|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Documents: Cops wanted to hit 'Meet the Press' then-host David Gregory with gun charge
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Police wanted to arrest former NBC “Meet the Press” host David Gregory for showing an illegal high-capacity gun magazine in a TV showdown with NRA chief Wayne LaPierre, according to newly uncovered documents.
A Washington Metropolitan Police Department detective said in the documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch and Legalinsurrection.com said there was ample evidence to charge the host, since fired and replaced by Chuck Todd.
In an affidavit, the investigator wrote that “there is probable cause that the offense of possessing a ‘high-capacity’ magazine was committed in the District of Columbia. Therefore your Affiant requests the issuance of an arrest warrant for Gregory, David Michael.” |
| Comment by:
punch
(1/23/2015)
|
| David Gregory walks but Adam Kokesh does time. I guess the trick is to suck up to D.C. attorney general, scoundrel and scallywag, Irvin Nathan. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
