Laws, I guess, are for the little people. And after all, David Gregory is on the right side of this issue.
But please note, they’re saying that Gregory will escape prosecution despite clearly breaking the law. Via Legal Insurrection, who has the prosecutor’s whole letter.
Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust. 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 following the previously mentioned events in Connecticut and the President’s speech to the nation about them. There were, however, other legal means available to demonstrate the point and to pursue this line of questioning with the guest that were suggested to NBC and that could have and should have been pursued.
OAG also appreciates that the magazine was immediately returned to the source that NBC understood to be its lawful owner outside of the District and that the magazine in question, with NBC’s assistance, has been surrendered to MPD. OAG also recognizes the cooperation NBC has provided in the investigation of this matter.
It’s an important law, according to the DC prosecutors, and Gregory clearly broke it. But that doesn’t matter, because this prosecution wouldn’t promote public safety.
Which has me wondering, does any prosecution of mere possession of a high-capacity magazine such as the one Gregory possessed and displayed on television promote public safety? How does arresting and prosecuting people for the crime of simply possessing a high-capacity magazine make us safer?
It doesn’t, but then that’s not the point of such laws. They aren’t intended to fight crime. They’re intended to make gun ownership harder, so that less people will exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
It’s ok to break such a law, as long as you break it in furtherance of the law’s real purpose, which is attacking gun rights.
I’d rather not see this law exist, but if it’s on the books, ought it not be applied equitably?