David Gregory.. lol

Flyer5 wrote: To be specified as inoperable it would have to have permanent non reversible modifications done to be termed legal.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... d-gun-law/

Gwendolyn Crump, director of the Office of Communications for the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, told ABC News, “NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated.”

But ABC News has learned from an official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that NBC had reached out to the federal agency on Friday for advice before displaying the weaponry.

According to the ATF official, the agency noted that ATF doesn’t enforce D.C. gun laws, but agreed to put the question to a couple of Washington police officers who’ve worked with the agency in the past.

The D.C. officers advised the ATF spokesman that Gregory could display the magazine, provided it was empty, the source said.

That turned out to be bad advice, as conservative media and gun rights activists were first to note. The ATF official describes this as a “misunderstanding,” and says he hopes DC police will not bring charges

KLook wrote:Freedom of the press??? Where did you get that one? It is freedom to speak I think.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

rberq wrote:

KLook wrote:Freedom of the press??? Where did you get that one?

Sheesh! You can read the Second Amendment so carefully, but not the First?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Richard S. wrote:So does the right to bear arms allow me to shoot someone?

rberq wrote:I don't see that in the text of the amendment. .

samhill wrote: that they know absolutely nothing about since they haven't even started (as far as I know) are now complaining about someone not being jailed for a stupid gun law that they would normally all be against.

Richard S. wrote:

samhill wrote: that they know absolutely nothing about since they haven't even started (as far as I know) are now complaining about someone not being jailed for a stupid gun law that they would normally all be against.

Sam the bottom line is if I'm going to jail for this he has too. Not that it could or should make a difference they can't even use the excuse of ignorance because they were told it was illegal to posses that magazine in DC. If someone in law enforcement tells you something is illegal are you going to go waving it on national TV?

It's a dumb law and hopefully he gets arrested and made an example of how easily it is to break these laws in different jurisdictions.