Hypocrisy: David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press Will Not Be Charged for Illegally Possessing 30 Round Magazine in D.C.

In case you missed it, on December 23, 2012, David Gregory was hosting a debate on NBC's Meet the Press with Wayne LaPierre, the president of the National Rifle Association. In order to try to prove a point about the danger of "high capacity" magazines, he held up a 30 round magazine, unloaded, and asked LaPierre if it was possible to stop public massacres simply by getting rid of a magazine that can hold so many bullets.

The act seems innocuous. The magazine isn't loaded. There is no weapon nearby that can accept the magazine. The magazine, by itself, is completely and 100% harmless. The only way to hurt someone with it would be to beat them over the head with it. However, given its generally small mass and short length, the force of the blow would not be that hard and it would do little damage. The magazine, by itself, is completely harmless.

However, that doesn't matter to Washington, D.C., which has a law banning all guns, to include magazines, within the city limits. NBC requested permission from D.C. police to use it as a prop for the show, but they were denied. In a brazen act of disobedience, Gregory used it anyway.

On January 11, 2013, D.C. prosecutors announced that the city would not pursue charges against Gregory for his crime, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison or a fine up to $1000. Our judicial system is set up so that in order to be convicted of a crime, you must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This hurdle is so low in this case, it is laughable. There is absolutely no defense Gregory can make. He and his producers knew the law (not that ignorance is a valid defense anyway); this was obvious by their attempt to get permission to display the magazine first. He possessed the magazine within the city of Washington, D.C.  There is no malicious intent necessary the way the law is written. Possession is enough. So why isn't he being prosecuted? The office of the attorney general said that "it wouldn't serve the best interest of the public" to prosecute him. As a libertarian, this is one of the most irritating excuses to hear. Who is the public, what exactly is it's "best interest," and how does not prosecuting this clear felony serve this interest?

Here's what I think: I agree with Montesquieu when he said, "Useless laws weaken unnecessary laws." While this law is clearly useless and Gregory placed absolutely no person in any sort of danger, he still broke the law. To not prosecute him is to say that we can pick and chose which laws we like according to our personal whims when in reality, we should not even make a law unless it is absolutely necessary. This law, as demonstrated by its lack of prosecution, is clearly not necessary.

So why am I not happy that it's being ignored? Because if it isn't necessary and we're going to ignore it (for now; it will be beyond interesting when someone who isn't famous or isn't a gun-grabber gets caught with the same magazine), then we should just repeal it. As Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Had this law been enforced on Gregory, the chance of it being repealed would have been much higher than it is now, since the prosecution for possession of a harmless magazine by a person who is actually arguing AGAINST its existence is the ultimate insult to common sense.