HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » No charges over NBC ammo ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:42 PM

No charges over NBC ammo clip display

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politics/guns-nbc/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Washington (CNN) -- No employees of NBC will face criminal charges over the display of a high-capacity ammunition magazine on a "Meet the Press" program in violation of local law in Washington, prosecutors told the network on Friday.
The capital city's attorney general, Irvin Nathan, said in a letter to NBC there would be no charges, but added that it was "a very close decision."
Nathan also said "there is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter, especially in a city and a nation that have been plagued by carnage from gun violence."


Is there a double standard or would charges serve no purpose in this?

12 replies, 1204 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply No charges over NBC ammo clip display (Original post)
sarisataka Jan 2013 OP
TheGov97 Jan 2013 #1
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #2
gejohnston Jan 2013 #3
iiibbb Jan 2013 #5
iiibbb Jan 2013 #4
petronius Jan 2013 #6
sgsmith Jan 2013 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #8
rrneck Jan 2013 #9
gejohnston Jan 2013 #10
bubbayugga Jan 2013 #11
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #12

Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:46 PM

1. Double standard

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:46 PM

2. would of liked to see a fine

once again existing laws not enforced. He could have just held up a photograph, but wanted the impact of a real 30 round magazine thus breaking the DC law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:48 PM

3. depends,

have a couple of blue collar guys have that same conversation at a Starbucks in DC and see what happens. My money is on double standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:53 PM

5. I will even support a hypocrites right to possess a magazine in DC...

 

... even if his motive was to attack the gun culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:52 PM

4. ...charges would serve no purpose...

 

...and won't change anything...

Even if it is hypocritical not worth making a big fuss because that would be hypocritical of gun rights advocates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:00 PM

6. I think it's the right decision, and an appropriate chastisement

So long as no one was harmed, I'd prefer to err on the side of a free and unfettered press, even if a specific press action doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose.

I just hope the legal owner of the magazine actually got it back, or was compensated...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:17 PM

7. DC is corrupt as hell

 

Case in point - Kenneth Furr - Metropolitan Police Department officer. Off duty, tries to pick up a transgender woman outside a CVS asking sex for cash. Brandishes service weapon at the CVS. Rebuffed, he tries to pick up other transgender women for sex. He's followed by the original woman, fires his weapon at the following car, causing that driver to rear end Furr. Furr gets out of his car and unloads 5 rounds into the passenger compartment, wounding three. Oh, he's also 2x the presumptive limit.

He wasn't changed for the drunk driving, nor solicitation, nor for firing the five rounds and injuring three.

Sentenced to 5 years, but reduced to 14 months time served. Three years supervised parole, $150 fine and 100 hours community service. He failed to comply with his presentencing release conditions, but the judge said "no problem" to that concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:37 PM

8. The real answer...

...is that, due to current state of things:
- there is a double standard,
- the laws in question serve principally to make such charges meaningless in this case,
- and the official posturing makes the whole matter mostly appearance with NO real impact.

Of there's a double standard. There's a double standard in plain view. Of course the charges serve no purpose, as the law that would be the basis for the charges serves little or no purpose and the violators were certainly working the capacity of the press and not criminal assailants. Finally, how twisted is the AG's office in pursuing no charges when certainly a law has been broken? No charges because it's the media (because the law itself is mostly for appearances???)

The law, the media and the AG looking the other way serves to distract, alienate and confuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:48 PM

9. Double standard.

But you'll have about as much luck with "assault clip" legislation as you will with legislating hyperbolic bullshit in the news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:32 PM

10. another thing that perplexes me is

how Josh Sugarmann can have an FFL and use VPC as his business address.
This is his FFL number.
1-54-000-01-8C-00725

A dealer is further defined as a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. 44 USC 921(a)(21)(A)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:08 AM

11. selective enforcement of the law. It's awesome

 

when it works for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:18 AM

12. I'll eat my Glock if a black man EVER gets off with an "admonishment"

for committing a nonviolent gun crime in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread