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 understand your point about possession but in this case he checked with the local police, they told him that he wasn't allowed to do it, and he did it anyway. From what I understand he did knowingly possess an illegal gun magazine. If you start considering the intent of the law you get to some seriously shaky ground though. I think the intent of the law is to lessen the likelihood that an irresponsible person, like a dangerous and violent criminal, has the ability to fire a lot of rounds with minimal effort. We can debate whether the law is effective in accomplishing that end, but I think that is the intent of the law. In that regard there is no difference between what he did and a gun dealer moving that magazine through DC. I would even say that there is no difference between what he did and someone using that magazine at firing range or for sport hunting. Actually, I already said that earlier in the thread but it bears repeating.