Most readers of this column are familiar with David Gregory's brandishing of a 30 round AR-15 magazine as he interviewed NRA's Wayne LaPierre on Meet the Press. It turns out that Gregory (and possibly others on his staff) apparently 'willfully violated' District of Columbia law by being in possession of the magazine. DC bans possession of magazines of greater than 10 rounds by citizens:
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. (Source: Breitbart)
Reports indicate that Gregory's team had inquired of the DC police, and been told that this was not allowed. If the facts prove to be as presented, then the question is still, should Gregory et al go to jail for this infraction?
Clearly the video shows him in possession of the magazine. Clearly, the law states this crime is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment.
What is not clear, is whether or not Gregory will be charged with a crime. I think he should be charged, but he should be acquitted based on the District of Columbia's argument in the Heller case:
The District of Columbia had argued that “the original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia.” (Source: Chicago Sun-Times - Moore V Madigan, pg 3)
So, on the one hand, we have a DC ban on military type weapons and accessories, and on the other hand, we have DC lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court that the original understanding of the Second Amendment was . . . a right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia., an argument that supports the idea of military style weaponry, including the subject 30 round magazines, being owned by the citizenry.
Hey, David Gregory, maybe you should think about trying to retain as counsel Alan Gura of the Second Amendment Foundation if you are charged. He could probably represent you better than your staff of NBC attorneys in this legal minefield.
-------------------------------------------
Now, about those magazines of greater than 10 round capacity - if you support bans on these as well as firearms action types that have been around for a century, then you should be aware of the company you are keeping. People like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Pol Pot. Their gun bans were precursors to horrific genocides. Ask yourself why do our politicians want to join their ranks, when there is no correlation between gun or magazine bans and crime reduction.
-------------------------------------------
If you like this article, please subscribe (button at top), and share.
-------------------------------------------
A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Proverbs 22:3 (NLT)
Disclaimer: The information and ideas presented in this column are provided for informational purposes only. Firearms, like cars, kitchen knives and life itself all can be dangerous. You should get professional training as part of any plan to use firearms for any purpose. I have made a reasonable, good-faith effort to assure that the content of this column is accurate. I have no control over what you do, and specifically accept no responsibility for anything you do as a result of reading my columns. Any action or lack of action on your part is strictly your responsibility.
Comments