David Gregory will not be charged


PDA






Queen_of_Thunder
January 12, 2013, 12:30 AM
That's what the Washington Post is reporting.

If you enjoyed reading about "David Gregory will not be charged" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 12:33 AM
of course not....hes one of 'them'.....they couldnt possibly charge him, i mean after all, its not like he was going to harm anyone.....not like those damn gun owners, they only need those things for killing people.

Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public following the … events in Connecticut and the President’s speech to the nation about them.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/200274/david-gregory-nbc-will-not-be-charged-for-showing-gun-ammunition-magazine-on-air/

....so its ok to commit a felony.....but only if you do it for a short time....and claim the 1st amendment......good to know.

well then, i suppose that would mean i can make some death threats....so long as i keep my calls short, and inform them im using my 1st amendment rights....

or perhaps i can go sell some crack.....so long as i only do it once.....and then write an article on drug dealing.........man, these "laws" things are kind of useless then, eh?

horsemen61
January 12, 2013, 12:35 AM
must be nice

Prophet
January 12, 2013, 12:35 AM
Laws for thee, but not for me.

...

Whose ear do we get a hold of on this?

Edit; Irvin Nathan, DC Attorney General, whose office apparently made this decision based upon Gregory's "First Amendment right". You cannot make this stuff up!

Irvin Nathan

oag@dc.gov

(202) 727-3400

vtail
January 12, 2013, 01:02 AM
Someone needs to attach a 30 round mag to a Pro 2A sign out in front of the White House.

And then if arrested they can claim the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States.

Just like David Gregory did.

trayzor
January 12, 2013, 01:18 AM
And this news is surprising!

481
January 12, 2013, 02:44 AM
Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public...

How convenient.

By that logic, one could argue that almost any criminal offense could be affirmatively defended if the intent of the actor was simply to exercise his/her First Amendment right.

Hmm, I don't remember seeing an affirmative defense clause present in the substantive elements of the magazine capacity limit law that Mr Gregory violated. :fire:

sonick808
January 12, 2013, 02:49 AM
i think i feel sick. how egregious. how transparently preferential. Why even hide bad behavior anymore, it's just flaunted in our faces.

VA27
January 12, 2013, 02:51 AM
I hope the next guy pinched in DC for a similar offense gets a lawyer smart enough to hammer this HARD. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

mnrivrat
January 12, 2013, 03:12 AM
I suppose one could complain to ther dept of justice - go right to the head and find Eric Holder . Oh - wait a minute, isn't he the guy that was charged with contempt of congress but hasn't been arrested ?

It's nice to be royalty and above the law .

Okiegunner
January 12, 2013, 03:31 AM
On a bit different tack...but of interest I think, since we are discussing this guy...

David Gregory's son and daughter (sure thought he played for the "other" team) both attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington D.C. Sidwell is an exclusive private school. What?? D. C. public schools not good enough??

Sidwell accepts "vouchers" under a "D.C. Opportunity Program" School vouchers? Liberals???

Both of Pres. Obama's daughters also attend Sidwell, as do the grandchildren of our Vice President. Al Gore's son graduated from Sidwell. Why do these "leaders" of our nation not think that the Washington D.C. public school system will not work for their children? ________ insert answer here. Sidwell has been hailed as the Harvard of D.C.'s PRIVATE schools.

Now...Get ready for this!!!

The school maintains a highly trained ARMED security staff of eleven officers.

Go Figure

Isaac-1
January 12, 2013, 03:49 AM
I don't mind that he was not charged, there was almost no chance he would have done any time for this, I just hope it made him sweat a bit, maybe enough to reconsider his position on such things.

SouthernBoy
January 12, 2013, 07:54 AM
What you folks have to understand is that the Washington, DC government is corrupt to the core and it's been this way for many years. I have lived my entire life within 35 miles of this city and it is little more that a cesspool. If you are not familiar with The Washington Times' series of articles called, "Emily Gets Her Gun", written by senior editor Emily Miller, I highly suggest reading them. It is a real eye opener to blatant ignorance and outright misuse of the public trust.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/

And yes, she's beautiful.

JT-AR-MG42
January 12, 2013, 09:19 AM
I can see it now vtail!

Fast forward to 'Meet the Press'
Round table discussion. Last minutes of the show.
Grainy out of focus picture of vtail and the sign across from the WH on the screen. (Ever notice how the important photos of the suspect are always poor for no real reason?)

Gregory- " And this schmuck thought he had the right? Of all the nerve. We here in D.C. have common sense laws that apply to all, including protesters making a deluded point.
Oops, did I just describe me from a few weeks ago? "

Brokaw- in his best down home greatest generation voice- " No David, what you did was heroic and I'll explain why.
You know I bird hunt in Montana, but this was obviously going too far. This poor fellow should and will be charged. Another example of why we need common sense, common ground.... "

JT

kimbershot
January 12, 2013, 09:27 AM
did i hear "citizens arrest"????

dc attny general was starring in a play with gregory's wife--imaging that?

beatledog7
January 12, 2013, 09:41 AM
Sad, but expected. That's what happens when we become a nation of men (insiders) not of laws. Frankly, I smell a pay-off or extortion of some sort.

KTXdm9
January 12, 2013, 10:55 AM
Cronyism at it's finest. I'm sure the people of DC feel much safer knowing the DA's office uses its infinite wisdom to decide to whom the law applies. :banghead:

danez71
January 12, 2013, 11:20 AM
Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States,

There is a key part of that statement.

"among other things" is AKA "we were told not to prosecute because he was supporting the 'O' agenda."

Pilot
January 12, 2013, 11:24 AM
Sounds like there is now precedent for possession of "high capacity" magazines in D.C.

HOOfan_1
January 12, 2013, 11:25 AM
Gotta allow people to use those First Amendment rights to tell people that we shouldn't have Second Amendment rights.

This is about the reaction I think Thomas Jefferson would have to that :barf:

hso
January 12, 2013, 11:26 AM
I thought getting worked up over this was a mistake from the start and find my opinion hasn't changed about this.

Calls for his prosecution made us appear spiteful and petty and we don't need that. It also made us appear foolish since it was expected that use of the magazine on a TV program would not be prosecuted and the 1st Amendment would be cited as the reason.

xfyrfiter
January 12, 2013, 11:28 AM
I for one, believe that it is time to IMPEACH all of these criminals, and give them long sentences, at hard labor.

David G.
January 12, 2013, 11:33 AM
A law is a law is a law. They should either enforce it or get rid of it altogether.

Steve H
January 12, 2013, 11:33 AM
As long as Holder is the AG, Obama and his cronies are going to do as they wish

Justin
January 12, 2013, 01:43 PM
Calls for his prosecution made us appear spiteful and petty and we don't need that. It also made us appear foolish since it was expected that use of the magazine on a TV program would not be prosecuted and the 1st Amendment would be cited as the reason.

While I never really called for his prosecution, nor am I surprised at the outcome, it's a perfect example of the contemptible levels of hypocrisy displayed by this administration and the people who support it.

On the upside of things, Gregory's use of the magazine on-air, and the system's unwillingness to prosecute is possibly the most graphic example of just how thoroughly stupid magazine bans are in the first place.

Couched in the right way, we can use the Gregory incident to our advantage, but I agree that it has to be done in such a way as to avoid looking spiteful or petty.

Old Fuff
January 12, 2013, 02:04 PM
If I understand correctly, before he displayed the prohibited 30-round magazine he contacted the officials-in-charge and inquired if he could legally proceed. He was told, "No" but went ahead anyway. Thus he deliberately violated the law.

I presume that under similar circumstances if I did the same, I would be booked and charged. He wasn't for obvious reasons - and yes we should make a point of it.

hso
January 12, 2013, 02:10 PM
We can use the information properly by citing DC's refusal to grant permission for the possession and use of the magazine, the producers proceeding to use it in spite of the DC official denial, and DC's acknowledging the law was broken and the investigation and ultimate backing down (implying pressure to do so) on pursuing charging over the magazine.

barnbwt
January 12, 2013, 03:01 PM
I think the suggestion of taping/gluing a mag to a protest sign was a clever one. Or perhaps as a fashion accessory. May have to remember that if things get bad enough I feel like picketting with a bunch of other dummies like me outside city hall.

TCB

Cosmoline
January 12, 2013, 03:09 PM
It's always the same thing from these monsters. One law for me, another for thee.

SouthernBoy
January 12, 2013, 05:32 PM
Sounds like there is now precedent for possession of "high capacity" magazines in D.C.


Doesn't it. Would really be interesting if several hundred people descended upon DC with 30-round mags on their persons and in their hands, waiving them around. After all as you mentioned, a precedent has been set.

joeschmoe
January 12, 2013, 05:55 PM
Sounds like there is now precedent for possession of "high capacity" magazines in D.C.
Yes. Just write "For Demonstration Purposes Only" on your mags.

steelerdude99
January 12, 2013, 07:38 PM
Interesting update, David Gregory and his wife knew the D.C. Attorney General. Not sure if they were friends, but they hung around the same crowd. Does that not smell a bit?

http://networkedblogs.com/H03Du

chuck

Ryanxia
January 12, 2013, 07:56 PM
As much as this stinks we should be having a legitimate discussion on how to turn this to our advantage. How to either A) Push prosecution or B) (Preferably) Use it as a legal precedents or C) Use it effectively in a media campaign that illustrates how ineffective these bans are.

While the anti's don't care about logic, it might be a good 'poster child' to get across to the common sheeple.

1911 guy
January 13, 2013, 02:09 AM
Mr. Nathan,


I must severely disagree with your decision rgarding the blantant disregard for law shown by both the network that emplos him and Mr. Gregory himself. Knowing that posessing such an article, he thirty round capacity magazine, was a crime, they sought a variance and were denied. Even after being told explicitly not to do so, Mr. Gregory chose to knowingly violate District of Columbia law. To further compound the error, you reviewed e facts as they came before you and determined not to move foreward. This, also, is wrong. Equal protection under law carries with it equal responsibility. Both for Mr. Gregory and you, Mr. Nathan.


Sincerely,

Christopher Garlich

That's the e-mail I sent. Should have proof read it before I hit "send".

22-rimfire
January 13, 2013, 04:07 PM
No surprise to me at all about Gregory. This can be used in the future in DC when they do infact try to proscute someone for the same or similar kinds of things. If it is good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Inebriated
January 13, 2013, 04:16 PM
I hope the next guy pinched in DC for a similar offense gets a lawyer smart enough to hammer this HARD. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Agreed.

Sol
January 13, 2013, 04:24 PM
When will people learn? You are mostly immune to laws if you fall under one of these conditions:
1. Entertainer
2. Musician.
3. Politician
4. Accumulated more than 72 hours of play time on a national tv station in 180 days.
5. A majority shareholder, CEO or officer of a publicly held company that grosses over $1 billion USD a year.
6. Publisher of any media who's opinions are in line with current administration.
7. Most local LEO (sorry but truth hurts guys)
8. Federal employees in law enforcement careers.
9. Military personnel O-7 and up.
10. Family members of 1,2,3,5,8,9

anchorman
January 13, 2013, 04:43 PM
I'm not in favor of magazine limits, but if you're going to have a law, it needs to be either going to be universally enforced or not at all. David Gregory should be in jail. No more "privileged class" people, it's entirely unamerican. Especially given how he knew he was breaking the law. He should get an extra fee years on his felony conviction for that.

wickedsprint
January 13, 2013, 04:45 PM
I think we should thank the AG for realizing how dumb the magazine law is by giving a pass. Asking to smite the reporter is petty.

M-Cameron
January 13, 2013, 05:11 PM
I think we should thank the AG for realizing how dumb the magazine law is by giving a pass. Asking to smite the reporter is petty.


it is petty.....but if it were you or me.....we would already be in jail, with a felony record....all because the AG wanted to 'make an example' out of us.....

we arent asking for anything drastic, only that laws be applied equally to everyone......so either get rid of the law all together, or charge Gregory.

barnbwt
January 13, 2013, 05:26 PM
By the ratification of the 14th Amendment, all citizens are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It makes little difference whether the law is "just" or not; that is for a court to decide--not an Attorney General. It's a shame that a test case involving a "commoner" wasn't reported the same day Mr. Gregory was excused, to force the issue of the double standard. It's probably too late now for someone to "get themselves arrested" in order to expose the injustice done here (and I wouldn't suggest anyone do this unless they are some sort of professional protestor who engages in flamboyant civil disobediance ;)).

TCB

alan
January 13, 2013, 05:41 PM
If the WashPo is right abobut him not being charged, the most likely ending, is anyone with a semblence of awareness the least surprised?

Shovelhead
January 13, 2013, 06:40 PM
"All animals were created equal.
Some are more equal than others."
Napolian the Pig
George Orwell's Animal Farm

Hapworth
January 13, 2013, 06:56 PM
On the upside of things, Gregory's use of the magazine on-air, and the system's unwillingness to prosecute is possibly the most graphic example of just how thoroughly stupid magazine bans are in the first place.

Couched in the right way, we can use the Gregory incident to our advantage, but I agree that it has to be done in such a way as to avoid looking spiteful or petty.This.

And I'll add: a careful reading of the AG's press release heavily tilts toward his office being strong-armed into dropping the matter; it's oozing with anger and a pointedness you don't see when everybody's in the same page...

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/david-gregory-letter/240/

sonick808
January 13, 2013, 09:24 PM
meanwhile, a combat vet sits in jail for violating the law after being given bad information about transporting on his way to a shoot.

So, combat vet < David Gregory

stay classy, DC

Batty67
January 13, 2013, 09:37 PM
As if anything would have come from this. Kind of like prosecuting Clemons to the nth degree about steroids and lying. Pointless.

If you enjoyed reading about "David Gregory will not be charged" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!