Does this mean a national magazine ban is dead in the water?


PDA






bushmaster1313
January 13, 2013, 11:32 PM
Washington, D.C. Attorney General Irving Nathan announced on Friday that David Gregory would NOT be charged for possession of a 30 round magazine that was illegal under D.C. law.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politics/guns-nbc/index.html?iref=obinsite

Nathan was appointed by President Obama and could be replaced at any time.

How can a magazine ban be in the works if the President himself will not enforce an existing ban?

Must be that there are not the votes to get it through Congress and a determination has been made that an Executive Order will not work.

Not looking for ad hominem (personal) attacks. This is just a comment on the reality, not a comment on the players.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does this mean a national magazine ban is dead in the water?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
481
January 14, 2013, 12:09 AM
Washington, D.C. Attorney General Irving Nathan announced on Friday that David Gregory would NOT be charged for possession of a 30 round magazine that was illegal under D.C. law.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politics/guns-nbc/index.html?iref=obinsite

Nathan was appointed by President Obama and could be replaced at any time.

How can a magazine ban be in the works if the President himself will not enforce an existing ban?

Must be that there are not the votes to get it through Congress and a determination has been made that an Executive Order will not work.

I wouldn't bet on it. The elitist Left is subject to a different set of standards than we are- that is, they do whatever they want to do and suffer no consequences; we suffer the consequences of whatever they want to do.

Don't believe for a second that they are worried about appearing hypocritical by saying one thing and doing another- the DC mob has been doing it for years and we've been letting them get away with it.

I doubt that they've shelved anything as an option and now is not the time to develop a sense of complacency.

M-Cameron
January 14, 2013, 12:12 AM
ide just like to know why they are so eager to pass new laws when they arent even willing to enforce the laws they already have....

22-rimfire
January 14, 2013, 12:29 AM
You can do little wrong if you are part of their group. Gregory's experience has nothing to do with a potential 10-round magazine restriction.

50 cal
January 14, 2013, 12:31 AM
Laws aren't written for criminals like David Gregory. They are written for law abiding citizens like us.

HorseSoldier
January 14, 2013, 04:25 AM
+1. The conclusion on that seems to be that he only violated the law to educate the public or somesuch, which is not an affirmative defense unless DC law is really quite different than the rest of the planet.

Avenger29
January 14, 2013, 04:52 AM
No all that it means is some animals are more equal than others.

Nothing to see here, move along. Gregory is one of the protected classes.

BHP FAN
January 14, 2013, 05:35 AM
''Does this mean a national magazine ban is dead in the water?''

I wish! No, what it means is that our ''betters'' live by different laws than we do....

joeschmoe
January 14, 2013, 06:25 AM
Do you get paid to post this on different gun websites?
http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/289652-does-mean-national-magazine-ban-dead-water.html



Nathan was appointed by President Obama and could be replaced at any time.
False. He's a DC AG, not federal AG. He was appointed by the Mayor. Not the President.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/12/irv-nathan-nominated-for-dc-attorney-general.html

How can a magazine ban be in the works if the President himself will not enforce an existing ban?POTUS has no power over DC, read the Constitution

This has nothing to do with federal issues. IMO, a federal ban isn't likely, but DC law or action have nothing to do with a future magazine ban.

Shadow 7D
January 14, 2013, 06:48 AM
Isn't there a Veteran who is charged under this law facing a year or more over a forgotten mag in his car?

Ky Larry
January 14, 2013, 07:17 AM
So if I make a video of me robbing a bank and call it educational, I won't be charged. This makes sense, if you're a Libtard.

single stack
January 14, 2013, 08:46 AM
There has also been no news of George Gillett since December.
There was supposed to be an "investigation" into how the the ATF
agent's FN 5-7 pistol was recovered in a Mexican drug cartel gunfight
in Mexico where some Beauty Queen was killed.

He had also been found to have filled out two form 4473's dishonestly.

Apparently, nothing will be done about his violations of US gun laws either.

ApacheCoTodd
January 14, 2013, 09:55 AM
Just another example of "do as I say, not as I do" to which so many of THEM adhere .

OR

"..... some animals (THEM) are more equal than others."

Quelle surprise!

rdhood
January 14, 2013, 11:23 AM
Nevermind.

armoredman
January 14, 2013, 12:29 PM
Sorry, 50cal, I liked that one a lot. :)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/Firearms%20rights%20posters/magazinelimitlaws.jpg

beatledog7
January 14, 2013, 12:34 PM
It means we are a becoming a nation of men (insiders) not of laws.

scaatylobo
January 14, 2013, 12:35 PM
Not to be in any way disrespectful of those that are handicapped,but only those that cannot see or hear would swallow the B.S. that is shoveled at the LEGAL gun owner of the U.S.A..

If any have ever read "Animal Farm" then you can sadly see where we are heading.

Unless its changed ,this way its the elite v/s the people,and the people will lose if they continue the way its been.

the meaning of doing something the same way,with an expectation of a different outcome = is mental illness.

The American people are showing that mental sickness of an expectation of a change without CHANGE in our tactics.

Tommygunn
January 14, 2013, 12:37 PM
Washington, D.C. Attorney General Irving Nathan announced on Friday that David Gregory would NOT be charged for possession of a 30 round magazine that was illegal under D.C. law.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politi...?iref=obinsite

Nathan was appointed by President Obama and could be replaced at any time.

How can a magazine ban be in the works if the President himself will not enforce an existing ban?

Non-sequitor.
Just because a elitists leftie was not charged (they probably decided not to because he had no malevalent intent as well as him being a leftie) iit does not follow there will be no ban.
For there to be a ban, it would have to pass the House, the Senate and be signed by the president. The last two are highly likely but the house will probably not pass it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does this mean a national magazine ban is dead in the water?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!