If you’re not David Gregory … D.C. prosecutes ordinary Americans for ‘high-capacity’ magazines

Washington Times ^ | January 4, 2013 | Emily Miller

[neverdem]

The Washington Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) inquiry into whether NBC’s David Gregory possession on national TV of an illegal 30-round “high-capacity” magazine has been ongoing for three weeks. Meanwhile, U.S. Army veteran James Brinkley is still grappling with the fallout from his arrest last year on the same charge. Mr. Brinkley’s story is just one example of at least 105 individuals who, unlike Mr. Gregory, were arrested in 2012 for having a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

On Sept. 8, Mr. Brinkley says he intended to drop his wife and young children at the White House for a tour and then head to a shooting range to practice for the U.S. Marshals Service test. Just like Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley called MPD in advance for guidance on how he could do this legally. Mr. Brinkley was told that the gun had to be unloaded and locked in the trunk, and he couldn’t park the car and walk around.

Unlike Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley followed the police orders by placing his Glock 22 in a box with a big padlock in the trunk of his Dodge Charger. The two ordinary, 15-round magazines were not in the gun, and he did not have any ammunition with him.

As he was dropping off his family at 11 a.m. on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue, Mr. Brinkley stopped to ask a Secret Service officer whether his wife could take the baby’s car seat into the White House. The officer saw Mr. Brinkley had an empty holster, which kicked off a traffic stop that ended in a search of the Charger’s trunk. Mr. Brinkley was booked on two counts of “high capacity” magazine possession (these are ordinary magazines nearly everywhere else in the country) and one count of possessing an unregistered gun...

[William Tell]

SJSAMPLE said: "He may have been carrying the banned magazines in his car, but he lacked the criminal intent."

Are you proposing that as an explanation or does the record indicate that?

Also, does "mens rea" require that one intended to commit a crime or intended to do that which is defined as a crime?

Obviously, the defendant in this case intended to possess that which was prohibited.

[SJSAMPLE]

But he didn’t intend to commit the crime, which is the element of mens rea.

The records show that he took every step to avoid committing a crime. That is enough to dismiss criminal intent.

[William Tell]

SJSAMPLE said: "The records show that he took every step to avoid committing a crime. That is enough to dismiss criminal intent."

I understand what you are saying.

But the defendant didn't do EVERYTHING he could do in order not to be breaking the law. He didn't study the laws of DC and he didn't avoid having the illegal magazines.

I'm not a lawyer and I am trying to understand under what circumstances a defendent is "not guilty" simply because he didn't know the law. In the last few days I have seen postings of the DC law and I don't recall seeing any mention of "intent".

Several years ago I travelled with firearms on a trip through the U.S., visiting about half of the states. Despite my best efforts I probably missed a few laws that could have gotten me in trouble. Would I have been "not guilty" because I didn't know, or just "not punished"?

[SJSAMPLE]

There’s always a certain amount of judicial restraint and even jury nullification in such matters. The defendant clearly showed that he tried to comply with the law and a wise judge with no axe to grind will respect that.

When travelling through the US, you’re also protected by the 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act (FOPA). This act protects you if the firearms are legal at the point of departure and the point of destination, even if you’re travelling through anti-gun jurisdictions. The firearms must be unloaded and inaccessible. Of course, states like NY and NJ routinely ignore this federal law and detain citizens for periods of time, then drop the charges.