did david gregory break the law on meet the press holding up that magazine

[Valerie]

FTR - The conflicting reports...




TMZ cites a source who said a staffer from Meet the Press called ATF and inquired about the legality of the prop. Per the report:

Our sources say the D.C. police official informed ATF David could legally show the magazine, provided it was empty. An ATF official then called the staffer from “Meet the Press” to inform them they could use the magazine.

Earlier reports noted the statement from D.C. police that said “NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied.” TMZ observed that the show may have gotten conflicting answers. The matter has been under investigation.

David Gregory Actually Did Have Permission To Use Magazine Clip As Prop, Report Says | Mediaite





Well-placed law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... a staffer from "Meet the Press" called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun control. We're told the ATF person contacted the D.C. police to find out if the District of Columbia -- the place where the show is broadcast -- had a law prohibiting such a display.

Our sources say the D.C. police official informed ATF David could legally show the magazine, provided it was empty. An ATF official then called the staffer from "Meet the Press" to inform them they could use the magazine.



D.C. police released a statement today, saying "NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Dept. inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied."

It appears "Meet the Press" may have gotten 2 different answers from law enforcement.




'Meet the Press' Got the Green Light for Magazine Demo with David Gregory | TMZ.com

 

[DiamondDave]

I am speculating since there is a question of whether or not permission was granted, but apparently no doubt that it was asked for, I am guessing IF that is true, then he must have known the choice he was making in defying their denial of permission... Like after they said no, he said to himself oh I'd like to see the gun nuts heads pop off, so I'm gonna do it anyway, haha... Though I doubt that actually happened.


As far as "equal treatment" there is a whole range of penalties under judicial discretion for a reason, and IF he indeed broke a law, he or NBC will most likely just get fined.

Then all ANYONE should get is fined... you see how that works?? But somehow I think that if an NRA member had one and it was in their weapon while defending their family or property, I don't think many on the left would be screaming for 'just a fine'

It was not NBC who did the action.. NBC is not a person... this Gregory guy did the action, and is responsible for his own actions (something leftists do not like to hear)

I see exactly how that works. You are not the Judge, see how THAT works?

And subjectivity is all great, as long as it benefits you and your ilk... and we do see how that works

 

[Valerie]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

 

[Valerie]

Then all ANYONE should get is fined... you see how that works?? But somehow I think that if an NRA member had one and it was in their weapon while defending their family or property, I don't think many on the left would be screaming for 'just a fine'

It was not NBC who did the action.. NBC is not a person... this Gregory guy did the action, and is responsible for his own actions (something leftists do not like to hear)

I see exactly how that works. You are not the Judge, see how THAT works?

And subjectivity is all great, as long as it benefits you and your ilk... and we do see how that works

Cut the crap, Dave, I have no "ILK" mmkay, I have an informed opinion.

 

[Pogo]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

Amen, hear hear, huzzah, encore and rat own.

Never gets old:
"Fire" Bob Costas...
"Deport" Piers Morgan...
"Imprison" David Gregory...
"Disseminate" personal info of newspaper editors who listed already-public info on gun permits...
"See" the pattern.
=============
"ilk", from Lowland Scots ilka ("each"), as in ilka ane ("each one"). Hi.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

He certainly didn't purchase it LEGALLY, right?

 

[saveliberty]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

He certainly didn't purchase it LEGALLY, right?

He stole the hammer?



That ain't right.

 

[Si modo]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

 

[Pogo]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

Because the designed purpose of said magazine is to feed an assault weapon. Had the designed purpose been to be a TV prop, no such law would exist.

 

[Si modo]

David Gregory (or any talking head) doesn't do their show in a vacuum all by himself. The Producer calls the shots, sets up the talent and the content, and clears any hurdles like this. The talent (Gregory in this case) just deals with the interview itself and depends on the Producer for having all this set up in advance. Including the legal issues.

We're not watching a human named David Gregory on the screen. We're watching a team effort. He's just the head you see.

And I work in a team environment at my job... now, if I am ORDERED to do something illegal, I could POSSIBLY get off the hook, but not entirely likely as I am also responsible for my own actions....

Your key phrase is "ordered to do something illegal". That means you have to know you'd be doing something illegal. What I'm saying is that in this case that question would have been investigated and resolved by Gregory's producer -- not by David Gregory. That's just the figurehead we see on the screen.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Pogo]

And I work in a team environment at my job... now, if I am ORDERED to do something illegal, I could POSSIBLY get off the hook, but not entirely likely as I am also responsible for my own actions....

Your key phrase is "ordered to do something illegal". That means you have to know you'd be doing something illegal. What I'm saying is that in this case that question would have been investigated and resolved by Gregory's producer -- not by David Gregory. That's just the figurehead we see on the screen.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

That's not the point -- his original treatise was centering on David Gregory personally as the lone gunman. I just elucidated on how these things work in the backgound.

I see you couldn't come up with a retort to my last so you went further back to find a chew toy. You may as well not bother; everything I post is irrefutable scintillating perfection

 

[Si modo]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

Because the designed purpose of said magazine is to feed an assault weapon. Had the designed purpose been to be a TV prop, no such law would exist.

Too bad for Gregory et al there is no exception to the law making it illegal to be in possession of that magazine in the District.

 

[Valerie]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

 

[Pogo]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

Appropriately said, and if and when the DA gets this case this would be the reasoning that he (>OR SHE<) takes into account.

See how easy it is when cooler heads prevail?

 

[Politico]

He got permission. Deal with it Rightyloons.

 

[Si modo]

He got permission. Deal with it Rightyloons.

Neither the cops nor the ATF has the authority to grant any civilian permission to break the law.

If a cop told me that they heard from another cop that I had permission to kill a bitch I know, I sure as hell wouldn't be stupid enough to believe that I could kill her.

Damn, I'm glad I don't watch NBC...a bunch of fucking retards. I don't watch any of them, but NBC sets a new bar for retardation.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

So again.. the law is for everyone else.. well, except for the liberal who has the best intentions so the law does not count

 

[DiamondDave]

I see exactly how that works. You are not the Judge, see how THAT works?

And subjectivity is all great, as long as it benefits you and your ilk... and we do see how that works

Cut the crap, Dave, I have no "ILK" mmkay, I have an informed opinion.

No.. you have an UNinformed opinion...

 

[Politico]

Yes they do for the purpose of demonstration. Been done forever. Remember elementary school when they would have people come in and talk about drugs? How do you think they were able to bring all those samples with them?

 

[DiamondDave]

David Gregory (or any talking head) doesn't do their show in a vacuum all by himself. The Producer calls the shots, sets up the talent and the content, and clears any hurdles like this. The talent (Gregory in this case) just deals with the interview itself and depends on the Producer for having all this set up in advance. Including the legal issues.

We're not watching a human named David Gregory on the screen. We're watching a team effort. He's just the head you see.

And I work in a team environment at my job... now, if I am ORDERED to do something illegal, I could POSSIBLY get off the hook, but not entirely likely as I am also responsible for my own actions....

Your key phrase is "ordered to do something illegal". That means you have to know you'd be doing something illegal. What I'm saying is that in this case that question would have been investigated and resolved by Gregory's producer -- not by David Gregory. That's just the figurehead we see on the screen.

ignorantia legis neminem excusat