Posted on 12/30/2012 7:33:28 AM PST by marktwain
An on-air stunt involving an empty high-capacity gun magazine brandished by NBC "Meet the Press" host David Gregory last Sunday in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings has taken a bizarre twist. But it raises important issues about fairness and equality before the law.
After being called out by viewers, the Metropolitan Police Department confirmed that the incident is "under investigation" because it's illegal to even have such a device in one's possession in the District of Columbia, where the show was taped. The law in question is crystal clear: "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." (Emphasis added) Offenses are punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
There doesn't seem much to investigate. Gregory himself admitted on national television, while he was interviewing Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, about gun control, that one of the magazines he displayed held 30 rounds. MPD spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump confirmed that NBC sought prior permission to use the empty magazine as a prop on the show, but the network's request was properly denied. And what part of "no person" exempts a talk show host from the District's ammo ban?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
When was DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 deemed unconstitutional?
David, is that you?
I would suggest you need to go back and READ my post. You are coming across like a f**king idiot.
ROTFLMAO
When was it deemed constituional? Do you posit that all the laws that have been allowed to stand are constitutional? How about ObamaCare - does an idiot SCOTUS reading of tea leaves vs. the Constitution make a law constitutional? If so, there is no law to which you would not kneel because it hadn't been "deemed unconstituitional"
Pelosi, Reid, Obama, is that one of you?
Report back on what happens - right after your prison term.
You seem to be missing the point and are more intent on making it personal. I never said there weren't consequences for "breaking" unconstitutional "laws", I said that there are many on the books and we abide by them as they whittle away at our Freedoms. My original post that you took such offense at merely stated that I thought they should let the twerp go free for having the magazine and it should be a springboard to stop imposing punishments on anyone when the "law" they "break" is unconstitutional. You jumped on it as me supporting the idiot when I was merely pointint out that if I don't think We The People should have to be in fear of unconstitutional "laws", then I couldn't very well want anyone else, no matter how I might despise him, to be "convicted" of "laws" I consider unconstitutional. I understand that he is apparently getting away with something that you or I would not get away with and that sucks, but it also shows how weak the "law" and those that enforce it,really is when those who dictate these unconstitutional atrocities on us are not uniform in who gets punished.
I believe you and are ideologically on the same side, despite the recent repartee, so how about we both take a deep breath and focus more on what the Founders intended instead of knocking each other about the head and shoulders. I'm calling a truce and hope you will too - either way, I'm done.
I like this idea a lot.
Let's see Gregory and his network get involved in a conspiracy involving obstruction of justice and perjury. There's liable to be somebody in a nearby jurisdiction, where it is legal to practice the Second Amendment, who can safely and truthfully testify as to where the magazine came from.
Most of the 65 people convicted of felonies during the Watergate scandal were found guilty of perjury. They had no direct involvement in the burglary.
Please pass the popcorn.
Kalifornia bans importation, manufacture, or transfer of such magazines. Letting Gregory off the hook does nothing for me here in the People's Republik.
If Gregory is charged, as he should be, then his network can pay his legal bills all the way up to the Supreme Court and then we will be permanently done with this nonsense.
The Supreme Court in their Heller decision pointed out that interpreting the Second Amendment is not a balancing act.
I have a hard time seeing the Supreme Court deciding how many rounds a gun magazine may contain.
Sotomayor and Kagan may spend some time trying to figure out whether it should be 9 or 11, but most will realize that imposing any limit is an infringement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.