Originally Posted by cosmo20002
Is "possess" defined, for the purposes of the law? Get back to me on that.
Also, sometimes laws are so poorly worded as to leave them unenforceable in some situations. If you saw one of those magazines on the sidewalk and picked it up, not knowing exactly what it was, did you "possess" it for purposes of that law? What if you recognized what it was and took it straight to the police station? Did you "possess" for purposes of the law?
I don't think a journalist holding it for purposes of discussion on a news show meets the intention of the law--that's why he wasn't prosecuted.
I believe I will. Here is the reasoning provided to NBC news to NOT prosecute. They state that he DID violate the law but are choosing not to prosecute at their discretion. Do I think they should have, no but anyone else may not have been so fortunate.
"The device in the host’s possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C.
It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to “possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm” or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a “magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.” Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000,
The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. 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. Of course,the recent tragic, heart-breaking events, particularly at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, which appear to have led to the program in question, also underscore our belief in the vigorous enforcement of such laws.
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.