Did NBC David Gregory commit Felony on Live TV in Washington DC?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have suggested elsewhere that if Gregory gets some time, the NRA should hold a demonstration in front of the jail with:

FREE GREGORY! SUPPORT THE SECOND!

Wouldn't that be delicious?

[treg]

^that would be awesome!^

[Alabama Shooter]

I don't think the NRA should support criminal activity.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Miss the point. Gregory should have the right to own a 30 round mag. Such laws clearly violate the intent of the 2nd Amend. in my opinion - despite Scalia arguing that some weaponery can be banned legitimately. A 30 round mag isn't a nuke.

Thus, the public as the right to assemble and petition for this violation of basic rights to be overturned.

It is just as in any case of rights violation. Demonstrations for civil rights are a part and parcel of American democracy. Many groups have used the demonstration and assembly to make their point known.

According to at least one theory of morality - if a law violates a moral position, then using legal means to petition for its change is a moral act.

Gregory's breaking the law (whatever his purpose) should not be illegal anymore than the arrests of folks who violated Jim Crow laws were morally valid.

That such a demonstration would be used to free an antigun media personality is amusing, isn't it?

[Alabama Shooter]

My response was more deadpan than anything. However I don't think the NRA should involve themselves in such a protest if there were one as it would be hypocritical. A protest would be nicely ironic.

[BGutzman]

a magazine of any capacity may violate whatever law but I am in agreement with Glenns position...

Such laws are IMHO unconstitutional and violate a basic tenant of the freedom.

[hermannr]

I would be for demonstrating for a repeal of the law, and a pardon for Gregory, (and anyone else previously convicted of violating that provision) should Gregory be convicted (which I doubt he will be, but should he be)

To do anything else would be a hypocrite.

[ClydeFrog]

I highly doubt anything will happen with Gregory but as I posted before, he's been in trouble before with the NBC News mgmt about how he does things on Meet the Press.
He reminds me of the dreadful character Jeff Daniels plays on HBO's drama about broadcast news. If you have HBO or have seen any episodes, then you know how anti-gun & slanted it can get. I got very annoyed when the Daniels character(a Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reily type) "disarms" another female character of a Walther PPK .380acp. He then scolds the woman, telling her that most armed citizens in real critical incidents have their guns snatched by the subject(s). REALLY? Huh. With all the 1000s of new concealed carry licenses & new state laws, you'd think weapon retention or gun thefts would be a HUGE media issue.

Clyde

[langenc]

The law generally dont apply to LEO, news people and congress. So the answer is NO.

[Webleymkv]

I have suggested elsewhere that if Gregory gets some time, the NRA should hold a demonstration in front of the jail with:

FREE GREGORY! SUPPORT THE SECOND!

Wouldn't that be delicious?

Actually, that would be rather brilliant. Not only would it highlight the absurdity of the D.C. law, but it would also force the media elites to choose between continuing to push an anti-gun agenda and protecting one of their own (something they seem to do with even more vigor than pushing their political agendas). Likewise, it would serve to contradict the accusations that the NRA is nothing more than an extension of the Republican party.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Gregg E. Meyer

Miss the point. Gregory should have the right to own a 30 round mag. Such laws clearly violate the intent of the 2nd Amend. in my opinion - despite Scalia arguing that some weaponery can be banned legitimately. A 30 round mag isn't a nuke.

I'll go beyond that.

Although I know Frank Ettin will (because he has in the past) disagree, I remain of the belief that Mr. Justice Scalia erred very seriously and fundamentally when he penned the majority decision in Heller. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. My position is that we should be able to read any law according to what it says, and once we get past the militia clause, the language of the 2nd Amendment is about as clear and succinct as it can possible get: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are no weasel words in there, no exceptions, no mention of "unreasonably infringed." It's an absolute statement imposing a blanket prohibition on infringements. And what is a regulation if not an infringement?

Frank argues that legal precedent has allowed other rights to be "reasonably" regulated. But what other right do we have that is specifically and explicitly protected against ANY regulation? Certainly not the 4th Amendment. That protects us against "unreasonable" searches and seizures, so that door is automatically open for the courts to then have to determine where the line is drawn between reasonable and unreasonable.

There is no such door in the 2nd Amendment. The Heller decision was wrong, flawed ... not because it correctly affirmed an individual right as opposed to a collective right tied to militia service, but because it ignored the plain language of the law and suggested that some regulations are Constitutional when the law itself plainly says they are not allowed.

[egor20]

FREE GREGORY! SUPPORT THE SECOND!

Wouldn't that be delicious?

Your an Evil Genius Glenn

[Metal god]

There are no weasel words in there, no exceptions, no mention of "unreasonably infringed." It's an absolute statement imposing a blanket prohibition on infringements. And what is a regulation if not an infringement?

If one insists that it is plain and simple and it means just what it says and you can't infer or speculate what the meaning is . then I believe it does not guarantee a lot of things the courts have said it does .

It does not say arms equal to the government it just says right to bare arms .so the government hands out one break front 22lr to every citizen and now there right to bare arms has not and will not ever be infringed. It does not say you can have as many as you want and any caliber as well . I find it funny when the pro guys find meaning and infrerence but when the antis try , we say oh no it does not say that .

It does not say alot of things . Be carefull what you wish for you just might get it .

[NWPilgrim]

When it comes to the Bill if Rights what is not mentioned is not restricted. It says a right to bear arms, so it is not up to the very govt we are suspicious of to determine which arms are to be borne. Just as it is not up to the govt to tell us what speech is permissible (liable and yelling Fire! cause real harm to others so it is not the words which are restricted but the endangering others). Especially not to restrict words which can defend against govt overreach!

The BoR was written to restrict federal govt and recognize the broad freedom of individuals and states.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal God

It does not say arms equal to the government it just says right to bare arms .so the government hands out one break front 22lr to every citizen and now there right to bare arms has not and will not ever be infringed. It does not say you can have as many as you want and any caliber as well . I find it funny when the pro guys find meaning and infrerence but when the antis try , we say oh no it does not say that .

But we can trot out the contemporaneous writings of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to document that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, mean every weapon available to the military. This has been well and thoroughly documented. Two such exhaustive studies have been compiled by the .gov itself. One was a Senate study written in 1982: http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

More recently, the office of the Attorney General compiled an even long and more in-depth, scholarly study of the 2nd Amendment. That one can be read here: http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

[SHR970]

Deleted..Civility cited.

[SHR970]

Deleted. Salient foundation edited out removing foundation for statements.

[Alabama Shooter]

I guess in the unlikely event he gets charged he could ask the NRA legal defense fund to defend him?

[Rob228]

It probably won't accomplish much of anything, but I did just email the DC police department inquiring about the legality of a 30 round magazine in the District of Columbia, referencing David Gregory interviewing the president instead of spending a year in jail and paying a 1000 dollar fine.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The case is still under investigation according to politico.com but hasn't gone away. Progun legislators are expect to keep up scrutiny of how this plays out.

[ltc444]

As i posted on the Politco, Many citizens fall victim to the DC gun laws each year. They typically are convicted and receive a stiff sentence.

NBC and Gregroy knowingly violated the DC Law. I believe their actions constitute a conspiracy. This makes the violation a felony in most jurisdictions. I know of no law which exempts the Press from abiding by the law. They may think otherwise but they are not exempted.

Every one involved in this violation should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Spats McGee]

This situation puts me in a bit of a quandry. On the one hand, I'd like to see DC's ban on those magazines overturned. On the other hand, I don't think Gregory should get a pass just because he's a prominent member of the media.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Nothing happens to Gregory - then:

If Wayne LaP. or someone else from the NRA goes on a DC talk show, they should also take out a 30 round mag. Earn their money, and make the point of reasonable civil disobdience to an injust law.

If the civil rights activists could, so could Wayne.

How about the progun legislators, taken them out on the floor of Congress or the Senate?

I do recall that GWB had a Glock 18 presented to him in the White House, was that a crime?

[ClydeFrog]

I honestly do not feel NBC News & David Gregory(who also serves as exec producer/editor if you read the credits) knowingly violated the law, they felt they were ABOVE the law.
The "triers of facts" must decide to prosecute the NBC staff.
Some journalists & media feel they can go anywhere or do anything. It's time public officials drew a line & showed they enforce the laws fairly.

I saw a "YouTube yo-yo" post a clip of him crying & yelping at a female CHP captain at a traffic accident scene. The uniformed CHP trooper calmly & politely asked the "freelance video-journalist" for media credentials.
The guy freaks out & screams about press credentials and his "PI having reports". The nitwit then calls the CHP Captain a "liar" & storms off.

Clyde

[egor20]

President Bush, Saddam Hussein, and a Glock 18

Many American presidents have kept prized possessions within reach during their White House years. Franklin D. Roosevelt cherished a 19th century ship model of the U.S.S. Constitution. One of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s favorite gifts was an engraved Steuben glass bowl from his cabinet. And sitting on John F. Kennedy’s desk in the Oval Office was a paperweight made from a coconut shell he had carved with a distress message after his PT-109 was sunk during World War II.

The objects have been bequeathed to the American public, accessible through a visit to each man’s presidential library and museum. And so when the library for George W. Bush opens in 2013 on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, visitors will most likely get to see one of his most treasured items: Saddam Hussein’s pistol.

The gun, a 9 millimeter Glock 18C, was found in the spider hole where the Iraqi leader was captured in December 2003 by Delta Force soldiers, four of whom later presented the pistol to Mr. Bush. Among the thousands of gifts Mr. Bush received as president, the gun became a favorite, a reminder of the pinnacle moment of the Iraq war, according to friends and long-time associates.

Before Mr. Bush left the White House in January, he made arrangements for the gun to be shipped to a national archives warehouse just 18 miles north of his new home in Dallas. His foundation said a final decision had not been made on including the gun in the presidential library. But his associates and visitors to the White House said Mr. Bush had told them of his intention to display it there.

For nearly five years, Mr. Bush kept the mounted, glass-encased pistol in the Oval Office or a study, showing it with pride, especially to military officials, they said. He also let visitors in on a secret: when the pistol was recovered, it was unloaded. ...
http://artfularticulations.blogspot....and-glock.html