If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News9 Oklahoma)   DC Prosecutors have decided to not to charge the David Gregory with breaking the law. Finally, a rich affluent white person can get justice in America   (news9.com) divider line 45
    More: Followup, Wayne LaPierre, David Keene, Oklahoma City, school massacre, Admonition, d.c. police, NBC, attorney generals  
•       •       •

7279 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2013 at 1:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-12 04:03:40 AM
5 votes:
I just want to point out that those of on the gun nut side of the Gun Control Wars of 2013 clearly have some truly crazy assholes on our side. Alex Jones (long known crazy asshole) and James Yeager (recently off the seriously deep end crazy asshole). We are pretty embarrassed by their antics.

The anti-gun types though, are being led by people (and defending!) some of the most blatant hypocrisy that has ever existed in this nation, insofar as the very mouth pieces who lead your movement actually break the very firearm laws they seem to champion. Gregory here committed an offense that plenty of good citizens have been severely prosecuted for, often times having violated the law by complete accident and with zero intent. Gregory (and his staff) full up knew the law, and were even told by the police that their planned activities were illegal. They committed the crime anyhow.

DiFi is happy to dance on the graves of the dead to push her agenda to strip Americans of their firearm rights. She's said it herself; her overarching goal is to remove all firearms from private ownership. At the same time, she has had one of the rare as hen's teeth San Francisco CCW permits. Now, there is evidence that she has a de facto national CCW permit through this Honorary US Marshall fiasco. All this, while she is afforded the privilege of taxpayer funded security that would make a 3rd world junta dictator jealous (provided by the US Capital Police).

So please continue the one liners about our crazy uncles in the closet. We are far more embarrassed for having them on our side than you can possibly imagine. At least though, we aren't turning a blind eye to outright elitist, and likely quite illegal, hypocrisy.
2013-01-12 03:37:12 AM
5 votes:
In December of 2012, David Gregory: deliberately violated D.C. gun law for financial and political gain.

In September of 2011, Adam Meckler: inadvertently violated D.C. Gun law.

David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.

Adam Meckler possessed a few 9mm cartridges, without the proper D.C. permit.

David Gregory has not been charged, arrested, or taken to jail.

Adam Meckler was arrested, handcuffed, taken to jail, eventually was released and plead a plea bargain that included a fine, probation, and being registered on the D.C. gun offender list.

David Gregory has been lauded by his peers, defended on numerous media sites, and been invited for an exclusive interview with President Obama.

Adam Meckler took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

David Gregory does not appear to have taken such an oath.

Adam Meckler is a combat veteran.

David Gregory is a member of the ruling elite. His children go to school with President Obama's children, where they enjoy the security of armed guards.


1 law for you, something else for them.This isn't isolated. Diane Feinstein carries guns. Had a carry license for years. When that came to light, she dropped the license, but became a deputized US Marshal (doesn't need the license now), yet fights to ban all firearms from everyone else. One law for you.
2013-01-12 01:49:33 AM
5 votes:
For all the people jumping on the bandwagon that this decision was made for the stated reason that "criminal charges wouldn't serve the public's best interests", you need to seriously read up on DC's gun laws and how they are applied to persons not in the media. People are prosecuted for possessing a handful of rounds of ammunition, or a magazine as shown in the television segment. These are the sole charges and and aren't, as was stated by someone else in this thread, tacked on other charges to "cover the bases". The plain fact is if you or I had waved that mag around on television, we'd be facing charges, but because of who did it and the agenda behind it, it gets a free pass. The people lauding this decision should be ashamed.
2013-01-12 04:45:18 AM
4 votes:

The Loaf: He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District. By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.


You're missing the entire point.  They are selectively enforcing this law.  I think it's a bullshiat limitation, but another guy was given hell even though he tried to do everything right (he had everything in properly locked cases, etc).  Gregory is getting a pass because his politics happen to correspond with the city's political stance.  If he'd been showing the magazine on the show to be defiant instead of to denounce it, you bet they'd be going after him.
2013-01-12 05:07:37 AM
3 votes:
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the usual cadre of politicians, pundits and commentators are hitting the airwaves and condemning believers of the "guns don't kill" rationale. This exercise in demonization is being followed with pleas to strip Americans of their guns and place a ban on vaguely-defined "assault" weapons.

What's been lacking in the flurry of proposals that inevitably followed a catastrophe like Sandy Hook has been a deeper look at the kind of environment impressionable minds are coming of age in. Far too often, politically-minded observers fall back on reactionary emotion for the solution to problems without actually engaging in critical thinking as to the root of what they are trying to solve.

As Southwestern University School of Law professor Butler Shaffer put it, we tend to focus too much "attention on the consequences of our behavior" instead of the "casual factors, as the thinking that produces dysfunctional results."

We then end up looking to government to solve problems which it has a hand in creating. Many pro-gun control advocates are quick to mention that there is little gun violence in countries with "reasonable" gun laws in place. Yet as economist Thomas Sowell points out, countries with stricter gun control laws such as Mexico, Brazil and Russia all have higher murder rates than the U.S. When you compare Switzerland to Germany, where the former has higher rates of gun ownership than the latter, Switzerland has a lower murder rate.

The difficulty with using the empirical method to explain human phenomena is that it ignores the complexity of mankind. Data can be cherry-picked to prove any conclusion. Logic and reason are the best tools to make sense of a tragedy such as a school shooting. And the fact remains that government bans never prevent said goods from reaching the public. More often than not, good people abide by the prohibition while the more criminally inclined ignore the law.

The truth is we will never really know what compelled a young man to take the life of his mother, her coworkers and the children of Sandy Hook Elementary. There are discernable factors that may have played a significant role, however.

Our country's empathetic response to the ongoing wars that result in the deaths of innocent women and children has certainly resulted in the dehumanizing of fatal violence. The press's ignoring, and outright covering up, of the human victims (often called "collateral damage") of the War on Terror has had an immeasurable impact on how today's society views the loss of life.

When the Washington Post ran a photo of 2-year-old Ali Hussein being lifted from the rubble of his home in Baghdad after an American air strike in 2008, some wrote to the paper and complained that the picture would undermine the war effort. The fact that the child was stripped of a life that was fully ahead of him was lost on most Americans.


There also is the increased use of psychotropic pharmaceuticals that have been shown to induce suicidal and violent tendencies. These drugs were used by the shooter in Connecticut, the shooter in Aurora, Col., and one of the Columbine High School assailants.

The politically-connected pharmaceutical industry, in cahoots with the equally connected medical industry, cashes in by peddling these government-approved narcotics. While correlation doesn't automatically mean causation, none of these points have been highlighted by a media establishment that would rather make quick judgments instead of taking the time to examine what has become the new "normal" American life.

Those who decry "the guns don't kill people" line aren't acknowledging reality. Guns are inanimate objects. They lack free will and consciousness. To say that a gun kills a person is to say that couches, shoes and washing machines can kill people.

In short, guns don't act - people do. The same goes for television shows, movies and video games with violent content. They are objects that are valued by the minds of the public. Why so many in our society are drawn to violence is worth asking because the Sandy Hook shooting was but another extension of this fascination.

My father often shares with me an anecdote about a classmate who brought a rifle to his high school speech class to demonstrate how to properly clean a firearm. This was in the blue-collar city of Emmaus, and nobody felt unsafe in the presence of a student brandishing a functioning weapon. The question is; what has changed in the decades since the late 1960s? It certainly can't be access to guns since they were just as widely available back then, if not more.

Eighteenth-century British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote that "the nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity" and that the simplicity often displayed in hasty political action is "grossly ignorant." It's disappointing, but not unexpected, to witness another intellectual mob calling for prohibition of the one tool that holds tyranny at bay.

Common sense says that disarming law-abiding citizens will make them more susceptible to harm. But in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Sandy Hook, rational thought is tossed aside in favor of short run solutions.

What must be considered is why some individuals are so drawn to violence, what effect has the increased prescription rate of antidepressants had, and why casualties in war have become so dehumanized. There is an uncomfortable but common denominator in all these factors.

I would hope anti-gun zealots notice it before they ramp up their War on Firearms.

http://mises.ca/posts/blog/guns-like-washing-machines-dont-act-people - do/
2013-01-12 03:10:50 AM
3 votes:
petersrdg1011.edublogs.org
2013-01-12 02:14:00 AM
3 votes:

GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.


Coupled with video of him announcing what it was, eyewitness reports from production staff and other guests on the show, his prior request to the federal government and the DC government about whether or not he could bring the magazine on the show, the receipt from his production staff to purchase the magazine - none of that is "circumstantial" except in your liberal masturbatory fantasy of TV-land legal justice where people you agree with always get off because they are working for your greater good.

You're slipping into Alex Jones territory.  That's not a good place to be.  It's where the vortex of trolling and stupid come together in a black hole of ridiculous.

And unlike you, I'm not cheerleading so I don't have to contort myself into such asinine arguments.  He shouldn't have been prosecuted because it was a poorly written law to begin with, and it clearly wasn't meant to target journalists making a point on the news.  It would be just as ridiculous if a DC college professor was arrested using an empty high capacity magazine to make a point in class.

I know this, because liberals wrote that law, and it was stupid how they wrote it.  You have to pretend he didn't break the law because if you admit it, you have to admit it was a stupid law in the first place.  And you can't have your team take a hit, can you?
2013-01-12 01:43:38 AM
3 votes:

ThisIsntMe: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

yes

THIS


No, for the same reason that Gregory couldn't hold up pictures of child porn during an expose about child pornographers. The law is specifically targeted against possession. And guess what? The fact that publicly-broadcast video exists of him holding the magazine is rather solid evidence backing a possession charge.
2013-01-12 01:27:58 AM
3 votes:
Anyone who give more than two shiats and a fark about this should be euthanized.
2013-01-12 01:19:57 AM
3 votes:

It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?


This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.
2013-01-12 12:21:24 AM
3 votes:
Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.
2013-01-12 06:47:12 AM
2 votes:
I'd like one of these, please:
i1220.photobucket.com
2013-01-12 04:53:23 AM
2 votes:
ThisIsntMe:  Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.

By that logic, Heller (as in DC vs Heller:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) could have exercised his right to bear arms in Virginia or Maryland.

Of course, for some reason, you don't seem to think that the Constitution applies to DC, so you're obviously not in a position to make an informed opinion on the matter.
2013-01-12 01:33:19 AM
2 votes:

Dimensio: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.


Museums can display all sorts of freaky military and historical shiat in the name of education, including snuff-type photos of dead people that would be considered obscene in other contexts.

And display is a long way from use.
2013-01-12 01:32:16 AM
2 votes:
I'm just impressed the article actually called it a magazine and not a clip.
2013-01-12 01:31:26 AM
2 votes:
The real question is how would a precedent in this case apply to all the police officers that display illegal items for the exact same purpose.
2013-01-12 12:53:50 AM
2 votes:
That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.

But I find this liberal talking point interesting (and stupid):

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?
2013-01-12 05:32:33 PM
1 votes:

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


Translation: Prosecuting David Gregory would point out the stupidity of the law, and it would throw both the law and the administration of it into disrepute, so we are going to just drop it to make this whole thing go away.
2013-01-12 04:34:49 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ad hominem, how unexpected.


You're supposed to read the definition on your word of the day calendar.  You're also supposed to tear that sheet off to reveal a new word the next day.  And welcome to Fark.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You people literally have not a single fact on your side.


I'm not sure which people you believe I represent.  Hell, I wasn't even trying to represent all these people who think you're an idiot.  I don't think you're an idiot.  i just think that you forget which persona you meant to use from time to time, and I think it has to do with drinking and isolation.
2013-01-12 10:10:19 AM
1 votes:
Breaks the law to make a political statement = Just fine!
i46.tinypic.com

Obey the law, making a political statement = Assholes!
i49.tinypic.com
2013-01-12 09:53:52 AM
1 votes:

Mikey1969: Who's Heller? That's not anybody involved in this story, the one about the person who illegally possessed a gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammo in DC. The "logic" here is that despite what you seem to think, just because he is a journalist, he doesn't get to break the law and cry "first amendment". The rest of us don't get to, and journalists don't have a special set of laws that they get to abide by.


But I was told laws banning high capacity magazines tyrannically savagely trample the rights of lawful gun owners. I guess possessing high capacity magazines is only constitutionally protected when it's not a member of the press using it for high value 1st Amendment demonstrative purposes?
2013-01-12 08:02:39 AM
1 votes:

Lehk: Dimensio: What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.

no you stupid coont, the point is that weapons laws are meant to prosecute people with weapons, not to be a convenient tool to suppress journalism and political discourse.


Except this particular law was written to prosecute people possessing large capacity magazines.
2013-01-12 07:46:30 AM
1 votes:

enochianwolf: You know, if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news personality did the same thing, I wouldn't want to see them be prosecuted for it either. You know why?


I would. You know why? Because laws don't get re-written until challenged, and if no one with pull ever is charged with violating them, they never get challenged. Then people who can't afford to challenge them are convicted because of the poor wording, and people like you don't care. This is why you are a terrible human being.
2013-01-12 05:42:10 AM
1 votes:

TheJoe03: HeWhoHasNoName: "Equal protection before the law"

It's not just a catchy soundbite, man. There's a reason "arbitrary and capricious enforcement" is a strong defense in criminal prosecutions.

Really? Are you saying that DA's and judges should not be allowed to throw out cases that they consider not worth it? In the interest of justice.


Sure, but they should apply that "discretion" evenly, rather than arrest and charge people who are in 100% compliance with the law, which this guy wasn't. See? People are pissed because law abiding citizens are getting arrested and charged when they are complying, but actual law breaking asshats like this are getting off with nothing. Same prosecutors, too.
2013-01-12 05:10:22 AM
1 votes:

ThisIsntMe: Tell me Loaf, how long will your State let you show residency when you move family and cars somewhere else for 90 days?


Well, it depends....   If I move on my own free will, they want me to change it pretty quickly.  However, if I were there in the service of the Federal government, say maybe in the military, then they give me leeway and I can stay were a citizen of where I was for as long as I want, despite where I am.

This is how all your senators and congresspersons can live in DC, Maryland and/or Virginia for nine months a year and still be eligible for reelection.   This also extends members of the executive branch as well, though, with exception to President and VP, they are not up for reelection.
2013-01-12 04:13:16 AM
1 votes:
If David Gregory had been caught with this magazine in his vehicle, driving around DC, I wouldn't be defending him. The fact that all he did was show it to people on his show is the difference, the principle of having a free press that is able to report on things without consequence. Calling for Gregory to be prosecuted for airing a segment about a gun magazine doesn't seem very American, especially since if he was showing the magazine in favor of loosening gun laws, you wouldn't hear half of the criticism from the pro-gun side, they only want him to be arrested because he's for tightening the gun laws. As for hypocrisy, again, if he had it on his person driving around the street, i'd be ok with him getting arrested, the fact that he possessed it on his show, in my mind, should automatically give him a free pass as that is called journalism.
2013-01-12 04:07:03 AM
1 votes:

enochianwolf: Jesus christ, are you gun fellators never ashamed? The law is meant to keep these kinds of magazines away from criminals, a news personality is demonstrating them on his show to the nation and you are hoping some DC prosecutor is retarded enough to think David Gregory might use it in a shooting? Is the world that black-and-white to you that you can't see how a regular person owning this magazine is different from a news personality showcasing it to the public? are you really that retarded?


Well, first, the law prohibits ANYONE from even holding one of these. Not just criminals.

Second, consistency would be nice. Other people have called ahead, been told by the police exactly what conditions they would have to follow if they even needed to transport a high capacity magazine, have complied with this, have been arrested while in total compliance, and have not only been charged, but have been taken all of the way to court before a judge threw the case out.

Third, we are continually told how laws like this will help keeps magazines like this off of the streets, yet when someone flaunts that very law on international TV, nothing is done. Yeah, 'more laws' are obviously the answer, aren't they?

Fourth, many people dislike the hypocrisy of the "You have to comply with the law, but I don't." crowd. For obvious reasons.

Fifth, there should be no difference between a "regular person" owning something and a "news personality showcasing it to the public". "News personalities" don't get a special set of rules to follow that lets them off the hook for breaking the law, and the whole "first amendment" argument is a bullshiat claim in this situation as well.
2013-01-12 03:15:16 AM
1 votes:

ThisIsntMe: GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.

I think that an image on television has several witnesses. Producer,director,sound.


Plus the police that they asked if they could use it on the show.

If he had any balls at all, he would be on his show begging them to charge him, because he would be proud to be held accountable for violating the kind of law he was calling for. It would be a principled stand. Instead, he shows that he has no balls, and just pretends like it didn't happen, even though he wants everyone else to be prosecuted for it.
2013-01-12 02:52:37 AM
1 votes:

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


I thought the "interest of the people" (or at least the people calling for more gun restrictions) was that we need tougher gun laws that are strictly enforced. When someone can flagrantly break the law and not even get a slap on the wrist, it says to me that more laws aren't the answer... Sounds to me like we need to start consistently prosecuting the laws already in place before making new ones.
2013-01-12 02:51:54 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: Mikey1969: The law was written for any possession of the magazine, I think it fits like a glove.

It does, but I was going for the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.  Failure to recognize the difference leads to zero-tolerance policies in schools, another plague on American society.

I know what they intended with the law, and it wasn't prosecuting David Gregory for holding an empty magazine on a news show.  That illustrates that it wasn't a very well-written law to begin with.


And the only way we stop writing horribly written laws is if people start getting prosecuted that fall on the wrong side of those laws that "aren't in the spirit of the law". You can legislate that kind of stuff if you just stop and think about things for a minute, rather than just shooting from the hip on emotions and coming up with laws.
2013-01-12 02:37:18 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


"Circumstantial"? He stated what it was on television, AND they called and told the cops that they were going to do it. If I called the cops and said that I was going to kill my wife, and then went on television and stated that I had killed her, if she turned up dead, they'd have enough to convict me of, unless the prosecution was made up of morons.
2013-01-12 02:35:00 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Lsherm: GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.

Coupled with video of him announcing what it was, eyewitness reports from production staff and other guests on the show, his prior request to the federal government and the DC government about whether or not he could bring the magazine on the show, the receipt from his production staff to purchase the magazine - none of that is "circumstantial" except in your liberal masturbatory fantasy of TV-land legal justice where people you agree with always get off because they are working for your greater good.

You're slipping into Alex Jones territory.  That's not a good place to be.  It's where the vortex of trolling and stupid come together in a black hole of ridiculous.

And unlike you, I'm not cheerleading so I don't have to contort myself into such asinine arguments.  He shouldn't have been prosecuted because it was a poorly written law to begin with, and it clearly wasn't meant to target journalists making a point on the news.  It would be just as ridiculous if a DC college professor was arrested using an empty high capacity magazine to make a point in class.

I know this, because liberals wrote that law, and it was stupid how they wrote it.  You have to pretend he didn't break the law because if you admit it, you have to admit it was a stupid law in the first place.  And you can't have your team take a hit, can you?

Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.


gat_00 in charge of reading comprehension.
2013-01-12 02:34:25 AM
1 votes:
D.C. police say NBC asked for permission to use the clip during a segment and was advised that it would be illegal, though NBC has said it received conflicting guidance from other law enforcement sources.

No excuse. Since it's a CITY law, then when the CITY police say it's illegal, other law enforcement agencies' opinions are just farts in the wind.

I just find it amazingly that in their need to trumpet the cause of stronger gun restrictions that they would KNOWINGLY violate gun laws. What a bunch of pricks. It's just another example of why I don't want the anti-gun people to be cheering for new laws. One reason is that they are calling for enforcement of stuff that they are proudly ignorant of, the second is that they feel that they can violate the same laws that they want made stronger whenever they want. I guess this proves that laws against high capacity magazines are useless anyway. If someone waving it around on international TV won't get busted, who will?

Screaming "First Amendment" is a total cop-out, too, but at least they're not taking the Derp Express that farkers here are taking and demanding that people prove it was a real magazine in the first place. It's the dumbest defense anyone could have come up with for this, and I bet that if it hasn't been rolled out yet(forgot to check), it will be before this thread is 24 hours old.
2013-01-12 02:02:12 AM
1 votes:
Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?


I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.
2013-01-12 01:52:28 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


An army vet just got acquitted after a months long legal fight because he seas caught with one. It was the only charge. The kicker is the same prosecutors that excused Gregory said that the vet deserved the book thrown at him despite the acquittal.
2013-01-12 01:40:17 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.


Seems pretty clear to me. Anyone in DC who posses this type of magazine is breaking the law. There was no intent written into the law and yet DC has horrible crime stats.
2013-01-12 01:35:39 AM
1 votes:
Dimensio and Holocaust Agnostic

I was referring to the free press provision, not the free speech provision. Without at least some freedom to operate outside the bounds of the law the press would be unable to report on any criminal activity. Journalists would be forced to testify about drug deals, prostitution, or mob activity witnessed while researching a story. This is less egregious than any of those instances, as no one in this case sought to break the law or do harm.

Without a similarly expansive reading of the First Amendment journalists would be guilty of at least obstructing justice almost every time they interviewed criminals.
2013-01-12 01:35:38 AM
1 votes:

Bonzo_1116: Dimensio: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.

Museums can display all sorts of freaky military and historical shiat in the name of education, including snuff-type photos of dead people that would be considered obscene in other contexts.

And display is a long way from use.


Museums are typically afforded specific exemptions not applicable in law to private citizens, even to journalists.
2013-01-12 01:34:37 AM
1 votes:

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


He could make a good second amendment case.
2013-01-12 01:29:36 AM
1 votes:

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.
2013-01-12 01:27:07 AM
1 votes:
I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....
2013-01-12 01:27:01 AM
1 votes:
Awesome headline, subby.
2013-01-12 01:23:02 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.

But I find this liberal talking point interesting (and stupid):

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?


What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.
2013-01-12 01:22:10 AM
1 votes:
Why the definite article, Subs?
2013-01-12 12:42:48 AM
1 votes:
legalinsurrection.com
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report