whembly wrote:
Stolen from my twitter feed.
"“David Gregory can have and do illegal stuff because journalism. And because free speech. Also, because shut up.”

Thank you, David Gregory.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then your stunt is worth a thousand op-eds. In less than one minute of screen time, you demonstrated several things:

First, even “banned” magazines are ridiculously easy to acquire. How long did it take your producers to find that magazine? Five minutes? Ten minutes? There are millions upon millions of these cheap and easy-to-manufacture items in circulation, and “banning” them will have exactly the effects you so brilliantly demonstrated on national television.

Second, labyrinthine gun-control restrictions serve mainly to instantly (and often inadvertently) convert otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. It’s a media-created myth that guns are largely unregulated in the United States. In fact, they’re so heavily and complexly regulated that it’s difficult for citizens to track jurisdictional differences or even sometimes to understand the laws in their own jurisdictions.

Third, strict-liability gun offenses breed disrespect for the law. I tend to agree with your friends in the mainstream media — prosecuting you for holding an empty magazine in your hand would be a travesty of justice. You weren’t going to hurt anyone, you were merely using a prop for an argument, and — after all — the magazine was simply an inert hunk of metal. But the law is the law, and I’m sure you’ll agree that you should be treated exactly the same as any other (previously) law-abiding citizen caught with a similar item.

Was Washington D.C. made more dangerous because you held that magazine? Of course not. Would your prosecution deter a single “real” criminal? Of course not. In fact, it would be a silly farce. But does the law deter responsible citizens and make them less likely to defend themselves adequately? Yes. And that’s the real travesty.

Washington (CNN) -- No employees of NBC will face criminal charges over the display of a high-capacity ammunition magazine on a "Meet the Press" program in violation of local law in Washington, prosecutors told the network on Friday.

The capital city's attorney general, Irvin Nathan, said in a letter to NBC there would be no charges, but added that it was "a very close decision."

Nathan also said "there is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter, especially in a city and a nation that have been plagued by carnage from gun violence."

The letter also confirmed the 30-round magazine displayed by show host David Gregory on December 23 was empty. At the time, Gregory was interviewing Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, a strong opponent of new gun control proposals.

Nathan said the network used the magazine with the "purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy" not long after the school shooting massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

Even an empty magazine violates city law. Conviction carries a possible sentence of up to a year in jail as well as a possible fine of up to $1,000.

A police spokeswoman said that NBC asked before the program whether it would be legal to show a high capacity magazine on air and was told no.

An official with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives told CNN he consulted with city police after receiving a similar request from NBC and was told an empty magazine would not be a problem. The official passed the information to NBC, but later learned there was a "miscommunication" with police and that showing an empty magazine would, indeed, violate the law.

The official said he did not give NBC permission to use a magazine.

In his letter, Nathan referred to "feeble and unsatisfactory efforts" made by NBC to find out what it could legally do.
"Although there appears to have been some misinformation provided initially, NBC was clearly and timely advised by a (Metropolitan Police Department) employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any federal official," Nathan said. He added that any uncertainty about the law was unjustified.

"Meet the Press" issued an e-mailed statement following Nathan's decision:
"We displayed the empty magazine solely for journalistic purposes to help illustrate an important issue for our viewers," the show said. "We accept the District of Columbia Attorney General's admonishment, respect his decision and will have no further comment on this matter."

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

"Gun control for thee, but not for me"!

Which pretty much sums up the democrat's position on the subject.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Should have sent him a fine at least

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

"Gun control for thee, but not for me"!

Which pretty much sums up the democrat's position on the subject.

It does? I always thought the Democrat platform was based on gun control, and that there was no "thee" or "we" about it; save for the standards exemptions for felons, persons with mental health issues, etc. In essence, Democrats support gun control, because gun control implies the restriction of purchase either by outright denial, or some form of application process/waiting period.