Police investigate NBC News anchor for showing gun clip

One of our problems is we do not enforce the laws we already have on the books.This is a high profile case where the existing laws were flaunted in front of millions of people. I think this would be a good place to make an example that we intend to enforce the laws we already have on the books. If you want to show how tough you are on gun crimes in Washington D.C., David Gregory should get the maximum sentence should he be found guilty of posession of a banned magazine in our capitol in violation of the law.Show some credibility. Then I think we should see about getting that law off the books.

we should really prosecute this person because it will be just as effective as all the other gun laws. it will do nothing but put otherwise decent people in jeopardy of going to jail.

Isn’t that how gun laws work? Lock up some guy who’s no threat to anybody while the criminals just ignore it?

DC Cops spot crime underway from TV in doughnut shop.

Book ‘em, Barney!

This is hogwash! Even, assuming the DC law is strict liability–where the intent or mens rea is irrelevant, David Gregory’s case bothers on freedom of the press and 1st Amendment right. As an attorney, nothing prohibits me from branding the clip as an exhibit during a trial. David Gregory was simply making a speech with this clip, which i will argue is constitutinally protected, and trumps DC’s ordinance.

Keep the “heat” on this “news” anchor and NBC. Nice job bringing an illegal magazine in to the nations capital. I am sure NOTHING will happen. If it was an “Average Joe” doing this an example would be surely be made. Guns don’t kill people, Mr. Gregory, PEOPLE do. YOUR very own children go to a very exclusive school with ARMED guards. Sounds like a double standard. More and more of a societal split in our country.

I think we need to make new laws regarding the safe secure storage of guns and ammo in the home. It’s crazy when a 16 year old kid who would otherwise not have access to a gun, can go into his parents closet and get a shotgun load it up and shoot a friend over a paintball game. Or a couple of elementary school kids can sneak over to grandpas house and steal semi-automatic rifles, go to school, hide outside, pull the fire alarm and start sniping people as they come out the door. Both incidents happened the way I described. The gun laws we have on the books now don’t do any good if gun owners don’t take securing their weapons seriously.

I think we need to make new laws regarding the safe secure storage of guns and ammo in the home. It’s crazy when a 16 year old kid who would otherwise not have access to a gun, can go into his parents closet and get a shotgun load it up and shoot a friend over a paintball game. Or a couple of elementary school kids can sneak over to grandpas house and steal semi-automatic rifles, go to school, hide outside, pull the fire alarm and start sniping people as they come out the door. Both incidents happened the way I described. The gun laws we have on the books now don’t do any good if gun owners don’t take securing their weapons seriously.

This reminds me of when george bush senior pulled out two pounds of crack from his desk, to show what people are up to in DC these days.

Here’s the footage from 1989. Either the drug war has failed and we need to stop wasting money on it. Or we should treat high-capacity magazines like crack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkyBfJfcIoM

any conversation i am in or any story or article i read on the topic of firearms immediately loses most of its credibility (with me anyway) when they refer to a magazine as a clip…if someone can’t even distinguish the difference between these two basic components, then how accurate is the rest of their information on firearms…it sounds nit-picky to someone not familiar with guns but it is a red flag when an experienced firearm person hears it…and judging by how often i hear it, there are alot of people speaking out of line and over their heads when it comes to fire arms…

WildBillWB makes the dumbest argument I ever heard regarding gun control laws.

It’s obvious the laws don’t work at the state level. How far would the Network have to go to get a thirty round magazine – Maryland or Virginia?

But it is very obvious gun owners aren’t interested in the “well regulated military” phrase of the 2nd Amendment.

And how would laws to make to safe secure storage of high power guns and ammo in the home be enforced? Wouldn’t that require and inspection by the local police department and a license of sorts? That is precisely what the crazier element of the NRA doesn’t want.

It’s also obvious there will be many more shoot-ups and mass killings in the economically decaying and socially stressed USA in the immediate future.

Guns DO kill people in a few seconds – you fools. Just as bombs blow them up and IEDs can shred vehicles. Unarmed people can’t do that without a lot more physical exertion and requiring far more time. It is possible to tackle an unarmed man, or even one in a crowd, if all he can arm himself with is a knife. People won’t tend to go near someone armed with a gun or rifle. And he doesn’t have do be anywhere near as close to his victims. That hackneyed phrase – “guns don’t kill people…. ” has to be one of the more brain dead catch phrases of the last few decades. Does the NRA ever actually listen to itself, or more to the point: does it really believe it’s own rhetoric?

It is going to become a very dangerous country in a few years as Granny and Granpa Rambo have “episodes”. At least they aren’t allowed to pack heat in a nursing home. But there will be far more at-home basket cases in the future as the costs of nursing homes becomes too expensive for far more of them.

Hahaha! I really hope the irony is not lost here. David Gregory advocates gun-control of magazines capable of holding over 10 cartridges; then he goes and breaks the law in Wash. D.C. by possessing a 30 round magazine in the Capitol. And by Gregory’s logic, his possession of the magazine actually increased the crime and violence rate in Wash. D.C.(how ludicrous) Also, since Gregory is a criminal now; should he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since he harmed society by possessing a stamped sheet metal box with a spring? Hope he realizes now it’s just an inanimate object. And when will the media get the terminology correct: Not “clip”, it’s a magazine; not “bullets”, they’re cartridges.

Q Tip/Cotton Swap

Kleenex/Tissue Paper

Ketchup/Catsup

The irony is just too rich. People are afraid of devices, and want to add more laws, when they can’t even abide by the current law!

@ Paintcan: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The militia is for the state, i.e. the government; the right of the PEOPLE the furor is all about. It may not be what you want to hear, and it may not make you feel better, knowing that people you don’t always agree with may have guns, but there’s nothing in the constitution that limits that power.

People built cannons, owned mortars, and made bombs during the Revolution; weapons of immense destructive power. The argument that the Framers did not have the foresight of citizens having the same weapons as the state is absurd. Those people were the ones supplying the Revolutionaries with theirs!

In other words… It’s OK to violate the 1st Amendment, as long as you don’t violate the 2nd Amendment…. Is that about it ?

ibarracuda – “The irony is just too rich. People are afraid of devices, and want to add more laws, when they can’t even abide by the current law!”

No kidding? They can’t abide by the current law(s) and yet the NRA stands against most regulation as a knee-jerk reaction. . I’d like to know what practical method they would propose to make sure guns are stored and safely kept from unauthorized hands? How would they do that without allowing government inspection of their homes?

The Supreme Court could someday say the 2nd Amendment limits that right because the militia was necessary to create the Constitution via The war of Independence. Why mention the militia at all if the 2nd amendment means what the NRA claims?

The people who claim a right to bare arms don’t like or care about the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment. It means that the right they claim could be exercised by anyone with arms. It also means they would be more of a threat to each other than to any “tyrannical” state. I don’t see the NRA as “patriots” as much a nuts and very likely to create the “tyrannical” state they hate. In fact, shootouts on public highways, in shopping malls and schools make so-called “tyranny” look good by comparison.

Most of my neighbors, I suspect, would be very concerned and talking to town code enforcement people if we found out that people were building bombs and cannon in our neighborhood. Building even old style cannon was a major industrial process in the 18th century. It wasn’t something done in a barn. They were some of the largest cast metal objects anyone could make.

I don’t think the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to endanger the lives and property of everyone else in the name of their own paranoia or misguided sense of patriotism. What is absurd is to suggest that the Constitution expected people to own all the range of weapons that a modern state owns in its own armed forces. Your point of view would annihilate the Constitution and put a chronic state of civil war in its place. Many in the NRA sound like people who hate any kind of government and would live like medieval lords on their own estates armed against intruders.

Amendments can be made obsolete, remember. Prohibition is a case. The 14th amendment made slavery illegal and “people” claimed that was a vital right too. And that’s what the voters and the government should work toward. Technology may have rendered the 2nd Amendment obsolete and a threat to the public welfare. The fact that the country has become predominantly urban and is far more regulated by laws than the framers could have imagined is another thing that may make the 2nd Amendment somewhat dated. The country isn’t composed of small farm holders and wilderness anymore.

Paintcan, if enforcing the current gun laws is the dumbest thing you ever heard, what makes you think new laws will work or are needed?