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

[paperview]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

Thanks you. However, that applies to the person who surrenders the weapon or other prohibited firearm accessories to be immune from prosecution for that surrender.

It does not excuse their previously being nabbed in possession of the prohibited firearm. And, I'm sure you'll note that it is a anonymous process.

But he hasn't been "nabbed" - it's being investigated. That's not "nabbed."

I'm not sure what you mean by "this is an anonymous process."

If it relates to this sentence: "No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints," that does mean it has to be anonymous, it just allows the surrenderer immunity should he be worried he'll be ID'd, photo'ed and fingerprinted.

For example, should a person find a magazine on the street or abandoned on their property - or anywhere, the minute they touch it, they would be in violation. The concerns a citizen might have about what that surrender means in going to the police are allayed with that section.

 

[Pogo]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

I don't think this protects someone who was not intending on surrendering their firearm.
Hell all a person has to do if caught is say I was going to turn it in.

For this prevision of the DC code Gregory would have to show that he was intending to turn it in.

This is all wild advance speculation about a "story" that doesn't deserve it but -- what possible motivation would David Gregory (or more correctly the show staff) have to keep the magazine? Protecting their office from infiltration by Fox Noise?

I mean let's stipulate they went and got a real magazine for use as a prop-- what did you think they intended to do with it after the show? Drop it in the recycling bin?

 

[Pogo]

Uhhh Valerie, THAT part is about ammunition, not magazines...

Are you this stupid IRL??

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure how all the gun terminology is defined and transferred from one section to another subsection, etc... I was merely trying to hash out the wording of the law, as I read it in the OP article to see how it may apply to this situation, where the news agency reportedly asked the PD and the ATF for permission.

My initial reaction was this is silly, and of course the NBC the legal team must have thought of this beforehand, and IF he broke a law they might get a fine.

Nothing that has been posted here has changed my mind, but now hundreds of posts later dishonest Si is so desperate to feel right, she has to mischaracterize my posts and act all obnoxious, as if I had been harping on the letter of the law, just because Jillian showed up. Still, none of us really knows what happened or what the legal outcome is going to be, but I wouldn't hold my breath for David Gregory to be put in handcuffs!

What bothers me most is that Si Modo is trying to turn this into a race issue, which I find deplorable. If David Gregory was black the story would be the SAME, the treatment would be the SAME. The penalties for this law vary for a legitimate REASON and that reason is NOT race. blech what a twit

I understand why Si Modo said what she did. DC is predominantly black and Hispanic, and I'd bet that the VAST majority of cases involving this law have been brought against black and Hispanic defendants. I would also guess that the vast majority received the maximum penalty at sentencing, that being a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

What kind of disparity would be illustrated if Mr. Gregory got off scot-free? Would it be thought of as pandering to the white liberals by those who have previously been given the max? I think it would, as the history of disparate sentences between ethnic groups is long and easily observed.

Personally, and as I've said before, I think the law itself is dumber than a box of rocks, but if it's being enforced against the general populace it needs to be enforced against the 'elites' equally.

And on what basis would you place that bet? It would be interesting to see actual factual data, although I realize that would violate the spirit of this thread.

In any case, any of us who have Googled around for news about this day to day and noticed that it has no legs is one indication among many that this is a tiny bubble on the screen of public buzz. Only a few political junkies like this thread and the hair-on-fire right wing blogs are paying any attention at all. So I don't think the general pop, in DC or outside it, is going to care a whit.

 

[Si modo]

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure how all the gun terminology is defined and transferred from one section to another subsection, etc... I was merely trying to hash out the wording of the law, as I read it in the OP article to see how it may apply to this situation, where the news agency reportedly asked the PD and the ATF for permission.

My initial reaction was this is silly, and of course the NBC the legal team must have thought of this beforehand, and IF he broke a law they might get a fine.

Nothing that has been posted here has changed my mind, but now hundreds of posts later dishonest Si is so desperate to feel right, she has to mischaracterize my posts and act all obnoxious, as if I had been harping on the letter of the law, just because Jillian showed up. Still, none of us really knows what happened or what the legal outcome is going to be, but I wouldn't hold my breath for David Gregory to be put in handcuffs!

What bothers me most is that Si Modo is trying to turn this into a race issue, which I find deplorable. If David Gregory was black the story would be the SAME, the treatment would be the SAME. The penalties for this law vary for a legitimate REASON and that reason is NOT race. blech what a twit

I understand why Si Modo said what she did. DC is predominantly black and Hispanic, and I'd bet that the VAST majority of cases involving this law have been brought against black and Hispanic defendants. I would also guess that the vast majority received the maximum penalty at sentencing, that being a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

What kind of disparity would be illustrated if Mr. Gregory got off scot-free? Would it be thought of as pandering to the white liberals by those who have previously been given the max? I think it would, as the history of disparate sentences between ethnic groups is long and easily observed.

Personally, and as I've said before, I think the law itself is dumber than a box of rocks, but if it's being enforced against the general populace it needs to be enforced against the 'elites' equally.

And on what basis would you place that bet? ....

Because the vast majority of the population of the District are Black and Hispanic.

Seems a good bet to me, too.

 

[Pogo]

I understand why Si Modo said what she did. DC is predominantly black and Hispanic, and I'd bet that the VAST majority of cases involving this law have been brought against black and Hispanic defendants. I would also guess that the vast majority received the maximum penalty at sentencing, that being a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

What kind of disparity would be illustrated if Mr. Gregory got off scot-free? Would it be thought of as pandering to the white liberals by those who have previously been given the max? I think it would, as the history of disparate sentences between ethnic groups is long and easily observed.

Personally, and as I've said before, I think the law itself is dumber than a box of rocks, but if it's being enforced against the general populace it needs to be enforced against the 'elites' equally.

I read somewhere (I'll try to find it) that the penalty for this particular law ranges from a fine to imprisonment up to a certain amount of time. That means there is room for judicial discretion, presumably with the intent of the law being paramount. We could speculate all sorts of scenarios of judicial discretion under the same law, but truly there is no equating the circumstances unless a similar case involved a similar news story with a black David Gregory.

Still, in the District it is illegal for Gregory to be in possession of that magazine and zero exceptions apply to him, as I am sure zero exceptions apply to all the others in the District who have been punished for being in possession of such an item.

Okay okay, here ya go, let's throw you a bone, since you're still the only one harping on race:
If this case is prosecuted (I know but just imagine) and goes to arraignment, let's have David Gregory show up in blackface.

Will that satisfy you? If not we could make him speak with a Spanish accent too.

 

[Si modo]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

I don't think this protects someone who was not intending on surrendering their firearm.
Hell all a person has to do if caught is say I was going to turn it in.

For this prevision of the DC code Gregory would have to show that he was intending to turn it in.

This is all wild advance speculation about a "story" that doesn't deserve it but -- what possible motivation would David Gregory (or more correctly the show staff) have to keep the magazine? Protecting their office from infiltration by Fox Noise?

I mean let's stipulate they went and got a real magazine for use as a prop-- what did you think they intended to do with it after the show? Drop it in the recycling bin?

Then they have additional Code violations, and if they got the magazine from VA or MD, federal code will be involved as well.

 

[Pogo]

I understand why Si Modo said what she did. DC is predominantly black and Hispanic, and I'd bet that the VAST majority of cases involving this law have been brought against black and Hispanic defendants. I would also guess that the vast majority received the maximum penalty at sentencing, that being a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

What kind of disparity would be illustrated if Mr. Gregory got off scot-free? Would it be thought of as pandering to the white liberals by those who have previously been given the max? I think it would, as the history of disparate sentences between ethnic groups is long and easily observed.

Personally, and as I've said before, I think the law itself is dumber than a box of rocks, but if it's being enforced against the general populace it needs to be enforced against the 'elites' equally.

And on what basis would you place that bet? ....

Because the vast majority of the population of the District are Black and Hispanic.

Seems a good bet to me, too.

I wasn't asking you, but even so it would still depend on their even being aware of all this. If we were to stand up and walk away from the internets and ask for opinions from people on the outside, their reaction would be -- "huh?"

 

[Pogo]

I don't think this protects someone who was not intending on surrendering their firearm.
Hell all a person has to do if caught is say I was going to turn it in.

For this prevision of the DC code Gregory would have to show that he was intending to turn it in.

This is all wild advance speculation about a "story" that doesn't deserve it but -- what possible motivation would David Gregory (or more correctly the show staff) have to keep the magazine? Protecting their office from infiltration by Fox Noise?

I mean let's stipulate they went and got a real magazine for use as a prop-- what did you think they intended to do with it after the show? Drop it in the recycling bin?

Then they have additional Code violations, and if they got the magazine from VA or MD, federal code will be involved as well.

::whoooooshhh:: right over your head.
The point is the last part of the sentence, not the first. The conclusion, not the premise.
Sheesh.

 

[Pogo]

If it was illegal, we'd have heard something about a fine or at least Gregory being questioned. Instead, he gets the president on his show this Sunday.

It isn't as if anyone would let that guy off the hook just because he's the host of MTP.

Just FYI, Gregory's not on the air this week. It's vacation. That was mentioned much earlier.

I don't know whether POTUS is on though.

 

[Si modo]

This is all wild advance speculation about a "story" that doesn't deserve it but -- what possible motivation would David Gregory (or more correctly the show staff) have to keep the magazine? Protecting their office from infiltration by Fox Noise?

I mean let's stipulate they went and got a real magazine for use as a prop-- what did you think they intended to do with it after the show? Drop it in the recycling bin?

Then they have additional Code violations, and if they got the magazine from VA or MD, federal code will be involved as well.

::whoooooshhh:: right over your head.
The point is the last part of the sentence, not the first. The conclusion, not the premise.
Sheesh.

Sorry, what they intended to do after they broke the law is pretty irrelevant; I tend not to comment on chaff.

 

[Pogo]

Then they have additional Code violations, and if they got the magazine from VA or MD, federal code will be involved as well.

::whoooooshhh:: right over your head.
The point is the last part of the sentence, not the first. The conclusion, not the premise.
Sheesh.

Sorry, what they intended to do after they broke the law is pretty irrelevant; I tend not to comment on chaff.

You mean you have no answer. Again.
Who knew.

 

[Si modo]

::whoooooshhh:: right over your head.
The point is the last part of the sentence, not the first. The conclusion, not the premise.
Sheesh.

Sorry, what they intended to do after they broke the law is pretty irrelevant; I tend not to comment on chaff.

You mean you have no answer. Again.
Who knew.

No answer to what?

 

[paperview]

If it was illegal, we'd have heard something about a fine or at least Gregory being questioned. Instead, he gets the president on his show this Sunday.

It isn't as if anyone would let that guy off the hook just because he's the host of MTP.

Just FYI, Gregory's not on the air this week. It's vacation. That was mentioned much earlier.

I don't know whether POTUS is on though.

Yes he is. He changed plans.

He & POTUS.

Should be good.

 

[bripat9643]

This is all wild advance speculation about a "story" that doesn't deserve it but -- what possible motivation would David Gregory (or more correctly the show staff) have to keep the magazine? Protecting their office from infiltration by Fox Noise?

I mean let's stipulate they went and got a real magazine for use as a prop-- what did you think they intended to do with it after the show? Drop it in the recycling bin?

No one has reported that Gregory or NBC has turned the magazine into the police. I can't imagine either of them admitting they broke the law they are trying to push on the rest of the country. turning in the magazine would be an admission of guilt.

 

[Si modo]

I read somewhere (I'll try to find it) that the penalty for this particular law ranges from a fine to imprisonment up to a certain amount of time. That means there is room for judicial discretion, presumably with the intent of the law being paramount. We could speculate all sorts of scenarios of judicial discretion under the same law, but truly there is no equating the circumstances unless a similar case involved a similar news story with a black David Gregory.

Still, in the District it is illegal for Gregory to be in possession of that magazine and zero exceptions apply to him, as I am sure zero exceptions apply to all the others in the District who have been punished for being in possession of such an item.

Okay okay, here ya go, let's throw you a bone, since you're still the only one harping on race:
If this case is prosecuted (I know but just imagine) and goes to arraignment, let's have David Gregory show up in blackface.

Will that satisfy you? If not we could make him speak with a Spanish accent too.

Oh, I missed this one.

Just

 

[saveliberty]

Can we put lipstick on the pig too?

 

[Dubya]

You can have an oversized magazine that is built with springs to not hold all the rounds. Who knows?

 

[GuyPinestra]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

I don't think this protects someone who was not intending on surrendering their firearm.
Hell all a person has to do if caught is say I was going to turn it in.

For this prevision of the DC code Gregory would have to show that he was intending to turn it in.

This is all wild advance speculation about a "story" that doesn't deserve it but -- what possible motivation would David Gregory (or more correctly the show staff) have to keep the magazine? Protecting their office from infiltration by Fox Noise?

I mean let's stipulate they went and got a real magazine for use as a prop-- what did you think they intended to do with it after the show? Drop it in the recycling bin?

It doesn't matter their 'intent', possession itself is prohibited.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure how all the gun terminology is defined and transferred from one section to another subsection, etc... I was merely trying to hash out the wording of the law, as I read it in the OP article to see how it may apply to this situation, where the news agency reportedly asked the PD and the ATF for permission.

My initial reaction was this is silly, and of course the NBC the legal team must have thought of this beforehand, and IF he broke a law they might get a fine.

Nothing that has been posted here has changed my mind, but now hundreds of posts later dishonest Si is so desperate to feel right, she has to mischaracterize my posts and act all obnoxious, as if I had been harping on the letter of the law, just because Jillian showed up. Still, none of us really knows what happened or what the legal outcome is going to be, but I wouldn't hold my breath for David Gregory to be put in handcuffs!

What bothers me most is that Si Modo is trying to turn this into a race issue, which I find deplorable. If David Gregory was black the story would be the SAME, the treatment would be the SAME. The penalties for this law vary for a legitimate REASON and that reason is NOT race. blech what a twit

I understand why Si Modo said what she did. DC is predominantly black and Hispanic, and I'd bet that the VAST majority of cases involving this law have been brought against black and Hispanic defendants. I would also guess that the vast majority received the maximum penalty at sentencing, that being a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

What kind of disparity would be illustrated if Mr. Gregory got off scot-free? Would it be thought of as pandering to the white liberals by those who have previously been given the max? I think it would, as the history of disparate sentences between ethnic groups is long and easily observed.

Personally, and as I've said before, I think the law itself is dumber than a box of rocks, but if it's being enforced against the general populace it needs to be enforced against the 'elites' equally.

And on what basis would you place that bet? It would be interesting to see actual factual data, although I realize that would violate the spirit of this thread.

In any case, any of us who have Googled around for news about this day to day and noticed that it has no legs is one indication among many that this is a tiny bubble on the screen of public buzz. Only a few political junkies like this thread and the hair-on-fire right wing blogs are paying any attention at all. So I don't think the general pop, in DC or outside it, is going to care a whit.

District of Columbia QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

According to a resident of the district posting here, this story has plenty of legs.

Do you have some sort of information that proves him wrong?

Or are you just projecting what you wish were true?

 

[Pogo]

I understand why Si Modo said what she did. DC is predominantly black and Hispanic, and I'd bet that the VAST majority of cases involving this law have been brought against black and Hispanic defendants. I would also guess that the vast majority received the maximum penalty at sentencing, that being a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

What kind of disparity would be illustrated if Mr. Gregory got off scot-free? Would it be thought of as pandering to the white liberals by those who have previously been given the max? I think it would, as the history of disparate sentences between ethnic groups is long and easily observed.

Personally, and as I've said before, I think the law itself is dumber than a box of rocks, but if it's being enforced against the general populace it needs to be enforced against the 'elites' equally.

And on what basis would you place that bet? It would be interesting to see actual factual data, although I realize that would violate the spirit of this thread.

In any case, any of us who have Googled around for news about this day to day and noticed that it has no legs is one indication among many that this is a tiny bubble on the screen of public buzz. Only a few political junkies like this thread and the hair-on-fire right wing blogs are paying any attention at all. So I don't think the general pop, in DC or outside it, is going to care a whit.

District of Columbia QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

According to a resident of the district posting here, this story has plenty of legs.

Do you have some sort of information that proves him wrong?

Or are you just projecting what you wish were true?

What I'm asking is: on what basis would you "bet that the VAST majority of cases involving this law have been brought against black and Hispanic defendants"? Stats? Impression? Conjecture or stereotypes? The premise would require that the vast majority of assault weapons, specifically this one, are used by blacks and/or Hispanics. That's why I'm asking.

And the larger issue is (and this is also subjective) I don't think the country, or the District, at large is even aware of this penny ante story. I believe it's confined to the bubble in which we all reside here, a political message board forum. Therefore I don't see a mass uprising, riots and a city going down in flames on the basis that David Gregory is white. Most of the city, the country and the world really doesn't care about stupid gotcha hack journalism like this. They just don't.

Who's the resident of the District here, btw? I'm not aware.