No charges for NBC host over ammunition magazine

http://news.yahoo.com/no-charges-nbc-host-over-ammunition-magazine-215152419.html


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

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.

09jisaac said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree but that's not the way it is.

09jisaac said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1

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.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

fuq: (Let's make a habit of using them.)

Click to expand...

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/p...nt-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-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

"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.

Click to expand...

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?

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!

KYGlockster said:

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!

Click to expand...

Good point.

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?

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.

MAC702 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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."

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.

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?

OC for ME said:

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."

Click to expand...

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?

Beretta92FSLady said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Superlite27 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

WalkingWolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."