weapons ban debate the famous video was shot of an AK-47 being held up over his head by a US Congressman (who claimed it was a fully automatic version). The Congressman was of course a democrat but his name is lost to history.

....; about 30 years ago Senator Ted Kennedy's life guard* ..... . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

... there I fixed it for you.

*Special qualification in bridge crossing rescues.

its against the law to have an ammo clip in DC, yet a tv station got one and used it as an example during a national broadcast ...

hows that gun control law working out for DC?

Stupid + Stupid = 2 x Stupid Originally Posted by LexusLover