Well, now, this sounds like an invitation for folks to come to DC and wave thirty-rounders outside the NBC studios.
No gun magazine charges for David Gregory.
D.C. attorney general Irvin Nathan on Friday said he would decline to prosecute in the case involving the Sunday show host and any NBC staffers. In a letter to NBC’s attorney Lee Levine, Nathan wrote that after reviewing the matter, his office “has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated” with the broadcast.
17 comments:
Like I said in an earlier comment to this story: If they decline to prosecute him for this, then the next Restore The Constitution rally should be held INSIDE the Dictrict. I think rather than armed, attendees should just bring 20 and 30 round AR/AK and high cap pistol magazines to "wave in the tyrant's face". A simple chant of "no more bans" shouted by tens/hundreds of thousands of attendees just might get their attention. Equal protection under the law and all that. The AG can exercise his "discretion" not to prosecute all of THEM as well.
Riiiggghhht...as if us poor benighted masses would receive the same carefully nuanced pass that one of the collectivist's favorite apparatchik apologist received.
In both cases the response would be automatic (though after a proper delay to infer thoughtful evaluation for the apparatchik) -- for the apparatchik a resounding "not guilty" as it was done for the public welfare. For one of us unenlightened unwashed masses -- "guilty" as it was against the public welfare. Same magazine, differing results.
dol/lal
I sent an email to the DCAG asking what would happen if I was to show up in the District of Corruption with an "illegal" magazine?
Curious to see if he answers.
We all now know that John Edwards was right, there IS two Americas.
If "no criminal record", and no evidence of intent is the new standard, then there are some people who have been charged under this that have grounds for malicious prosecution lawsuits. Probably some that plead out or were convicted have equal protection grounds for appeal. The hypocrisy here is just too rich for words.
Rules for Thee, not for Me!
And so they continue to push on towards the line in the sand...
Count me out Mike .... the time of playing games is over. I just don't give a shit anymore. The enemies of the Constitution have ignored every time we have pointed out their sins .... it will do no good, the only thing left is settling this thing. This has been going on too long and I am tired.
I remain your faithful servant, the money spent to go to D C can buy beans, bullets, and blankets.
HAH!
20,000 laws for us,
none for them.
Just another example, in a very long list of examples, that demonstrates two justice systems. Haves v. Have Nots. Then, those in the so-called justice system, at all levels, stand around scratching their heads and their crotch, wondering why people no longer trust the system. Pathetic!
Anonymous 3:53
We already HAVE their "attention." Big time. It is utter folly to think that anything we might do would change their minds. A "simple chant" by millions would not make the least difference in their intentions or methods.
They've been given the "benefit of the doubt" long enough. Now there is simply no more doubt.
The time for such "protests" is long, long past.
All the animals in the farmyard are equal. But some are more equal than the others.
Prosecutorial discretion is newspeak for selective enforcement.
I used to be a bit of a "peacenik" but have long since abandoned that. Humans are violent by nature and often will respond to nothing else but violence - or the threat of it. While some people make decisions based on public opinion, there's another principle which determines the course of conflict and war - the cost of prosecuting it, in terms of men, materials or money. In the end it's usually accountants who tell generals when to abandon a fight. There is an example of how public pressure can sway a leader's decision about war - from The importance of demonstrating:
In 1985, former President Richard Nixon revealed that he had considered using nuclear weapons to end the war in Vietnam. Richard Nixon went beyond merely 'considering' the option, he actually decided to use nuclear weapons.
In August 1969, the United States began a sequence of threats against North Vietnam, beginning with an ultimatum personally delivered by Henry Kissinger, stating that if by 1 November 1969 there had been no ceasefire by the Vietnamese resistance, 'we will be compelled -with great reluctance - to take measures of the greatest consequences.' Two nuclear bombs would be dropped on North Vietnam.
To demonstrate the sincerity of his intentions, President Nixon ordered a full-scale nuclear alert, raising US nuclear forces to their highest level of alertness, DEF CON 1, for 29 days.
On 13 October 1969, one of Nixon's aides sent a Top Secret memorandum to Henry Kissinger warning that 'The nation could be thrown into internal physical turmoil', requiring the 'brutal' suppression of 'dissension'.
That month, the US anti-war movement was organising a massive wave of demonstrations and mobilisations culminating in the Vietnam Moratorium demonstration in Washington. President Nixon later wrote in his memoirs, 'A quarter of a million people came to Washington for the October 15 Moratorium... On the night of October 15, I thought about the irony of this protest for peace. It had, I believe, destroyed whatever small possibility there may have existed for ending the war in 1969'.
. . . forgive the reference from a "peacenik" website, but that was the first place the story was found. As to making the re-introduction of an AWB costly to the government, Mike's insistence that we not initiate the Fort Sumter incident is obviously the better choice. A few dozen people can be cowed into submission. It's a lot more costly, both in time and money, for any government to deal with several thousand. A hundred thousand people on the Mall would be impossible for Metro to deal with. That many people, peaceably defiant, would be a logistics nightmare. In other words it would cost the government too much to arrest, jail and prosecute such a large amount of magazine-wielding "dissidents".
Not only that, but any attempt to do so would certainly be a political embarrassment, inciting public outcry among the rest of the gun rights advocates across the country. Legislators spend lots of money on statistical analysis and they know that for every voice heard there are probably hundreds who are silent - and ready.
Heck, people could carry "legal" magazines. From a distance they'd look the same. Any arrest for waving one of those would REALLY cost the system - in terms of time for police to determine that there was no probable cause, processing and release, then the following lawsuits for false arrest or malicious prosecution.
Then again, there are a lot of windows.
The ethics board in DC can be reached at: ethics@dcbar.org
Gregory, his wife Beth Wilkinson, and Irvin Nathan know one another well.
To anon on January 12, 2013 @ 11:39 AM,
But what if they are smart (cunning, canny) enough not to GIVE anyone a "Boston Massacre" or a "Ft Sumter" type incident.
How about if they follow a process similar to the scenario described at this URL? (I used tinyURL to make it usable here.)
http://tinyurl.com/SB-scenario
Why don't you people in the DC area go ask Gregory if you can buy the mag from him. He's above the law anyway.
4540 Dexter Street NW, Washington, DC
And now there's another reason magazine bans are irrelevant. The "Wiki Weapon" project has done it--printed 30 rounders.
Post a Comment