Archive for it’s the law

David Gregory, NBC not charged for possession of gun magazine, but blasted by DC Attorney General

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

bad decision

See that high-capacity gun magazine that David Gregory was waving under Wayne LaPierre’s wingnutty nose on “Meet the Press”? He shouldn’t have done that because his possession of such a piece of equipment was illegal. But Gregory’s off the hook and will not be prosecuted, says D.C.’s attorney general, because he has no criminal record, so off to court he doesn’t go.

Whew! That was a nail-biter! Kidding.

The AG went on to say that “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.”

In other words, don’t be silly, this was a news show [sic], and Gregory’s a dufus a journalist so he gets a pass. This time.

Here are screen grabs and excerpts from the Attorney General’s rather unflattering 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.”

 david gregory letter 2david gregory letter 1

Ignorance of the law or even confusion about it is no defense. We therefore did not rely in making our judgment on the feeble and unsatisfactory efforts that NBC made to determine whether or not it was lawful to possess, display and broadcast this large capacity magazine as a means of fostering the public policy debate. Although there appears to have been some misinformation provided initially, NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity-magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any federal official.”

“Repetition by NBC or any employee of any similar or other firearms violation will be prosecuted to the full extent supported by the facts and the law.

“I am confident that you will convey our deep concern and warning to your client.

Two strikes and you’re out, David.

idiot warning

H/t: David Shuster, Special thanks to Thomas Soldan

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

VIDEO– How to overturn Citizens United: Drive in a carpool lane with a corporation and get ticketed

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

corporations are people romney

Savor this one while you can, because you and I both know it’s going to get thrown out of court. There was this guy, see, and he got ticketed for driving alone in a California carpool lane. But he says there’s no way he was alone, see, because he had his corporation papers with him right there on the front seat, and as we all know…

“Under the law, a corporation is a person.”

Via NBC:

He waved his corporation papers at the officer, he told NBCBayArea.com, saying that corporations are people under California law. [...]

Frieman, who faces a traffic court on Monday, plans to tell the judge that this isn’t about carpool lanes; it’s about corporate power.

I’m just arresting their power and using it for my service to drive in the carpool lane,” he told NBC Bay Area’s Jean Elle.

University of San Francisco law professor Robert Talbot says Frieman’s argument may not hold up because it steers too far from the intent of carpool lane laws.

Intent inschment. The law allows corporations to be people when it comes to donating to greedy politicians, so it should apply here.

If not, then it’s time to dump Citizens United, the terrible SCOTUS ruling that got us into this mess in the first place.

But admit it, isn’t corporate personhood fun when it works for the average citizen?

UPDATE:

tweets citizens united carpool lane

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Photo of the Day- Lady Ultrasound

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Just too good not to share.Via Twolf by way of Watertiger.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

VIDEO- Nita Lowey: “No federal funds are used for abortion, period!” Yet GOP wastes time on that instead of jobs.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Earlier, I mentioned that Nita Lowey was on MSNBC and quoted her as saying, “Let’s get on with the discussion of jobs.”

Here is the context. Short version: Why are Republicans anti-women?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“I can’t believe we’re still debating this. They won’t give up!”

“The only kind of abortions that can be supported… are forced rape.”

“I don’t question anybody’s personal belief. .. But what right do they have to impose their personal views on all women?”

“This is really anti-women, it’s not ‘pro-life’ to me.”

“…Very extreme views…”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Arizona statute could endanger Gabrielle Giffords’s hold on seat

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

An Arizona state law could put Gabby Giffords’ congressional seat in danger, a disturbing and unexpected complication of Loughner’s tragic shooting spree:

A statute buried in Arizona law states that if a public officeholder ceases to “discharge the duties of office for the period of three consecutive months,” the office shall be deemed vacant – at such time a special election could be called to fill the vacancy.

The law does not specify what those duties entail – it does not state, for instance, that a vacancy is declared if a member of Congress does not cast votes in Washington during a three-month period. And it could not be determined what Giffords’s legal recourse might be should she be incapacitated for more than 90 days.

However, there is encouraging news:

An informal adviser to Brewer said it was “unimaginable” that the governor would call for a special election to fill Giffords’s 8th District seat if it is legally deemed vacant after 90 days. He said the most likely course of action would be calling for a special session of the state legislature to amend the law in such a way as to allow Giffords a longer period for recovery.

It was also “unimaginable” that Brewer would be as poor a governor as she is, denying funds for transplant patients whose lives depend on them; or would sign into a law a bill that discriminated against anyone who looks different than the average white Arizonan. But she did.

Let’s hope her informal adviser is on to something, and that Jan Brewer has the decency to respect Gabrielle Giffords and her office.

H/t: JamieHarbor

UPDATE (h/t: randomangrymale):

There are no rules in the House or the Senate that say a member of Congress must ever resign due to health reasons. In theory, a total vegetable could sit in Congress as long as their family refused to pull the political plug.

Please follow the link for more.

UPDATE: Prof: State law can’t force Giffords to step down

H/t: 1215MagnaCarta

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

PhotOh! What does an illegal immigrant look like?

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

What does an “illegal immigrant” look like?

Please follow this link to find out which of the above people are “illegal”. In other words, who are or aren’t the targets of racial profiling in Arizona now that SB 1070 is in place?

This is not unlike my Blunt webisode, “Do I Look Illegal?”

H/t: Tiggrr1

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Poll-itics: Nearly 2/3 of Americans back Arizona’s racial profiling law

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

This is a teaser to the new new NBC/WSJ poll, via MSNBC’s First Read:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law…

Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it.

70% of Latinos oppose it. Surprise!

Now for the punch line… er, punch in the gut line:

[N]early an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally.

So most of America agrees with pulling people over based on their skin color, their footwear, and their hair style, realizing that this will result in even more discrimination against legal residents. Most Americans are saying they’re okay with profiling.

I’m not okay with those Americans.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email