Friday, December 28, 2012

More on Gregory

Professor Jacobson, over at Legal Insurrection, continues to do the heavy lifting in the Gregory case, exposing the hypocrisy of the media.  He quotes Howard Kurtz, who writes:
The late word that NBC requested, and failed to receive, permission from the police certainly complicates the matter. But I don’t think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes.
I don't think that Gregory was planning to commit any crimes either, but that's not the point and it highlights the idiocy of most gun control laws.  I personally think that Gregory was trying to highlight the difference in the size of the two magazines, and that he was trying to catch LaPierre off guard, but he ran afoul of an idiotic law that just happens to be on the books.  As it turns out, in Washington DC, it is illegal to possess a certain type of steel box with a spring inside.

Now, Mr. Kurtz doesn't think that Gregory was planning to commit any crimes, but lots of folks who own those steel boxes aren't planning to commit any crimes.  So, why should it be illegal to own those steel boxes?  David Gregory may have done us all a favor here.  He's highlighted the idiocy of the laws against steel boxes.  And he's highlighted the idiocy of laws that don't require intent.

There is another firearms accessory that Mr. Gregory could have held during that segment that's also regulated heavily.  It's a steel tube with washers inside.  Those tubes are required in some countries, not regulated at all in others, but in the US they are considered nefarious devices, each of them is subject to confiscatory fees, absolute registration, and hobbyists acquire them after much paperwork and investigation by the government.  Yet, it's nothing more than a steel tube with washers.  Easily made in any home garage for less than $20.00, but if you make one for yourself, you do so at great risk.

However, if Mr. Gregory isn't arrested and prosecuted, then we'll all have the Gregory Defense.  The law applies to us all, equally.  No man is above the law.  Not even David Gregory.


Old NFO said...

Oh excellent bottom line Paw! :-) Somehow I 'think' that is probably going to see use in the future...

Rivrdog said...

The "Gregory Defense" only applies if I were to go to DeeCee with a magazine fed gun, and that magazine could hold over 10 rounds. I'll never be that exposed, because nothing, I repeat NOTHING, could get me to DeeCee now, even if I won a free trip there.

Six said...

What I find so idiotic is the idea that the DC police could have given Gregory permission to break the law in the first place. As you and I know police can't give permission to break the law. Not legally anyway. Can you imagine?

Officer. "Yeah, I told the guy he could drive 100 mph through that school zone. Hey, he's a reporter and he just wanted to do a segment on speeders and dangerous driving."

Chief. "Yeah, just go ahead and turn in your gun and badge. Don't let the jail door slam you in the ass on your way."

Rivrdog said...

Ler's get technical. Any CRIME (as opposed to a civil violation) has a required mental state for the perpetrator. The arrested perp must meet that mental state or the charge will fail in court. I haven't read the particular law, but if it's like all the "possession" laws I worked with in Oregon, the mental state required is: "with knowledge". In this case, it would appear the the screen shots of Gregory holding up what wuld appear to be a prohibited item would be PRIMA FACIE evidence that the crime was committed. The audio portion of the tape has him referencing the prohibited item, and THAT evidence fortifies the photo evidence.

The law is absolute, and even if it has an LEO exemption in it, an LEO would have had to have had "constructive possession" of the prohibited item, and none was present, so Gregory possessed the prohibited item.