DID "MEET THE PRESS VIOLATE WASHINGTON D.C. LAW"?

[Biginge]

Posted on another forum, this is reportedly the email from DC MPD:

E-mail response:

"From: "DC Police (imailagent)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Email from DC Police (Intranet Quorum IMA00519327)
Date: December 24, 2012 4:13:12 PM EST
To: (<EDITED OUT>)


The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.

Customer Service - Metropolitan Police Department"

To me the reference of "customer service" smacks of lack of credibility in this statement.

Most PD's have a Public Information Officer (PIO). Not "customer service".

Sounds kinda like calling to get a plumber out or some such.

 

[2hawk]

Actually, the original poster of that email, who did make the inquiry, has posted the entire email with all the properties visible, ie, the IP addresses and data strings. He wanted people to know it was authentic.
The story is running on multiple media sites now, even on MSNBC, with essentially the same responses. So, yeah, it's real, and apparently MPD has a Customer Service Dept.

I agree, callling it CS implies that you need to be a paying customer. Wonder how that works.

ETA more on the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8f77da-4f76-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

 

[Steve in Vermont]

[QUOTE I agree, callling it CS implies that you need to be a paying customer. Wonder how that works.[/QUOTE]

So now all LEOs can call citizens "customers"? Are offenders now customers? Victims? "One Adam 12, see the customer....". Sort of like employees are now called "associates". You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Bat Guano]

Who or what is a David Gregory, anyway? I'm just a lonely Philistine out in Flyover Country and not properly wired in. But from here it looks like Gregory is hoist on his own petard while the local constabulary girds itself to track down the evil 30-rounder.

A pox on all their houses.

The only one I had was lost in a tragic canoe accident amy years ago anyway.

 

[David LaPell]

I watched that interview with David Gregory, and since he kept telling Wayne Lapierre that there was no reason for anyone to have a high capacity magazine, he should have known better himself. As the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse and as far as I am concerned there is no excuse for David Gregory.

 

[Foodfuzz]

David Gregory didn't obey the law? What, he's not special and above the law? He was just demonstrating what can happen when miscreants don't obey the current written law. It's obvious a new law needs to be drafted and passed to prevent this type of thing. That will nip it, nip that problem in the bud! If a news anchor breaks the law does a tree still make a sound when it falls in the woods if no one is there? It's a good thing he didn't have a bullet in his front shirt pocket.

 

[2hawk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8f77da-4f76-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

"'NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated.' .....

Gregory appears to have used an ammunition magazine anyway. A police official said detectives will try to determine whether it was real, how it was obtained and whether the segment was filmed in the District. The official said the investigation will entail questioning NBC producers and could conclude this week.

NBC News, through a spokeswoman, declined comment."

 

[nipster]

So we are against these silly anti-gun laws, yet at the same time, want to have them enforced to the letter of the law when someone we don't like has what may or may not even be a real magazine?

He's not going to get prosecuted because they don't have the magazine in question, and never will. Could have been an airsoft magazine for all we know.

I think the guy is an idiot, but at the same time, I don't necessarily agree with the witch hunt against him for maybe possessing something all of us likely have. Seems kind of hypocritical.

 

[james56]

I wish Wayne would have pointed the law out to Gregory that he was breaking the law as they were on the air!!!! That would have been something. Would have made it all the more interesting had he looked it over and then said it.

 

[2hawk]

So we are against these silly anti-gun laws, yet at the same time, want to have them enforced to the letter of the law when someone we don't like has what may or may not even be a real magazine?

He's not going to get prosecuted because they don't have the magazine in question, and never will. Could have been an airsoft magazine for all we know.

I think the guy is an idiot, but at the same time, I don't necessarily agree with the witch hunt against him for maybe possessing something all of us likely have. Seems kind of hypocritical.

No, I think that if we can turn the enemy's argument against them it is absolutely right to do so. Of course, I would be happy to contribute to a David Gregory Magazine Defense Fund.

But, when he's attempting to use that magazine as an argument against my right to own one like it, then I have a real issue with his actions. As others have pointed out, he's hoist on his own petard. What I hope happens is a wide spread realization of the inanity of the magazine bans, both current and proposed, and I think staying on this episode will help illustrate the fallacy of these laws. We know it's a stupid law. It needs to be driven home to opinion makers like DG that magazine bans have no validity. He has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the DC law, and we don't have enough opportunities like this to make our point seen and heard, as far as I am concerned.

I actually have liked DG in the past, but when he is pushing an agenda that would lead to the curtailment of my rights, he is my enemy, and deserves no quarter. Nothing personal, of course.

 

[Mr Pokeyman]

Kind of like "Dog the Bounty Hunter" who, after they search a bail jumper and find meth, crack or weed, they throw it in the street or flush it or whatever. Why can he destroy evidence of a crime and get away with it? Because he's on TV of course. If you are famous, you can get away with anything.

 

[PALADIN85020]

I watched that "interview" that David Gregory did with Wayne LaPierre.

It was not so much an interview as a harangue by Gregory against guns, gun owners, and those evil "bullet clips." When "journalists" become nagging advocates for whatever cause, they cease to have any journalistic credibility, in my book. If one wants to call them commentators, that's probably more accurate.

This one can't get it through his thick head that guns and magazines don't cause crime. They are sometimes just tools - of the minority of people who will do evil things, guns or no guns. Duh. And guns can also be tools for the majority, honest people, to ward off people who do evil things. Double duh.

Note to David Gregory: Before you spout off, do your homework lest you show your ignorance and unreasoning bias on national TV.

John

 

[M29since14]

...When "journalists" become nagging advocates for whatever cause, they cease to have any journalistic credibility, in my book. If one wants to call them commentators, that's probably more accurate.

I prefer "agitators."

I think we could all agree the MSM lost all credibility on the "gun control" issue so long ago it is hard to remember when, if ever, they had any credibility at all.

As to cutting this clown any slack, of course not! If you live by the sword, you should expect to die by it. I don't care if D.C. throws the book at him, though I have no illusion they will, and of course it would be a waste of the taxpayers' money since nothing would come of it.

 

[nipster]

Since, I dont watch it, what is fox news saying about all this? You would think they would be doing the opposite of the CNN's and NBC's of the world.

 

[Moonman]

OK, Washington D.C. PD, just where is this investigation presently?