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

[Pogo]

Linked several times in the thread. Obviously, you are one of those posters who won't read links.

Funny how people go about things; when I need a link, I go fetch it. When I make a claim, I substantiate it. I don't just sit there and say "it's back there somewhere, go find it".
I know that smell. Bad dog.

"Run! Martians are invading the earth!!"

"Oh yeah? Where'd you hear that?"

"Go look it up, it's been linked! Don't you read links??"

Talk is cheap.

I posted the link already in this thread, and don't do that again for those too lazy to read it the first time. If I posted it in another thread, then I would post it again.

Now you know.

So the reason you can't come up with it is that it doesn't exist. Got it.
You lose.

 

[Si modo]

Funny how people go about things; when I need a link, I go fetch it. When I make a claim, I substantiate it. I don't just sit there and say "it's back there somewhere, go find it".
I know that smell. Bad dog.

"Run! Martians are invading the earth!!"

"Oh yeah? Where'd you hear that?"

"Go look it up, it's been linked! Don't you read links??"

Talk is cheap.

I posted the link already in this thread, and don't do that again for those too lazy to read it the first time. If I posted it in another thread, then I would post it again.

Now you know.

So the reason you can't come up with it is that it doesn't exist. Got it.
You lose.

Liar.

 

[Valerie]

There is one witness, unless you count the camera crew, and I don't think they're close enough to get a good look. Actually you could question the stagehand that brought it up too, but each of these cases depends on that witness being familiar enough with the magazine to definitively state that it is that and not a prop. Rotsa ruck there.

Your "millions" simply saw him pick up "something". If you or I were under oath asked to positively identify what we saw on TV -- we couldn't.

As for the District, while I'm amazed that you propose to speak for black people in DC, I suggest not burning the bridge on the day job, because we all know when there's no case, there's no case. You're projecting again.

This is basically a last-minute entry for silliest story of the year, aiming valiantly for honourable mention. Have some perspective.

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

Exactly.

 

[Si modo]

There is one witness, unless you count the camera crew, and I don't think they're close enough to get a good look. Actually you could question the stagehand that brought it up too, but each of these cases depends on that witness being familiar enough with the magazine to definitively state that it is that and not a prop. Rotsa ruck there.

Your "millions" simply saw him pick up "something". If you or I were under oath asked to positively identify what we saw on TV -- we couldn't.

As for the District, while I'm amazed that you propose to speak for black people in DC, I suggest not burning the bridge on the day job, because we all know when there's no case, there's no case. You're projecting again.

This is basically a last-minute entry for silliest story of the year, aiming valiantly for honourable mention. Have some perspective.

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

 

[DiamondDave]

There is one witness, unless you count the camera crew, and I don't think they're close enough to get a good look. Actually you could question the stagehand that brought it up too, but each of these cases depends on that witness being familiar enough with the magazine to definitively state that it is that and not a prop. Rotsa ruck there.

Your "millions" simply saw him pick up "something". If you or I were under oath asked to positively identify what we saw on TV -- we couldn't.

As for the District, while I'm amazed that you propose to speak for black people in DC, I suggest not burning the bridge on the day job, because we all know when there's no case, there's no case. You're projecting again.

This is basically a last-minute entry for silliest story of the year, aiming valiantly for honourable mention. Have some perspective.

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

Stupid laws have to still be followed.... someone should change the law with an exclusion if they want to... does not excuse the fact that the law on the books was broken

Do I think it is wrong to show it on TV for education?? No.. Do I think he still broke the law and that consequences will and should come from it?? Yes

 

[Valerie]

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

 

[Pogo]

I posted the link already in this thread, and don't do that again for those too lazy to read it the first time. If I posted it in another thread, then I would post it again.

Now you know.

So the reason you can't come up with it is that it doesn't exist. Got it.
You lose.

Liar.

::sniff::sniff:: how's that link-quest coming along? It's been hours now. Some hound you are.

You made a claim;
You cannot document said claim;
You lose. QED. Dog up and admit it.

 

[Annie]

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

which subsection do you think Gregory claims?

 

[Si modo]

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

1. If you want to believe he is a licensed dealer, and if he is, that is going to be hysterical, considering his demeanor during that infamous interview.

2. He sure as hell is no agent of any government.

3. He cannot have a permit for that magazine as it is not permitted within the District

4. If he is a collector, that also would be hysterical. I'd love it.

So, yeah, I excluded that part as it doesn't apply.

You have a short memory because you tried this bullshit earlier in the thread by trying to convince folks that as a reporter, he is an agent of the government.

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

 

[Valerie]

So the reason you can't come up with it is that it doesn't exist. Got it.
You lose.

Liar.

::sniff::sniff:: how's that link-quest coming along? It's been hours now. Some hound you are.

You made a claim;
You cannot document said claim;
You lose. QED. Dog up and admit it.

Oh stop it! We all lose if we fail to understand each other...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

OK but what does that have to do with the magazine?

 

[Valerie]

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

1. If you want to believe he is a licensed dealer, and if he is, that is going to be hysterical, considering his demeanor during that infamous interview.

2. He sure as hell is no agent of any government.

3. He cannot have a permit for that magazine as it is not permitted within the District

4. If he is a collector, that also would be hysterical. I'd love it.

So, yeah, I excluded that part as it doesn't apply.

You have a short memory because you tried this bullshit earlier in the thread by trying to convince folks that as a reporter, he is an agent of the government.

I "tried to convince folks" ? by posting the same thing I just posted.

"folks" can decide for themselves... My memory is just fine.



The fact remains, none of us knows the status of the permits or permission.

 

[Si modo]

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

OK but what does that have to do with the magazine?

Part (a) is obviously irrelevant as it concerns Gregory.

Part (b) is as it says "no person....", applies.

 

[Valerie]

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

 

[Si modo]

You forgot this part:




§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector’s certificate on September 24, 1976.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

1. If you want to believe he is a licensed dealer, and if he is, that is going to be hysterical, considering his demeanor during that infamous interview.

2. He sure as hell is no agent of any government.

3. He cannot have a permit for that magazine as it is not permitted within the District

4. If he is a collector, that also would be hysterical. I'd love it.

So, yeah, I excluded that part as it doesn't apply.

You have a short memory because you tried this bullshit earlier in the thread by trying to convince folks that as a reporter, he is an agent of the government.

I "tried to convince folks" ? by posting the same thing I just posted.

"folks" can decide for themselves... My memory is just fine.



The fact remains, none of us knows the status of the permits or permission.

Oh, I can understand your wanting to forget that you tried to tell us that Gregory...a newsman...was an agent of the government. Luckily, I wasn't drinking a beverage as I would have snarfed it with seeing such inanity.

There is no permission to be in possession of something that is prohibited (unless one is an agent of the government - cop, judge, etc.). And, no law enforcement agency can grant anyone permission to break the law, unless life or limb is involved, and it's not in this case.

 

[jillian]

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

i said i hadn't seen the statute,didn't i? so you can pull in the snottiness... that seems to be a problem for you lately.

did showing the clip on air constitute "possessing" the clip as defined by the law?

was there someone present who was licensed?

who did the clip belong to?

i suppose you can fauxrage about it...

but i think we know what this is about.

y'all weren't very concerned about law when they outed a CIA agent.

gee... which was more serious?

 

[Si modo]

you don't think its stupid that he, allegedly, can't display such a magazine for purposes of education or news?

and given that i haven't seen the statute i'm not convinced there aren't exemptions or at least additional information.

not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS prosecutorial discretion....

and it has nothing to do with gregory's politics. i'd suggest you don't know his politics. just like you didn't know his predecessor tim russert's.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device
regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large
capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The
term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”​

What does "no person" mean to you?

Where's that exception for "education" or "news"?

i said i hadn't seen the statute,didn't i? so you can pull in the snottiness... that seems to be a problem for you lately.

did showing the clip on air constitute "possessing" the clip as defined by the law?

was there someone present who was licensed?

who did the clip belong to?

i suppose you can fauxrage about it...

but i think we know what this is about.

y'all weren't very concerned about law when they outed a CIA agent.

gee... which was more serious?

Your use of "fauxrage' just makes you look so stupid.

 

[jillian]

1. If you want to believe he is a licensed dealer, and if he is, that is going to be hysterical, considering his demeanor during that infamous interview.

2. He sure as hell is no agent of any government.

3. He cannot have a permit for that magazine as it is not permitted within the District

4. If he is a collector, that also would be hysterical. I'd love it.

So, yeah, I excluded that part as it doesn't apply.

You have a short memory because you tried this bullshit earlier in the thread by trying to convince folks that as a reporter, he is an agent of the government.

I "tried to convince folks" ? by posting the same thing I just posted.

"folks" can decide for themselves... My memory is just fine.



The fact remains, none of us knows the status of the permits or permission.

Oh, I can understand your wanting to forget that you tried to tell us that Gregory...a newsman...was an agent of the government. Luckily, I wasn't drinking a beverage as I would have snarfed it with seeing such inanity.

There is no permission to be in possession of something that is prohibited (unless one is an agent of the government - cop, judge, etc.). And, no law enforcement agency can grant anyone permission to break the law, unless life or limb is involved, and it's not in this case.

where did she say he was an agent of the government?

 

[Valerie]

1. If you want to believe he is a licensed dealer, and if he is, that is going to be hysterical, considering his demeanor during that infamous interview.

2. He sure as hell is no agent of any government.

3. He cannot have a permit for that magazine as it is not permitted within the District

4. If he is a collector, that also would be hysterical. I'd love it.

So, yeah, I excluded that part as it doesn't apply.

You have a short memory because you tried this bullshit earlier in the thread by trying to convince folks that as a reporter, he is an agent of the government.

I "tried to convince folks" ? by posting the same thing I just posted.

"folks" can decide for themselves... My memory is just fine.



The fact remains, none of us knows the status of the permits or permission.

Oh, I can understand your wanting to forget that you tried to tell us that Gregory...a newman...was an agent of the government.

There is no permission to be in possession of something that is prohibited (unless one is an agent of the government - cop, judge, etc.). And, no law enforcement agency can grant anyone permission to break the law.

I'm disappointed with your blatant dishonesty, but I can't say I'm surprised. The other day I posted the same thing I just posted, the law verbatim, as I also highlighted what I thought may apply to this situation with a news agency while recognizing obviously that NBC has a legal team who must have thought of all this beforehand...

 

[Si modo]

I "tried to convince folks" ? by posting the same thing I just posted.

"folks" can decide for themselves... My memory is just fine.



The fact remains, none of us knows the status of the permits or permission.

Oh, I can understand your wanting to forget that you tried to tell us that Gregory...a newsman...was an agent of the government. Luckily, I wasn't drinking a beverage as I would have snarfed it with seeing such inanity.

There is no permission to be in possession of something that is prohibited (unless one is an agent of the government - cop, judge, etc.). And, no law enforcement agency can grant anyone permission to break the law, unless life or limb is involved, and it's not in this case.

where did she say he was an agent of the government?

Read the thread.

Or, I can charge you a reasonable rate to do that for you. It'll be a very professional report with invoice included.