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

[jillian]

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.

actually, it says "no person shall POSSESS"...

how is that defined? did he possess it as defined by the statute?

how has the statute been applied in the past?

is there a tradition of journalists being able to use it for demonstrative purposes and then returning such things to their rightful owners?

you haven't a clue about the answers to any of those questions?

like i said... have fun fauxraging... .

 

[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 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...

Well, NBC nor anyone working for them is not "an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America".

Which is what several of us told you before.

 

[Pogo]

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

gee... which was more serious?

^ that ^

 

[Valerie]

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.

Wow, what an ass...

 

[Si modo]

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.

actually, it says "no person shall POSSESS"...

how is that defined? did he possess it as defined by the statute?

how has the statute been applied in the past?

is there a tradition of journalists being able to use it for demonstrative purposes and then returning such things to their rightful owners?

you haven't a clue about the answers to any of those questions?

like i said... have fun fauxraging... .

Here ya go, Jillian, "Esq."

A person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it. [More than one person can be in possession of something if each knows of its presence and has the power and intention to control it.]

The law recognizes several kinds of possession. A person may have actual possession or constructive possession. A person may also have sole possession or joint possession.

A person who has direct physical control of something on or around his person is then in actual possession of it.

A person who is not in actual possession, but who has both the power and the intention to later take control over something either alone or together with someone else, is in constructive possession of it.

If one person alone has possession of something, possession is sole.

If two or more persons share possession, possession is joint.​

Legal Definition of Possession

 

[Si modo]

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.

Wow, what an ass...

Awwwww.

 

[Valerie]

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.

Wow, what an ass...

Awwwww.

You seem to be taking this thread personally...

 

[Si modo]

Wow, what an ass...

Awwwww.

You seem to be taking this thread personally...

Not at all.

I simply find it hysterical that folks, mostly on the left, want to give a pass to the white guy in a suit and tie on a firearms violation.

Rather delicious, actually.

 

[jtpr312]

yes he broke the law, but being a liberal socialist working for Pravda West, he is exempt.

which law did he break?

You're kidding right? Read the posts dude.

 

[Pogo]

Awwwww.

You seem to be taking this thread personally...

Not at all.

I simply find it hysterical that folks, mostly on the left, want to give a pass to the white guy in a suit and tie on a firearms violation.

Rather delicious, actually.

Uhh- you're the only one who's brought up race. Still.
And where did anyone say "give him a pass"?

Oh sorry, didn't mean to ask for documentation again. I know that's a challenge.
Woof.

 

[Si modo]

You seem to be taking this thread personally...

Not at all.

I simply find it hysterical that folks, mostly on the left, want to give a pass to the white guy in a suit and tie on a firearms violation.

Rather delicious, actually.

Uhh- you're the only one who's brought up race. Still.
And where did anyone say "give him a pass"?

Oh sorry, didn't mean to ask for documentation again. I know that's a challenge.
Woof.

Well, he is a white guy in a suit and tie who is apparently in a firearms violation in the District which is mostly Black and Hispanic. I believe in applying laws equally, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. And, I'm sure the Blacks and Hispanics who have also been charged with this same firearms violation believe the same way...the white guy gets a pass?????

THAT should be an interesting, and possibly, tragic development in the District if he gets a pass.

 

[Pogo]

Not at all.

I simply find it hysterical that folks, mostly on the left, want to give a pass to the white guy in a suit and tie on a firearms violation.

Rather delicious, actually.

Uhh- you're the only one who's brought up race. Still.
And where did anyone say "give him a pass"?

Oh sorry, didn't mean to ask for documentation again. I know that's a challenge.
Woof.

Well, he is a white guy in a suit and tie who is apparently in a firearms violation in the District which is mostly Black and Hispanic. I believe in applying laws equally, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. And, I'm sure the Blacks and Hispanics who have also been charged with this same firearms violation believe the same way...the white guy gets a pass?????

THAT should be an interesting, and possibly, tragic development in the District if he gets a pass.

Complete speculation. Regardless how many times you hit the question mark key, the fact remains, David Gregory didn't bring up race. Wayne LaPierre didn't bring up race. Metro PD didn't bring up race. The hair-on-fire blogs that created this fake story didn't bring up race. You did.

What the hell makes you think the black or Hispanic population is following a goofball story like this in the first place?????????????????????????????

 

[Si modo]

Uhh- you're the only one who's brought up race. Still.
And where did anyone say "give him a pass"?

Oh sorry, didn't mean to ask for documentation again. I know that's a challenge.
Woof.

Well, he is a white guy in a suit and tie who is apparently in a firearms violation in the District which is mostly Black and Hispanic. I believe in applying laws equally, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. And, I'm sure the Blacks and Hispanics who have also been charged with this same firearms violation believe the same way...the white guy gets a pass?????

THAT should be an interesting, and possibly, tragic development in the District if he gets a pass.

Complete speculation. Regardless how many times you hit the question mark key, the fact remains, David Gregory didn't bring up race. Wayne LaPierre didn't bring up race. Metro PD didn't bring up race. Even the hair-on-fire blogs that created this fake story didn't bring up race. You did.

I never said any of them brought up race.

Speculation based on my living in the District for several years, and living around the District for several years.

 

[Pogo]

Well, he is a white guy in a suit and tie who is apparently in a firearms violation in the District which is mostly Black and Hispanic. I believe in applying laws equally, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. And, I'm sure the Blacks and Hispanics who have also been charged with this same firearms violation believe the same way...the white guy gets a pass?????

THAT should be an interesting, and possibly, tragic development in the District if he gets a pass.

Complete speculation. Regardless how many times you hit the question mark key, the fact remains, David Gregory didn't bring up race. Wayne LaPierre didn't bring up race. Metro PD didn't bring up race. Even the hair-on-fire blogs that created this fake story didn't bring up race. You did.

I never said any of them brought up race.

Speculation based on my living in the District for several years, and living around the District for several years.

And of curse you're the only one in this thread who's ever even been to the District ...
Speculation nonetheless. This thread is a tiny bubble unnoticed by most of the District, let alone the country. To imagine that it's the stuff of riots is ludicrous navel-gazing.

 

[Si modo]

Complete speculation. Regardless how many times you hit the question mark key, the fact remains, David Gregory didn't bring up race. Wayne LaPierre didn't bring up race. Metro PD didn't bring up race. Even the hair-on-fire blogs that created this fake story didn't bring up race. You did.

I never said any of them brought up race.

Speculation based on my living in the District for several years, and living around the District for several years.

And of curse you're the only one in this thread who's ever even been to the District ...

I never said that, either. You seem to have a habit of arguing with yourself.

Speculation nonetheless. This thread is a tiny bubble unnoticed by most of the District, let alone the country. To imagine that it's the stuff of riots is ludicrous navel-gazing.

Unnoticed? It has been in the WaPo every day, also in the Examiner, and of course, in the Times.

It has been on both the morning and evening local news programs as well...for several days.

Go on, tell me more about where I live.

 

[Pogo]

I never said any of them brought up race.

Speculation based on my living in the District for several years, and living around the District for several years.

And of curse you're the only one in this thread who's ever even been to the District ...

I never said that, either. You seem to have a habit of arguing with yourself.

Speculation nonetheless. This thread is a tiny bubble unnoticed by most of the District, let alone the country. To imagine that it's the stuff of riots is ludicrous navel-gazing.

Unnoticed? It has been in the WaPo every day, also in the Examiner, and of course, in the Times.

It has been on both the morning and evening local news programs as well...for several days.

Go on, tell me more about where I live.

Oh I know exactly where you live. I took pictures. Outside it's like

-- all nice and glisteny and prismy and floppy, but on the inside not so nice:

-- can you see me in the picture? Lower left, real small, with a yellow helmet.

 

[Cowman]

So, did anybody discuss in these 50 pages that it was quite likely a replica magazine? Airsoft magazine or something of the sort?

I did a quick google search and I found some retards on the Hannity forums that are also here as well... saying stupid shit like this.

Can you find a non-functioning replica magazine available anywhere to to purchase? I can't. I have never seen one. Training "blue guns" don't have removable magazines. Training props are brightly colored.

The mag he was holding is a real metal magazine.

I'll bet you your life savings that I can show you hundreds of places to buy magazines that look like real ones, but function only in the capacity of airsoft bb's.

I *OWN* several of them for my Swiss gun. Fake bullets inside them and everything(since these swiss magazines have transparent magazines so you can see the bullets inside).

Fucking dumbass idiots. I don't care if it isn't an airsoft or a replica magazine that he had, the outright dishonesty of people saying that such things do not exist... is outrageous.

 

[Pogo]

Can you find a non-functioning replica magazine available anywhere to to purchase? I can't. I have never seen one. Training "blue guns" don't have removable magazines. Training props are brightly colored

The mag he was holding is a real metal magazine.

- if only there was such a thing as "paint" where you could make one look real...

Hey I gotta get me this video technology where you can feel the metal

 

[Cowman]

Can you find a non-functioning replica magazine available anywhere to to purchase? I can't. I have never seen one. Training "blue guns" don't have removable magazines. Training props are brightly colored

The mag he was holding is a real metal magazine.

- if only there was such a thing as "paint" where you could make one look real...

Hey I gotta get me this video technology where you can feel the metal

Uhh... the gun I own is actual metal.

They make tons of airsoft guns that are called "full metal" every metal part on the real gun is metal on the airsoft gun. Same weight, same appearance.

Even right down to the same etchings and serial numbers like on the real guns, are on mine.

Learn a little something.

Some AK-47's are crafted in the exact same way as real AK-47's with real wood and real metal.

They're awesome.


EDIT: god, why'd you have to mess up the quote.

 

[Pogo]

- if only there was such a thing as "paint" where you could make one look real...

Hey I gotta get me this video technology where you can feel the metal

Uhh... the gun I own is actual metal.

They make tons of airsoft guns that are called "full metal" every metal part on the real gun is metal on the airsoft gun. Same weight, same appearance.

Even right down to the same etchings and serial numbers like on the real guns, are on mine.

Learn a little something.

Some AK-47's are crafted in the exact same way as real AK-47's with real wood and real metal.

They're awesome.


EDIT: god, why'd you have to mess up the quote.

No no, you miscomprehend. I agreed with your post. See the "thanks"?

That was sarcasm on the other guy, who tried to say that the props are brightly colored and flatly declared what was on the screen was metal. Both are fallacies. That's what I was mocking.