Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: No charges for NBC host over ammunition magazine

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    No charges for NBC host over ammunition magazine

    http://news.yahoo.com/no-charges-nbc...215152419.html


    The reasons why no charges would not be filed is wrong though ... true reason is that the ban itself is wrong.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    I am glad he wasn't charged. I don't think anyone should be charged with something so stupid. If he wasn't charged though, no one should be.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    I am glad he wasn't charged. I don't think anyone should be charged with something so stupid. If he wasn't charged though, no one should be.
    I agree but that's not the way it is.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    I am glad he wasn't charged. I don't think anyone should be charged with something so stupid. If he wasn't charged though, no one should be.
    +1
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    fuq: (Let's make a habit of using them.)

    "Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Barack Obama's address to the nation, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan wrote a lawyer for NBC.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    fuq: (Let's make a habit of using them.)
    The fuq posted .... cities, towns, and the state have called me a terrorist for having the same viewpoint.

    Hey, whenever the gov't don't like what you are saying, they label you a terrorist... just look at what the FBI considers to be evidence of being a terrorist...references to the Bible, Constitution, SCOTUS decisions etc...I guess we all all terrorist...



    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...reign-citizens


    Indicators
    Open quotes
    It is important
    to realize sovereign
    citizens’ tactics to
    harass and intimidate
    law enforcement,
    court, and government
    officials, as well as
    financial institution
    employees.
    Close quotes

    Sovereign citizens often produce documents that contain peculiar or out-of-place language. In some cases, they speak their own language or will write only in certain colors, such as in red crayon. Several indicators can help identify
    these individuals.

    References to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments8
    Personal names spelled in all capital letters or interspersed with colons (e.g., JOHN SMITH or Smith: John)
    Signatures followed by the words “under duress,” “Sovereign Living Soul” (SLS), or a copyright symbol (©)
    Personal seals, stamps, or thumb prints in red ink
    The words “accepted for value”9

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    "Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Barack Obama's address to the nation, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan wrote a lawyer for NBC.
    Well, that proves the government support for the amti-gun message.

    The newscaster had no need whatsoever to illegally obtain and possess that magazine in order to exercise his First Amendment right. Words work fine. There are probably a zillion photographs available of such a magazine if needed, or they could have gone a photographed one themselves.

    What's next? Newscasters shooting up heroin for a story on drug-abuse? A live rape for a story on violent crime?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    So since it was just a brief possession of an illegal item it is okay? I guess it would be okay to possess an illegal item in D.C. for the purpose of promoting the Second Amendment as well, right?

    This is amazing. The only reason he isn't getting charged is because he doesn't report anything that the government doesn't want him to, or that NBC tells him not to.

    Had this been any of us we would be in jail waiting for the death squad!

    I wonder if it is okay for an evil killer to briefly possess illegal items in D.C. so they can cause mayhem with them, you know, as long as it is brief?

    How was this brief? I guaruntee it is still setting in the studio. It was certainly NOT brief possession, nor could it have been.

    I believe he should have been charged, because anyone of us would have been! Perhaps if someone in the media were charged for violating such a useless and ignorant law then people would see how stupid they are. If he had been promoting the Second Amendment in his segment I GUARANTEE he would have been arrested... on camera!

    I am sick of the government saying illegal actions are okay as long as you are the right "class" of person!
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 01-13-2013 at 01:23 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    So since it was just a brief possession of an illegal item it is okay? I guess it would be okay to possess an illegal item in D.C. for the purpose of promoting the Second Amendment as well, right?

    This is amazing. The only reason he isn't getting charged is because he doesn't report anything that the government doesn't want him to, or that NBC tells him not to.

    Had this been any of us we would be in jail waiting for the death squad!

    I wonder if it is okay for an evil killer to briefly possess illegal items in D.C. so they can cause mayhem with them, you know, as long as it is brief?

    How was this brief? I guaruntee it is still setting in the studio. It was certainly NOT brief exposure.

    I believe he should have been charged, because anyone of us would have been! Perhaps if someone in the media was charged for violating such a useless and ignorant law then people would see how stupid they are. If he had been promoting the Second Amendment in his segment I GUARANTEE he would have been arrested on camera!

    I am sick of the government saying illegal actions are okay as long as you are the right "class" of person!
    Good point.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Tx
    Posts
    326
    So if he were doing a story about legalizing marijuana, it would be alright for him to wave a joint around?? Story about kiddy porn?
    Lower the crime rate by lowering the criminal survival rate!
    When people say 'God Bless America' I'm sure He says, "I gave you Texas!"

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    So we need a pro 2nd Amendment news piece to do the EXACT same thing in the same jurisdiction. How can we make that happen?

    And they can't use "well, NOW they should know better" because NBC was specifically told no beforehand also.
    Last edited by MAC702; 01-13-2013 at 05:20 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    So we need a pro 2nd Amendment news piece to do the EXACT same thing in the same jurisdiction. How can we make that happen?

    And they can't use "well, NOW they should know better" because NBC was specifically told no beforehand also.
    Oh, you wouldn't need a news piece. A fella could it during public comment time at a city council meeting. Or, downtown on a street corner.

    The city council meeting approach also implicates the 1A right to petition government for redress of grievances.


    Separately, I wonder if they just opened the floodgates for injunctions. By this I mean, lets say I want to display a standard-capacity magazine (30 rounds) but am chilled by the threat of prosecution. Given the AG's comment, it seems to me I can now petition a court for an injunction against arrest for the magazine based on my 1A right of freedom of speech, press, and petition for redress of grievance. The AG made the opposing counsel's argument for him.

    Hell, I wonder what would happen if 5-10K pro-gunners sought temporary injunctions all at once for a demonstration on the national mall.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, you wouldn't need a news piece. A fella could it during public comment time at a city council meeting. Or, downtown on a street corner.

    The city council meeting approach also implicates the 1A right to petition government for redress of grievances.


    Separately, I wonder if they just opened the floodgates for injunctions. By this I mean, lets say I want to display a standard-capacity magazine (30 rounds) but am chilled by the threat of prosecution. Given the AG's comment, it seems to me I can now petition a court for an injunction against arrest for the magazine based on my 1A right of freedom of speech, press, and petition for redress of grievance. The AG made the opposing counsel's argument for him.

    Hell, I wonder what would happen if 5-10K pro-gunners sought temporary injunctions all at once for a demonstration on the national mall.
    This.

    I think the guy should have been put through the ringer. However due to the failure to charge him for wantonly violating a (BS) law they have opened the door for other citizens conducting illegal activities in the name of the First Amendment.

    Drinking and driving, illegal discharge of a firearm, possession of a brand new machine gun, using marijuana, the list goes on. So long as it is about the First Amendment they have set precedent saying that it's legal.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-14-2013 at 07:49 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The liberal news dude should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of existing law. The NRA was dead wrong to call for the liberal news dude to not be prosecuted because the law is "stupid." Though, all the liberal news dude had to do is claim the "clip" is a "stage prop."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    As much as I detest most of what the NRA does, they were right here. Gregory should not have been prosecuted, as long as the reason given was that the law is unreasonably restrictive--and will NEVER be used in a prosecution of anyone.

    Instead, this was surely a case of selective orwellian non-prosecution. Gregory was exercising the correct free speech.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Someone should.seek public clarification from the D.A.

    He claims that Gregory will not be prosecuted because he was exercising his First Amendment.

    Someone needs to get an official response on which parts of the constitution the D.A. makes exceptions in the law for, and which ones he does not.

    If the magazine ban is discretionary when people are expressing their First Amendment, is it also discretionary when people exercise their Second?

    We need to also find out what other laws can be intentionally broken without fear of prosecution.

    An official public response to these valid questions would be nice, don't you think?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The liberal news dude should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of existing law. The NRA was dead wrong to call for the liberal news dude to not be prosecuted because the law is "stupid." Though, all the liberal news dude had to do is claim the "clip" is a "stage prop."
    We've been through this on the previous thread, regarding this newscaster.

    So, you are for not Constitutional Laws being levied against individuals, as long as they are equally applied?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    We've been through this on the previous thread, regarding this newscaster.

    So, you are for not Constitutional Laws being levied against individuals, as long as they are equally applied?
    Your attempt to portray my statement as something other than what I explicitly stated is noted.

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
    I do not contend that any opinions expressed here on OCDO for the liberal news dude to not be prosecuted are a violation of Forum Rule 15.

    I contend that the current law is what it is. The liberal news dude should have gotten "permission" to display (possess) the item in question for the purposes of the news interview. Stage prop. Whether or not that occurred is not clear, but the prosecutor making a official statement indicates that the liberal news dude may not have obtained permission prior to the news cast. If the liberal news dude did have permission, why not state this, then the "story" would have ended there.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Someone should.seek public clarification from the D.A.

    He claims that Gregory will not be prosecuted because he was exercising his First Amendment.

    Someone needs to get an official response on which parts of the constitution the D.A. makes exceptions in the law for, and which ones he does not.

    If the magazine ban is discretionary when people are expressing their First Amendment, is it also discretionary when people exercise their Second?

    We need to also find out what other laws can be intentionally broken without fear of prosecution.

    An official public response to these valid questions would be nice, don't you think?
    This is what I expected, the media has for a long time disregarded laws in the name of journalism. Basically they can break any law they choose as long as they claim first amendment.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This is what I expected, the media has for a long time disregarded laws in the name of journalism. Basically they can break any law they choose as long as they claim first amendment.
    It would only make sense then that we can violate laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment because it states clearly it is a right of the "PEOPLE."

    They claim that they are exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of the press -- well the people have the right to exercise their Second Amendment rights any way they see fit, being as it plainly states they "shall not be inringed."

    It is sad that this would never work, and had this been someone exercising their Second Amendment rights in order to prove a point with the use of their First Amendment rights they would be setting in jail as we speak.

    The First Amendment is nowhere near as solid as the Second, yet people often like to claim that it is. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the PRESS." There is not even mention of the People before the reference to freedom of speech and press. How odd being the Second Amendment strictly states "the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed."

    It amazes me how people can protect the First Amendment with such pride and force, yet they completely disregard the Second Amendment even though it is blatantly obvious that it is certainly a right of the People!

    I agree with you. The media can do as they please as long as they claim they are just exercising their First Amendment rights. I get rather indignant when we are told we cannot do the same when exercising our Second Amendment rights even though there is no debating "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed."
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The liberal media.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This is what I expected, the media has for a long time disregarded laws in the name of journalism. Basically they can break any law they choose as long as they claim first amendment.
    I agree, there ought to be limits to the First Amendment.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I agree, there ought to be limits to the First Amendment.
    I said nothing about limits to the first amendment. Don't put words in my mouth I did not say, that makes you a liar when you do that. Breaking the laws has nothing to do with first amendment. Nothing stopped his speech without breaking the law. So I guess you would be OK with rape in the name of journalism?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I said nothing about limits to the first amendment. Don't put words in my mouth I did not say, that makes you a liar when you do that. Breaking the laws has nothing to do with first amendment. Nothing stopped his speech without breaking the law. So I guess you would be OK with rape in the name of journalism?
    Dude, you got punked. B92FSL is a liberal, I recommend that you read and enjoy the show. Taking it personal is more work than she deserves.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Dude, you got punked. B92FSL is a liberal, I recommend that you read and enjoy the show. Taking it personal is more work than she deserves.
    Thanks for spoiling the show, I was even fixing up some popcorn for it. :P
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •