Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Oh, it's just what I always wanted!

According to, the D.C. Metro Police are giving me a great, big stuffed Schadenfreude for Christmas!
Washington D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has confirmed that the department is looking into allegations that NBC's David Gregory violated D.C.'s gun banning laws during a recent taping of Meet the Press.
 Apparently, there's no "Sanctimonious Dickhead" loophole in the statute.


Matthew Walker said...

That loophole is informal. Can you imagine the outrage and the strings pulled by the Sanctimonious Classes if one of their own were treated like a mere subject? Not gonna happen. They'll announce that the investigation was inconclusive.

Tam said...

Matthew Walker,

I'm not expecting anything to come of it; I'm sure everything will be settled between the city government and David's lawyers.

I just want reality to impinge a little on his bubble, at least enough to cause a little inconvenience.

Phssthpok said...

It's a win-win. Either a sanctimonious twat gets his come-uppance, or we are presented with yet another data point for our 'we have enough laws, we just need to enforce them' argument.

The only way this could get better would be if it were Piers Morgan, Sara Brady, or one of the babbling heads from CSGV.

Matt G said...

"'"Yes, we are investigating the incident to determine if the magazine was in fact real.'"

Ruh roh. You don't think that he's going to get off on a technicality that Ice Dog and Ray-Ray wouldn't have been afforded, do you?

And what's the chance that he'll be informed that a dap of JB Weld makes them a non-functioning magazine, and therefore a prop?

Bob said...

The most delicious irony of all would be if Gregory's lawyers had to cite the Heller vs D.C. decision to avoid having Gregory prosecuted.

Tam said...


From your lips to John Marshall's ears.

Anonymous said...

Even David Gregory is not profesional enough to handle an empty AR magazine.

What a surprise!


rickn8or said...

"And what's the chance that he'll be informed that a dap of JB Weld makes them a non-functioning magazine, and therefore a prop?

"And just as soon as it sets up, we'll SHOW you pesky gun nuts." ("Are you sure you mixed it right?")

Harvey Morrell said...

Shades of Carl Rowan. .

mikee said...

When no malicious intent is required, even the best of us can become inadvertent criminals.

I have driven as legally as possible on 495 around DC, hoping no police noticed me, with weapons in the trunk that would get me a long stint in jail were I to be in DC in possession of them, such as a Marlin Model 60 22LR assault rifle and a used police S&W Model 10 unregistered (and at the time unregisterable) revolver. I am familiar with some of the difficulties in avoiding violation of their gun laws.

But Mr. Gregory flaunted his violation on national TV. Such blatant law-breaking deserves and demands a strong police response.

DJ said...

Saul Alinsky is coughing up a hairball.

docjim505 said...

mikee - When no malicious intent is required, even the best of us can become inadvertent criminals.

In my more paranoid moments, I think that this is the intent. Good way to keep the proles in line.

Then, I calm down and realize that the people who write our laws are (shall we say?) not exactly members of the National Brain Trust, and so idiocy is to be expected.

At any rate, one would hope that the gunbanners would learn a lesson from the Gregory kerfluffle, but, sadly, I doubt that they will. After all, Gregory is on the Right Side of this thing; he only did what he did as a stunt For the Children(TM), and OF COURSE never MEANT to break the law (unlike nasty ol' gun nuts who routinely buy automatic assault rifles with no background checks or other controls at gun shows, just like terrorists).

John Stephens said...

Such laws do not apply to government agents on official business. And since the Mainstream Media in it's entirety is nothing more than the Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment for the Obama administration, the whole thing will be resolved in an exchange of memos. Nothing to see, move along.

Rob K said...

"'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar"

the pawnbroker said...

Like Matt G says,

"It was a non-functional prop."

Edited to read:

"It *is* a non-functional prop."

Fixed it for ya, David!
Signed, NBC staff esq's.



Bubblehead Les. said...

I fully expect Mr. Gregory to face the same Justice as that shown to the New Black Panther Party.

As in Zip. Nada. Snowball's Chance.

Tam said...

You're right.

Y'all're right.

Our overlords are better than us.

I shouldn't even have brought it up.

As a matter of fact, since DiFi and Obama are going to pass an assault weapons ban, and there's nothing we can do about it, I might as well just go ahead and sell all my guns now...

...since my team seems to have gone docile, soft and toothless in the last week.

Anonymous said...

Refresh my memory, but didn't the Patron Saint of Gun Control (St. Brady) herself once admit to buying a rifle for her son in violation of "straw purchase" laws?

Ah, yes, here we go:

Wasn't it something when Sarah Brady was arrested for...oh, wait, that didn't happen, did it?

And who could forget this gem:
"In September 2011, former Army Specialist Adam Meckler was arrested at the VFW in the District because he happened to have a few long-forgotten rounds of ordinary ammunition in his bag."

Anyone want to lay bets on the fate of one David Gregory of NBCNews? Would anyone be surprised if Mr. Gregory's, er, RESPECT for the Presidency "goes to 11" after his case is dismissed for one reason or another?

The laws are NOT for the nomenklatura, the Glorious Vanguard of the Revolution.

Tam said...

Anon 1:45,

I don't know Delaware law, but that was not a "straw purchase". Buying a gun as a gift for another person is completely legal provided that they are not a prohibited person. It says so right on the Form 4473.

A "straw purchase" is defined as lying on question 11.a. of the Form 4473.

Phssthpok said...

A "straw purchase" is defined as lying on question 11.a. of the Form 4473.

Like Robyn Anderson who bought the guns for (those who shall not be named) who used them to shoot up Columbine....and who (reportedly) was never charged or prosecuted for said straw purchase.

Tam said...


Lack of BATFE prosecutions for things like that is a real bone of contention.

Anonymous said...

Harvey Morrell said...
>Shades of Carl Rowan. .

Carl Rowan went to trial, and got a hung jury. Mayor Marion Barry is on record as saying he wanted to fine him, but not give him any jail time. Carl made some half ass excuse saying that he shouldn't have to leave himself defenseless.

He never backed away from this quote, though, "Anyone found in possession of a handgun, except a legitimate officer of the law, [should go] to jail—period! Anyone committing a crime with a handgun [should go] to prison, with 10 years added to his term, without parole—period!"

He also never explained why he left the safety of his house and confronted his trespasser. If his name was George Zimmerman we would all be talking about "stand your ground"

mikee said...
>I have driven as legally as possible on 495 around DC, hoping no police noticed me, with weapons in the trunk that would get me a long stint in jail were I to be in DC in possession of them...

If you take the Beltway around the American Legion Memorial Bridge, you should be safe. If instead you decide to take the Woodrow Wilson Bridge you have to travel over a small slice of DC. (I'm in total surprise that there isn't a speed SCAMera in place there.)

Federal law should get you out of jail with a good lawyer, but it may not be worth suing DC to get your firearms back


SewerDweller said...

"...since my team seems to have gone docile, soft and toothless in the last week."

No,no it's just that I'm waiting for one of the biggest schadenboners of my life to go down, so I can actually go out in public again. I've been giggling all day, and my faith in Santa Claus is utterly restored.

I'm delighted you brought this to my attention.

This is entirely made of win. Either he gets 5 in the can, and we can all point to how rediculous the laws are, or they can 'decline to prosecute' and we can bludgeon the gun-banners with it for -years-.. "one set of laws for thee, and another for me, eh?"

Merry (belated) Christmas and a Happy new year!

JohninMd.(help!) said...

I'm with Sewer Dweller on this one. But Tam's right. One tragedy, and it's 1968 all over again. where are all the Gun Culture© 2.0 types at? Cowering under the bed, clinging to their 1500$ Double Stars & P-mags? Mike Bane said it best on his podcast fri., I resent that I'm forced to think about strategy and politics unstead of greiving for the kids and families of Newtown. But the enemy never lets a crisis go to waste, do they? Does ANYONE have an idea how we can strike back at the banners, and sway public opinion back where it was a month ago, which was mostly on our side? let's hear it, people!

Kristophr said...

Give up my ass, Tam.

He ain't gettin prosecuted ... at least this year.

What is the statute of limitations on that DC law?

If we can get a Republican congress some day, we can force the DC city government to either prosecute, or lose home rule.

staghounds said...

Unprodecutable. Without the magazine itself, how can I as prosecutor prove it's a genuine magazine?

Sort of like trying to convict someone of having something that looks like marijuana.

Kristophr said...

staghounds: You still investigate.

He probably didn't buy that magazine. Who did? Is the buyer willing to give him up to avoid jail time?

There are all sorts of ways to pursue this ... you just need a cop and prosecutor willing to do it.

Scott J said...

By way of Sipsey St. (I refuse to direct link TMZ) ATF has given him an alabi

markm said...

Not an alibi. The ATF doesn't interpret or enforce DC laws. An ATF opinion that showing the magazine is OK under DC law has the same legal weight as your city clerk's opinion that you can deduct your new AR-15 on form 1040 - that is, less than the same opinion from the IRS's own help line, which means nothing at all in tax court.

markm said...

OTOH, that TMZ sought that opinion seems to imply that it *was* a functional magazine. If they had asked "how do we render this magazine nonfunctional so we can bring it into DC legally?", the ATF response might have mattered.

If David Gregory isn't prosecuted, then it seems to me that everyone ever prosecuted by DC for bullets or a magazine without a gun, or vice-versa, has a case for selective prosecution.

staghounds said...

No, you still have to rove that the thing actually is what the law prohibits. Those people prosecuted for possessing ammunition or magazines in DC were, I guarantee, in possession of things that were seized as evidence.

I have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to all 12 jurors, that the thing in his hand was a functioning magazine. Without it, I can't.

The "investigation" is a joke. A real investigation would be a search warrant without warning.

Geodkyt said...

Um, you have a spontaneous - and concurrent - confession. On film.

Given their opinion shopping and backtracking, it is pretty clear that they knew, and intended, to violate the ban on possession, in order to make a point.

Should be easy, especially since we successfully prosecute potential pedophiles for engaging n racy discussions with adult police officers who are merely posing as minors online. . .

If DC DOES NOT prosecute, well then:

"The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population. . . "

Old Radar Tech said...

It doesn't have to be a functioning mag. The law includes parts (can be restored).
They are also trying the sumdood defense - "He didn't possess it, he was just holding it", a favorite of streetcorner pharma vendors.