NY Army Veteran Charged With Illegal Pistol Magazines, Faces 21 Years In Prison

In recent news Simeon D. Mokhiber was convicted for weapons charges but it wasn’t the weapon that was the problem. It was three magazines that are not NY SAFE Act legal.

Simeon D. Mokhiber, 41, was arrested on April 18, 2016 and given field sobriety tests for possible DUI.  He was allegedly speeding as well as being DUI. He also had not been drinking, and was ultimately acquitted of that charge. But inside his vehicle- in a locked gun box- were three pistol magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds.

Police can search a vehicle incident to arrest, according to long standing Supreme Court rulings. But the locked box is problematic, and probably should have required a search warrant, given that Mr. Mokhiber did not give them permission to search it.

Mokhiber is an Army veteran. He was a Staff Sergeant for 9 years. He was involved with OIF and after the Army he became a US Contractor before becoming a NY armed guard. He has no prior criminal record.

The jury acquitted Mokhiber on the DWI charge, defense attorney James M. Ostrowski said. But the weapons charges each carry a potential seven-year prison sentence when Mokhiber returns before Judge Matthew J. Murphy III in about two months.

Having lived in NY, it was stupid of him to have these magazines. However police are exempt from the NY Safe Act with regards to magazine capacity. I do not agree with this, but it is a fact.

Hopefully Mokhiber meets a compassionate judge.





Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Hellbilly

    They dropped the DUI charge? I’d be begging for the DUI charge to stick in exchange for the ridiculous “weapons” charges being dropped.

    • Independent George

      Except the fact that it was dropped increases the chance that the case will be thrown out for an illegal search. If he were convicted of the DUI, the prosecution could argue it was moot because they would have searched the car as part of the arrest.

    • nonobaddog

      The DUI charge was not dropped. It says he was acquitted of that charge by a jury because he had not been drinking.

      • However, that is not entirely accurate. A review of police blotter revealed he refused to submit to a breath test, so there was not a specific blood alcohol content to present to the jury. That left the jury with the sobriety tests to determine if he was DUI. They chose no, but that does not mean he had not been drinking.

        • nonobaddog

          Well, the article says – “He also had not been drinking”. That is pretty easy to interpret. I wasn’t there so this is all I have to go on.

  • RavishedBoy

    Rephrase it: It was stupid of him to live in NY.

    • somethingclever

      I don’t know. Seems to me he was Molon Labeing harder than lots of braggarts who post on message boards.

      • ExMachina1

        Molon Laber: “come and take them!!!”
        NY State: “ok”

        • Wow!

          Freedom has risks. He did do his part to fight for 2A rights, probably more than most of us. Our best option is to do what we can to support him, especially if he appeals.

      • valorius

        When you molon labe youre supposed to actually fight to stop the other guy from taking your stuff.

        • somethingclever

          So just having a 3% sticker on your truck while you carefully comply with every government dictate isn’t enough? You have such high standards.

          • Wagon_Waifu

            It’s like seeing a thin blue line sticker in the exact same panel of vehicle glass as a gadsden flag sticker.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            That’s why all the fantasies about u.n. soldiers and new world orders coming to take their guns, because most of these “revolutionaries” are cop and military fanboys to begin with and their brain has to come up with something to get around the cognitive dissonance of those being exactly the people who would enforce any anti-gun laws.

            the fact that none of these “oathkeeper” types rush out to defend black people when they’re getting murdered by police tells you everything about these hypocrites. they’ve never been anything but volunteer fascists in waiting.

          • Evo Shift

            DonDraper- News Flash to stupid racists like you. Cops are NOT murdering blacks. BLACKS are the ones killing everything in their neighborhoods, including themselves, with THEIR stupid ACTIONS, whether the police are involved or not. Violently assault a cop, or resist arrest, and your cause of death should be labeled suicide, or just plain stupidity. But, not murder.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            You might want to start going outside of fox news and inforwars or just deciding reality is whatever “feels right” to you. And here’s a newsflash for you, acknowledging the realities of race in this country is not “racist,” racism is not “whoever says the word race first” lmao, and plugging your ears and saying racism isn’t real doesn’t make it so, genius. But you’re going to make every excuse for cops you can because you bootlicking fascist sympathizer.

          • pepelapiu2004 .

            Please look it up for yourself. Find out how many black murders are caused by black killers. Than find it how many black murders are caused by cops.

            Cops are not killing blacks, blacks are killing blacks.

          • Mel_Anosis

            Send him a copy of Heather McDonald’s book about the war on cops.
            It contains all the statistics about black crime. Unfortunately he probably won’t read it and if he did he would ignore it. Not worth wasting time on a guy like this.

          • Lobo Rojo

            “Find out how many black murders are caused by black killers. Than find it how many black murders are caused by cops.

            Cops are not killing blacks, blacks are killing blacks.”

            Find out how many cupcakes are homemade by cupcake eaters. Than find out how many cupcakes are made by Hostess.
            Hostess are not making cupcakes, cupcake eaters are making cupcakes.

          • pepelapiu2004 .

            You obviously didn’t follow my advise. You didn’t look it up at all. You just replied with an inane knee jerk reaction.

          • Lobo Rojo

            I know what the stats are. It doesn’t matter. What you said is not logical.
            Yes, most murder victims are killed by people of the same race, and that includes black murder victims. In no way does that make it impossible for cops to also murder blacks.

          • pepelapiu2004 .

            Blacks make up less than 13% of the population yet they perform 50% of all murders in the USA. And of course it’s all mostly blacks killing blacks.

            In addition, 80% of all murders are drug trade related. So blacks tend towards the drug trade more readily than other races.

            Now you going to tell me my statistics are racist. But I don’t think it’s a race thing, it’s a cultural thing with American blacks having the most single parent homes, and the glorification of the ‘thug life’ on black communities. Up here in Canada, blacks don’t have this problem.

            So with blacks being involved in more drugs, and more murders, they are likely to deal with cops a bit more, thus will likely get shot at more often.

            In fact black cops are more likely to kill a black person than a white cop.

            Look at all the violent cities in the US – all cities with at large black population.

          • Lobo Rojo

            Okay. Let’s start this off by once again pointing out the obvious:
            Nothing you said, including the parts of it that are true, even begins to contradict the assertion that cops are murdering blacks.
            Most blacks being murdered by blacks, and cops murdering blacks are not mutually exclusive. Both things can be true.

            Further:
            “80% of all murders are drug trade related. So blacks tend towards the drug trade more readily than other races.”

            You have made an leap from one fact to a conclusion that isn’t logically required by the fact.
            For instance, suppose we said, “80% of all NASCAR jackets sold are of Dale Earnhardt Jr. Therefore, Jr. fans are more inclined to buy nascar jackets than other fans.”
            That conclusion isn’t logical. Possible, but not logical. It could be that Jr jackets are priced lower than those for other drivers. It could be that Jr. has way more fans. It could be that way more Jr. jackets are manufactured than jackets for other drivers.

            Getting back to the drug trade… While blacks are far more likely to be arrested for involvement in the drug trade, a slightly higher percentage of whites sell drugs than blacks do, and a slightly higher percentage of whites use drugs than blacks do.

            “But I don’t think it’s a race thing, it’s a cultural thing”

            Culture doesn’t arise in a vacuum. Culture reflects the group’s economic situation, as well as the group’s political power. American black urban culture is what it is today in large part due to the economic and political marginalization that blacks have endured in this country for generations.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            We don’t live in a context free vacuum where everyone comes into this world starting from zero like some world of warcraft videogame, and you need to go back to basic math and learn how percentages worth. They kill more white people total because there’s more white people in the country, but they kill black people at a much higher rate.

            People like you love fascist J. Edgar Hoover and his cointelpro, how he illegally underminded black groups in the sixties and seventies, but then want to turn around and want to be like “racism doesn’t exist!! we all live in some race free vacuum we’re were all treated equally!! I know this because nobody was ever racist to me, a white man! we murdered mlk jr and immediately all bad things went away and had no impact on anything else ever”

          • Mel_Anosis

            Blacks in America are more racist than whites. Thankfully most blacks and whites aren’t racists. Unfortunately you are

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Yeah who could forget when black america gave me a predatory bank loan for being white lmao

          • Lobo Rojo

            “…their brain has to come up with something to get around the cognitive dissonance of those being exactly the people who would enforce any anti-gun laws.”

            Your critical respondents, unsurprisingly, ignored the main thrust of your comment, and instead focused on a supporting statement, essentially proving your point.

            That is, they ignore the fact that the biggest threats to their RKBA comes from the very people they idolize, and rush to declare that since, as a simple result of opportunity, most victims of violent crime live in the same area and have the same social status as their assailants, their idols couldn’t possibly be perpetuating the same systemic violence that existed in this country for centuries and was still legally mandated barely two generations ago.

          • valorius

            IKR? Call me crazy.

    • Big Daddy

      That’s why I moved to Texas.

    • Mel_Anosis

      Yes, I left it years ago and only return for funerals and weddings. It angers me I have to pay tolls around NYC which I know mostly go into the general funds to fund
      socialist nonsense and not bridge costs. I don’t buy anything from NY (California and Illinois also).

  • Screw the compassionate judge. He needs to meet with Alan Gura first.

    • KestrelBike

      Yeah, this is potentially the kind of case that big changes are built on…

  • Mike

    Play stupid games…. It’s not like it isn’t widely known NY is retarded when it comes to things like magazine capacity.
    I mean, we can all whine about it, but would YOU carry them around in NY?

    • Max Müller

      This is the PERFECT case to present to the SCOTUS. Illegal search as foundation, violation of the 14th amendment for the right touch of hypocrisy since their cops can carry 10+ rounds and then the violation of a amendment that was written the most obvious and exact way: “shall not be infringed”. Gorsuch will rip them apart and destroy half of the laws of NY in one verdict.
      We’re back to a 5-4 majority for republicans so you can do whatever you feel the constitution would allow, given you have the the pocket money for a 5 year long legal battle.

  • gunsandrockets

    Reminder to those poor souls stuck in California:

    You have until July 1st to get your magazines out of California. Otherwise you might suffer a similar fate to that of Mokhiber.

  • Matt

    How can you be “charged” for a DUI if you haven’t been drinking? It sounds like the cop wanted to get him for whatever he could.

    • dirtsailor

      Probably refused a breathalyzer.

    • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

      You can be arrested for nothing and charged with anything the state wants. It’s perfectly legal to be standing on the sidewalk and a cop arrests you for driving under the influence (qualified immunity, remember?).

      It’s then up to the court and legal system to prove the charges. In this case, the DUI charges were properly dropped as there was no standing or proof.

      That’s how our justice system works.

      • Rem870

        Amendment IV

        Search and arrest

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
        papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
        not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
        supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
        to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        • Swarf

          Uh huh. Except that they can still do it. And you have to do all your proving of innocence from jail. With money.

          • Rem870

            You are right. Getting caught up in the legal system is not exactly a pleasant thing.

    • valorius

      It happens.

    • Evo Shift

      Typical NY/NJ pigs. I am pro LEO, and have many family and friends on the job, but every cop I’ve encountered in non-urban NY/NJ has been the definition of a pig.

  • Edeco

    Too bad they just don’t exile him from the state, since his alleged so-called crime is highly-state-dependant, a total non-issue elsewhere. It’s not like there are victims to complain. Sentence to be applied if he ever comes back. Exile used to be a popular punishment.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    Am I supposed to feel sorry for him because he is an Army veteran? I mean I absolutely respect and appreciate those who have served to defend our liberty, but that doesnt make him any more special than anyone else in regards to 2A rights and compliance with stupid laws. It bothers me when people (frequently those in the gun community) say what a terrible atrocity it is when anything happens to a veteran who obviously did something dumb and had it coming.

    A DD214 is not a license to do whatever you want without consequence.

    • rfd

      The problem for me isnt the crime, ok, this 15 rdn mahs are illegal in NY.The problem for me and make me worry is the ask for 21 years,it remembers me tipical tyrannic countries where the elite have horror to armed citizens and create laws with extreme punishments. There are some juditial systems that are ideologically biased are punish extremely minor crimes without blood, and are more flexible with other crimes…………exaclty like in every tyranny.

      • rfd

        Sorry for my bad english.

        • Lyman Hall

          No worries. Most of us here only speak 1 language, so you’re ahead of the game already.

        • Mel_Anosis

          Capitalize English.

      • ForShameNY…ForShame

        What he did(had) was not a crime. The “law” against possessing what he did is, as it is against the U.S. Constitution therefore *should* have been overturned since it can’t stand up to it. It is written in plain English and all that. Still don’t understand how it can even be up for debate.

        But I suppose it doesn’t matter to a bunch of idiot politicians to crap all over the highest law of the land in preference to their own hoplophobic pet projects.

        Claire Wolfe was right: It is too late to work to change things within the system…at least in some areas such as NY.

        • QuadGMoto

          It’s up for debate because they want to violate it. There is no other reason.

        • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

          The law is presumptively legal given that the SCOTUS has not actually ruled on magazine capacities.

          • Vizzini

            The courts are not enshrined by the Constitution as the sole arbiter of what’s Constitutional. That power is also vested in legislators, executives, states and citizens. Only tradition sets the court up as the final arbiter. “Presumption of Constitutionality” is another court tradition that has no basis in written law.

            It is entirely legitimate as a citizen to proclaim a law unconstitutional. We don’t need to wait for the courts. Enough citizens do so, and a law becomes unenforceable, then we kick enough legislators out of office until the new ones understand who their bosses are and change the law.

            Our rights don’t come from the government. We have natural rights that supersede the government and when the government, including the courts, fails to protect those rights, then we have the right and duty to resist, as our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, outlines.

          • Edeco

            I’ve long resented the idea of the SCOTUS as the last bulwark. It was overwhelmed as a check/balance 100 years ago. A lot of gun people came close to having to face the fact but that ship has sailed.

          • kyphe

            Some people misguidedly believe that the revolution against Britain was a war for democracy over monarchy. It was actually anti democracy and for inalienable common law rights. British law had decided that democracy gave the elected Parliament absolute authority. Something no monarch had had since Magna Carta. And tbh even before that the right of kings was a paper concept when all the wealth was in the hands of the earls and dukes. This is why people in mainland UK lost many of their historic rights. what you call natural rights. These rights are those from pre Christian England and were inviolate by virtue of existing from time immemorial. Or so long no one can point to the precedent that the law is based on. Everything else that happened in the run up to the revolution was fueled by the resentment of this infringement of those rights.

          • jcitizen

            IMO – anti-democracy in the context of the majority have the right to beat up on the minority. This is why we are a Republic, as even the minority have exalted rights guaranteed by humanity, and those of us who believe in a higher being. In that context, I’d agree.

      • Edeco

        Good point. If I understand correctly, you don’t mind it being a crime but find the sentence extreme. I think a lot of people from outside the US aren’t aware of how viciousely some of our laws are enforced, so they wonder why we resist new, seemingly utilitarian laws.

      • Mel_Anosis

        As we speak the Venezuelan government is arming citizens who support them so they can go after those who are demonstrating against the fascist socialist Marxist government. So much for gun control.

    • Rogertc1

      He was DUI however.

      • PK

        Allegedly, and was acquitted of that charge.

      • dirtsailor

        No, he wasn’t. Did you not see that he was acquitted of that charge?

        • Rogertc1

          STILL GOT FKED. SORRY

    • Spencerhut

      “A DD214 is not a license to do whatever you want without consequence.”
      Indeed it is not, but the law is unconstitutional and stupid. The law should have never been proposed let alone passed. The law should already have been overturned, and people proposing or supporting the enforcement of such laws should be jailed. The Honorably discharged vet that wrote a blank check for 98% of the people that did not volunteer to lay down their life for their fellow citizens should be honored and thanked, not punished.
      You sir can got to hell, go to hell and die.

      • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

        Again, I thank him for his service, but he still made a poor choice.

        As for going to hell, Im grateful for your permission, but its probably inevitable with or without it, and I think Ill wait a while on the dying part. I hope you dont mind. Ill still get around to it. I promise.

        • Spencerhut

          With all due speed sir.

          • Juggernaut

            The US wars for the last 150 years have been wars of aggression and imperialism and had nothing to do with my “freedumbs”, which, as far as I have seen have been continuously eroded by that same government that has sent good young men to die in hellholes like Korea and Vietnam

          • Spencerhut

            Did I ask you to drop dead some time back? Get on with it . . . do the world, well at least me, a favor

          • QuadGMoto

            It’s really a shame that Disqus no longer shows down votes, because this comment is just begging for them.

          • valorius

            The war in Afghanistan is not a war of agreession, nor was WWII, nor was WWI, nor was Korea. You stupid, American hating scum bag.

          • Alex @Sea

            You would be speaking German now if it wasn’t for our aggression. But I’ll give you a break for now. Grow up and read some history.

          • iHAL

            No we wouldn’t be. The Germans lacked force projection abilities we take for granted today.

            “YOU HAVE HORSES! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?”

          • valorius

            Western Europe certainly could be speaking German.

          • cisco kid

            I am relieved to see that at least some one here knows much about American History. Its refreshing.

          • Norm Glitz

            It sure as heck isn’t “LibertarianSocialist”.

      • Swarf

        So you think veterens deserve double extra passes? Like citizenship +P?

        Balls.

        • Spencerhut

          Yes, they do.

        • Alex @Sea

          Shure nuf ace. Grow a pair!

      • valorius

        He served in OIF. Exactly how did he volunteer to save his fellow citizens by fighting in a foreign adventure in Iraq?
        Seriously, I don’t follow that line of argument- and i’m an ex infantryman.

        He knew the law, he broke the law. It’s his own fault for choosing to live in NY.

        • Spencerhut

          Everyone that takes the oath and puts on the uniform writes a blank check for their life to the 98% of the public that never serve. To deny that is to deny reality.
          The law is unjust and unconstitutional and it should be the duty of the patriots living in that state, if there are any, to disobey the unconstitutional law and bring those responsible for the unconstitutional law to justice.

          • valorius

            No court has found the law to be unconstitutional. (Sadly). I served myself, but i never tried to kid myself that if i went to Iraq (for example) i’d be ‘protecting Americans’, except for the other Americans who were on the same misadventure as i would be on.

          • retfed

            Enough with the blank check. I wrote the same check when I entered law enforcement 41 years ago, and over a 30-year career I came damn close to cashing it several times.
            The “blank check” argument might work for bankers or welders, but not for cops or firemen.
            Veterans deserve respect, but not a pass.

          • Spencerhut

            You are wrong.

          • retfed

            Which part am I wrong about? Was my blank check different from your blank check? Or do veterans deserve a pass? Inquiring minds want to know.

          • nonobaddog

            No, you didn’t. If you are trying to say being a cop is the same as being in combat you obviously have no idea about combat.

          • retfed

            I said nothing about combat. I know there’s no comparison.
            But because of the mechanization of the military, over 80% of all military personnel never go into harm’s way. Mostly they’re mechanics and clerks working away from home (as Ernie Pyle put it). I’m not belittling them in any sense, and I appreciate everything they have done and continue to do for us. But for every trigger-puller there are at least 40 support personnel.
            Of course, the computer jock in Crystal City “signed the blank check” just the same as the Ranger in Fallujah. But he’s much less likely to cash it. In contrast, all sworn police and all firefighters have at one time or another been in jeopardy.
            I’m also not against veterans getting preferential treatment, discounts, and things like that. But the idea that a veteran is somehow better than the rest of the population is ridiculous.
            After all, Chelsea Manning, Bowe Bergdahl, and Lynndie England were all veterans.

          • retfed

            Sorry, I got sidetracked and jumped on my soapbox. My real beef was with the assertion that military personnel are the only people who knowingly risk their lives for the public good. A copper murdered in a traffic stop or a fireman trapped and roasted in a roof cave-in is no less dead than a soldier ambushed in Afghanistan. They all signed that “blank check.”

          • valorius

            Bro you’re preaching to the choir, but the fact is the Iraq war as a complete and total fiasco and ultimately nothing but a diversion of the real mission which was in Afghanistan.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        Having served a few tours overseas, I can say with confidence that your attitude (“the honorably discharged…should be honored and thanked, not punished”) is what is wrong with the veteran community: wanting preferential treatment to the point that it overrides the laws that they were sworn to defend.

    • Jeff Smith

      Well said. The law is stupid, but breaking a law has consequences. Up to 21 years for the possession of three magazines is utterly ridiculous, especially when it was a nonviolent crime, but part of the concept of civil disobedience (purposely breaking a law you think is unfair/unjust/unconstitutional) is being willing to accept the penalties for doing so.

      Since someone told you to die and go to hell, I’m driving the bus to hell, so I’ll see you there. Any preference on booze? A good Bourbon, perhaps?

      • iksnilol

        I recommend a good rum.

        • Jeff Smith

          You, sir, are a man of good taste.

        • jcitizen

          I would have recommended Bacardi 151 if it hadn’t been dropped in production by the company. Cruzan is a good substitute!

      • Max Müller

        I think the word you were looking for is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, not stupid. The law is unconstitutional. Which means he was perfectly fine bringing any gun and magazines he wanted and he can’t be prosecuted for what is permitted in the constitution.
        LEOs are permitted to carry “high capacity” magazines there thanks to LEOSA and other laws that also allow him to carry them. 14th amendment. Their rights are his rights. Remember that thing? Bill of rights.
        And even that is unneccesary because of the four simple words “shall not be infringed”. I simply don’t see how it is soooo complicated to get the concept behind it. It says don not infringe, so you don’t infringe. Except if you are NY, then you do infringe. And should be punished accordingly.

        • valorius

          No court has ruled that magazine limits are unconstitutional…sadly.

        • BillyOblivion

          No, it’s stupid.

          It’s also unconstitutional, but even if it WAS constitutional it would STILL be stupid.

        • Norm Glitz

          All that would be nice, except liberal democrats don’t think that way. If at all. They think that they can pass any law that will make them feel better, regardless of higher laws, because they are oh so much more intelligent than the rest of us rubes.

          The NY State legislature (Albany) is dominated by NY City democrats. The ones that passed this “Safe Act” travesty in the middle of the night with no warning or discussion. Travel through the rest of the state and you’ll see many a “will not comply” sign or “Safe Act” with the red circle and slash.

          This arrest may well be the one that gets the Safe Act overturned. The problem with thinking that is that the NY courts are dominated by the same liberal NYC democrats.

      • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

        I dont drink. Do you want me to be DD so you can have your fill?

      • jcitizen

        Hmm? Interesting! Going to jail for 21 years to plug up the system. Sounds like a plan to me! What a great way to peaceable protest?! Maybe those of us who believe in freedom should descend on NY statehouse with magazines in hand, prepared to be arrested!!

        • Jeff Smith

          Or you can work to repeal the law you feel is unconstitutional in a way that doesn’t violate said law. Or you can donate to the NRA’s legal defense fund and and urge them to turn this unfortunate case into a test case which strikes down magazine limits as being unconstitutional. Here is the link:

          nradefensefund(dot)org

          Again, the law is stupid and the punishment for it is ridiculous, but you can’t break a law (unconstitutional or not) and expect there to be no repercussions for doing so.

          • jcitizen

            Thanks, yes I do the other things too, as well as respond to NRA emails to contact my congressmen. The thought of being an activist on par with the civil rights protesters of the 1960s is intriguing to me. I think the government would have a flat out panic on their hands if we actually did it.

          • jcitizen

            I agree with you, but if you look at the history of the peaceful civil rights movement, they got change by stressing the legal system and being willing to go to jail for their rights. It was VERY effective then, and I predict it will be today as well!

    • AD

      I think the idea is that, as a veteran he was entrusted with weapons carrying far more than ten rounds, and yet now that he’s completed his service and is no longer in the military he can somehow no longer be trusted with that much ammunition.

      Well, I’m probably not making a very strong case or anything, but it just somehow feels even less justified to punish someone for possessing a weapon when you previously handed him a weapon and told him to go use it in your service.

      • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

        I agree that there is no reason his rights should be restricted in that regard. My point is simply that all citizens deserve the same rights as veterans. Not that veterans are not special enough to have rights.

      • valorius

        If you chose to live in a communist trash hole like NY, you have to follow their laws- just like anywhere else.

        • Norm Glitz

          Don’t confuse NY state with NY city. Two different worlds.
          Unfortunately, the state legislature is dominated by NYC liberals.

          • valorius

            Which means they are in effect the same world, sadly. :-/

    • Alex @Sea

      “Had it comming”? Sir you may name yourself “Longfellow” but it seems you are short on many things.

      • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

        Not spelling. If you’re going to quote me, at least do it correctly.

  • datimes

    The seven year sentence is a maximum that not even a gang member with 10 felony convictions would receive. (Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter would be exceptions). Since the 3 magazines all are part of the same offense time would be served concurrently instead of consecutively. Over crowded prisons combined with a non violent offense is early release. He’ll likely get felony probation, a hefty fine, a lot of aggravation, and loss of 2A rights.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      Still definitely not worth it.

  • nrt

    21 years in prisson for 3 mags? Really, can somebody explain me if im correct?
    Send one person 21 years to prisson for 3 mags maybe its normal in tirannic dictatorships, in countries of the soviet era, nazi Germany, or North Korea or China, but in one western country, democratic country 21 years only for have 3 unautorized magas, 21 years. What is happening in NY? It seems that someone have ideologically ultra biased juditial system, more flexible with drugs, raped, decadence and some type of murders and brutal, inflexible and tyrannic with one vet who served and only have 3 unautorized mags probably thinking that he could help if other jihadist terror attack happen in front of his eyes. I suppose that NY juditial system is more comprensive with poor radicalized lone wolf mental ilness jihadists.

    • iksnilol

      I think you can get under 21 for murder.

      • retfed

        I once saw a guy get convicted of first-degree murder (he shot his wife in the back of the head) and get 30 months’ probation.

    • valorius

      Odds are the sentences would run concurrently, not consecutively.

  • Major Tom

    Yeah this is an easy acquittal. That’s an improper search, who gives a flying F about the NY SAFE Act? Civil rights violations always trump any violations of the law.

    It’ll probably be quietly dropped since NY probably doesn’t want the entire NY SAFE Act brought before Neil Gorsuch in the SCOTUS.

    • Nandor

      He was already convicted.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        He’ll get off on appeal. The entire search was not valid, especially the locked box.

        • Marcus D.

          That the search was not quashed prior to trial I find highly unusual. The law is quite clear that police cannot search a closed container (it doesn’t even have to be locked) without consent or a warrant.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            Unusual indeed.

        • Unfortunately, the SCOTUS case of United States v. Ross will very likely uphold the search.

          • jcitizen

            I say there is a chance that it will not be upheld, if the lawyers make the right case. They should site improper search and seizure, AND 2nd amendment rights. That way the NY law could get nullified. There is a 50/50 chance the 2nd Amendment could prevail as well.

          • Wow!

            Case law is not actual law and do not have to be followed by default. Given Trump is trying to appoint more justices, it is very possible all these old 2A violations may be reversed.

        • Thomas Acquinas

          Sure, you want to give him the $100K he’ll spend on Lawyers? A judge I used to know quite well was fond of asking “how much justice can you afford?” So much for the People of New York and California (and all of the other blue states). They keep electing these progressives and are quite content in giving up their inalienable rights. I truly fear for this country.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            What? Do you want him to rot in prison for a few years?

    • RSG

      Unfortunately, not in NY. In fact, the US Constitution has no place and holds no sway in that state. In nearly every state in the country the mag restrictions would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and the search illegal. Had the roles been reversed in a state run by liberals, and the lock box was full of pot, it would’ve been thrown out, after being represented by the ACLU.

      • supergun

        EXACTLY.

      • Mel_Anosis

        Yes the ACLU cherry picks it’s cases and cherry picks the Bill of Rights.
        It is basically a leftist group who use liberty as a tool to achieve their agenda.
        The Second Amendment rarely comes up on their radar.

        • Victor Palatkin

          Who finances ACLU?

          • Mel_Anosis

            Leftists. And probably George Soros but you’d have to research that.

      • supergun

        NYC totally ignores and completely disrespects the Constitution. Only the citizens are to blame for allowing this to happen.

    • valorius

      Hopefully…

    • Ark

      There is no reason to believe SCOTUS would have a problem with state-level magazine capacity laws. They have consistently upheld your right to a gun, not a specific gun with specific features or a specific magazine capacity. There is no serious claim to rights being violated because your gun can only have 10 rounds instead of 15.

      He does, however, have a shot at getting the case thrown out because the police did not obtain a warrant to break into a locked box. But, either way, he is clearly guilty of breaking the law, and breaking the law has consequences whether you like the law or not.

      • albaby2

        So what you are saying is that states can ban all magazines and guns except the ones politicians have decided you may own?

        • Wzrd

          Several states do this already

          • Old goat

            Does NOT make it right! People need to vote with their feet by fleeing these Commie states!

          • Wow!

            Running away like a refugee does nothing. All it does is give up political power to the left wing without a fight. The only way to stop gun control is to not comply with it.

          • supergun

            Maybe we should block the interstates and get ran over. Better yet, march to the state capital fully loaded. Now the would capture the attention of cnn, mfnbc, abc, cbs, nbc, NYC times, huff n puff, vox, and salon.

          • albaby2

            And you feel they are complying with the spirit of the Second Amendment? Which states do that. Bet they’re all blue states, you know, the ones that dictate how big your sodas can be, have sanctuary cites for lawbreakers, high crime rates etc.

          • The Brigadier

            This was due to a ruling in the DC case that gave DC residents the right to conceal carry, but the Court threw the blue states a bone and said they could implement some changes to what they could restrict and regulate. The blue states have gone crazy with this, and it will take a redo of the Second Amendment at the Convention of States to negate that bone.

          • ccpotter

            7 round limitation in the original NY law got thrown out because nearly every non-revolver handgun only uses magazines with capacity greater than 7. So yeah, if a magazine restriction is being used as a back door for banning handguns entirely, the courts will blow the whistle.

      • supergun

        A magazine is considered a part of the gun. Can not separate it. It is covered under the 2nd Amendment. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. There would be no case here, if it was any different.

        • Baggy270

          Sure as heck is in Canada but not sure about the US. In Canada an over allowed capacity mag is a prohibited device in or out of the firearm.

          • supergun

            A magazine is part of the gun. Just like a barrel. Just like the lower. Just like the upper. Just like the trigger. Just like sights. All are covered under the 2nd Amendment. “The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that licensing or registration of any Constitutional Right is itself unconstitutional.”– Follett vs McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944). Any state requiring permits is unconstitutional.

          • Baggy270

            We can have a shotgun up here with a 14 inch barrel and no tax stamp and it’s non restricted. But everyone still has to have a license to have firearms here thanks to the Liberals. I turned in a Sten gun mag that I found with an estate cause just that in your possession even without a gun to fire it in is a criminal offence. Stupid laws and I’m retired LEO RCMP 35 years.

          • supergun

            It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have any registration required of any Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment. Permits are registrations.

          • Baggy270

            Yes I’m in Canada and our government can do whatever they want. We only have a Charter thanks to our Prime Minister’s father with zero mention of firearms.

          • supergun

            A local judge told me that our government can do about anything they want also. Look at all the liberal mess going on now. So you are not the only ones. When the liberals can break the laws that they have, and not be accountable to them, then what is the use of a charter or constitution.

          • The Brigadier

            Baggy you need to find like minded people and begin a legal drive to get them together. If you are not an organizer, find someone in accord with you and get him or her to put the organization together. This will be a sea change in Canada, and it will take a lot of work and a lot of fundraising. You can make it happen if you have the will and the skill to make it so.

          • porkchop6209

            The stronger precedent and authority should be Marbury v. Madison, 1805.

          • supergun

            Thank you for the info. It looks like many of the judges don’t care if the Constitution is respected or not. When that Standard is dishonored, so is the rest.

          • Richard Lutz

            No doubt true, but the NY legislature and many judges do not respect the Constitution thus are traitors.

          • supergun

            Absolutely. When the very Foundation of our Nation is dishonored, all the rest of the Standards and Rules of Law will fall also. When the anti-American judges outnumber the American Judges, then our Nation will be jeopardized.

          • The Brigadier

            It will take a case that the Supreme Court agrees to hear to change this until the Convention of States convenes. Once the 2nd amendment is changed to forbid states from restricting American citizens, the Supreme Court must obey the change. Until that time a case brought before the Supremes with Gorsuch and another strict Constitutionalist judge named to replaced Ginsburg who is leaving in October, New York’s tyrannical gun laws will be changed to be a lot less restrictive. Once the Convention is held, New York and California will have to obey the new amendment just like Texas and Montana already do. The Constitution is back in full force and Obama is no longer around to use it as his personal toilet paper anymore.

          • supergun

            Thank you for the comment. Were you a Brigadier General? You write a good comment. How do you know Ginsburg is leaving in October? That is interesting. Even if the Supreme Court makes such a ruling as you have commented, I believe those states will continue to dishonor the Constitution. The is no honor among thieves. It will take the threat and action of prison to put these thugs in line. And obama; one of the greatest scams against the People in this Nation ever.

          • The Brigadier

            The process to reinstate the law of the land will take a couple of more years. It took eight years to almost destroy it. The left will resist, but if they do after the Supreme Court rules, they can be sued and the Court can put serious sanctions on their governors, AGs etc. Be patient a little longer. Major changes are in the wind and our gun rights will be restored.

          • supergun

            I believe the same as you. I know it will take months to restore what the vermin has squandered.

    • United States v. Ross. Unfortunately, his conviction will likely be upheld. We can only hope for a lenient sentence. NY SAFE Act needs to be trashed, but NYC is too influential in New York State politics.

      • Old goat

        No! Freedom loving people need to flee these places!

        • Wow!

          Running away like a refugee does nothing. All it does is give up political power to the left wing without a fight. The only way to stop gun control is to not comply with it.

      • Don La Rue

        Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)…It was an illegal search incident to the unlawful arrest. First of all he was arrested for DUI and hadn’t been drinking?? A locked box was searched for evidence of drinking and for officer safety….Yeah right, talk about corrupt pigs.

        • Allan

          it was a lawful arrest based on probable cause just because he was found not guilty dose not make the arrest unlawful, however the search was unlawful and the exclusionary rule ‘fruit of the poisonous tree ‘ should render any evidence illegally obtained inadmissible in court.

          • Don La Rue

            If he had NOT been drinking, as in no alcohol in his system…How do you explain being arrested for DUI??…What met the requirement for an arrest under probable cause?

      • TXMarine1

        I couldnt agree with you more. I’m a retired Marine who works security in Nebraska. NY safe act is a joke. It does absolutely nothing to slow crime. If a criminal wants to go on a rampage they can get anything they want. I’m looking to shoot SW M&P45 2.0 very soon to see if I want to buy it. I carry my SW 19-4 a lot right now. Thanks for your insight Aaron. Semper fi.

    • supergun

      Our Constitutional Rights certainly does trump over any laws in the USA.

      • Bill

        Riiight. This is why the NFA and GCA ’68 aren’t enforced with a zeal that would make a dictator proud.

        • Wow!

          NFA and GCA 68 actually aren’t enforced very well federally. The only reason both of those still exist is because people are scared into it. If you spend time in law enforcement you will quickly realize that guns control is usually established as an afterthought.

          Unlike narcotics which affect a persons cognition and often increases their tendency to crime, illegal weapon users are not inherently with a higher tendency to committing other crimes, making it very hard if not impossible to find them until they do commit one.

          This article is an excellent example. They didn’t catch the vet knowing he had high cap mags, but thought he was DUI.

          • Bill

            You are correct. What I should have said is that the penalties are so draconian that people are in fact scared into it. The thing I have a problem with is the selective tolerance involved. You can violate federal law wholesale by declaring pot legal in your state (sorry, folks, but it isn’t anywhere in the 50 and your laws aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on) and Uncle Sugar gives you a wink and a nod. You can swim the Rio Grande, call yourself an immigrant and stay here for decades with nary a problem. But cut 1/16th of an inch off a 16 inch rifle barrel…

        • supergun

          Why do they make it a safe place for someone who breaks the law to be able to come and stay in this Nation, but, chooses to try and put someone in prison for 21 years who has fought for this Country as a veteran for excising his 2nd Amendment Right.

    • supergun

      The NY SAFE ACT is an unconstitutional law put into place at the midnight hour by one of the most liberal gov. in the USA.

  • Andrew

    Any chance that this could lead to a lawsuit that might change the law?

  • Geoff Timm

    But the capacity law is unconstitutional, as it infringes on the right by altering the design of firearms. Now can we sell 1911s to all NY victims? Geoff Who is cynical.

    • valorius

      No court has found these dumb laws to be unconstitutional.

    • Norm Glitz

      The democrats NYC who passed it in the middle of the night with no warning or discussion don’t care.

      I bought several 1911s when I lived in NY state, so yes.

  • QuadGMoto

    But inside his vehicle- in a locked gun box- were three pistol magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds.

    It’s a good thing those murderous magazines were locked in that box, otherwise they might have gone on a rampage; a mass shooting of more than 10 rounds (instead of people) before shooting themselves, all without the benefit of a gun!

    It’s ridiculous that someone could get more prison time for possessing what is essentially a box than for actually killing a human being.

  • Ratcraft

    No problem, tell them you are illegal.

  • Form Factor

    Wait doesnt you get less years even for armed robbery etc..??

    The 2nd Amendment has to apply to the !!ENTIRE US!!

    He even put it in a locked box! How did the police even found it wth?

    • Nandor

      The SAFE Act made the penalty for a hi-cap mag the same as for child molestation. Let that one sink in for a minute.

  • a_b704

    All gun owners should boycott anti-gun states.

    • L Cavendish

      and the guns that are made there?

      • a_b704

        I prefer that companies more their manufacturing to pro-gun states. With importers like Springfield, I don’t guess it matters, since everything is made in Croatia anyway, not in Illinois

  • CapeMorgan

    During the original trial there must have been a ruling by the judge on the admissibility of the magazines. I can’t believe the defense attorney would not have done that. In any event, I am sure that he will file an appeal on the fact that the search of the locked box was illegal.

  • cisco kid

    I think there should have been a provision in the law that stated just mere possession of a banned magazine with no crime being committed such as a robbery or shooting, the penalty should only have been a fine. But the good news is the Judge (if he is intelligent) should put this guy in jail for 21 years because as a drunk he would be off the streets and not causing a horrendous auto accident that sooner or later will kill a lot of innocent people. Lock this Moron up but of course this will never happen as his military service will result in him getting off Scott free and he will then go out and drive drunk once again with disastrous consequences.

    • nonobaddog

      Did you even read the article? It says he was not drinking. It says he was acquitted of the DUI charge. Your rant is pretty stupid.

    • ActionPhysicalMan

      Aren’t you even a little bit embarrassed that you said something so stupid?

    • Robert Szucs

      What the hell you talking about? The gentleman was not drinking!

  • Qoquaq En Transic

    Eff NY state.

    • 22winmag

      There is certainly some “white flight” going on with states like NY.

      • Qoquaq En Transic

        Well, I don’t know anything about NYS (and really don’t want to) but I’d prefer to think of it as freedom-loving people are leaving socialist/communist hell holes like NYS.

        Hopefully in droves.

        • gunsandrockets

          voting with their feet

    • Norm Glitz

      Don’t confuse NY State with NY City.

      • Qoquaq En Transic

        I understand that.

        But the NY “Safe” Act covers the entire state. Personally, I would NEVER live in that horrible state.

  • cisco kid

    California recently passed an anti-gun act that will require all semi-auto rifles to be turned in to be melted down. “California recently ruled that “self-defense” is also not a right as it is reserved only for the people who keep the Court in Power i.e. their henchmen in law enforcement.
    The real facts are the Constitution never has given anyone any rights rather its the Supreme Court that gives you your rights and History has proven they often rule according to public opinion. One of many examples was the incarceration of 100,000 Japanese Americans in U.S. concentration camps in WWII. They lost their homes and their businesses and never got a dime in compensation, all with the blessings of the Supreme Court which ruled with public opinion at the time, not with the Constitution.
    The point I am making is that both the far left and far right on the Court has many times completely trashed the Constitution because people in power want absolute power and the Court knows that their rulings are as absolute as a 3rd World Dictators rulings are. There actually is no difference. So as far as gun rights are concerned the Courts have already and totally and recently ignored the Heller Decision by simply trashing it.

    • datimes

      In 1988 $1.6 billion was paid to 82,000 Japanese internees.

    • gunsandrockets

      “California recently passed an anti-gun act that will require all semi-auto rifles to be turned in to be melted down.”

      As bad as things are in California, and believe me they are really really bad, there is no need to exaggerate. Semi-auto rifles are still legal in Commiefornia.

      All that’s happened recently with rifles, is removal of one specific method that was being used (the infamous bullet button) to exempt rifles from falling under the California definition of so-called “assault weapons”. These bullet button rifles will now have to be registered with the State for continued legal possession, since they now are classified as “assault weapons”.

      On the other hand, Commiefornia did just outlaw possession of magazines with greater than 10 round capacity. Previously Commiefornia had banned sales, transfer and importation of those magazines back in 2000.

      • cisco kid

        Your wrong. Californians have 2 years to turn in their assault rifles. They deliberately did this to try and keep from having riots over this new law. So far the lower courts have not ruled on this but since it is California look for it to be approved with blowing trumpets and glowing News Paper praise.

        • gunsandrockets

          Lighten up Francis.

  • cisco kid

    I forgot to add that Massachusetts recently and without passing any new law simply declared all semi-auto weapons forbidden by simply re-interpreting a decade old anti-gun law that said no such thing.

    • chase

      That was 9 months ago…

      • Norm Glitz

        IOW, recently.

    • Norm Glitz

      That was a single person, the Mass AG. It wasn’t “Massachusetts”. She immediately got called into the governor’s office and hasn’t uttered a peep about it since.

  • Max Müller

    Bring it all the way to the supreme court. That might be a process for a few years, but it’s not like had anything better to do in the next 21 years anyway. The fact that cops are allowed to have such magazines but not he is a clear 14th amendmend violation, and the mag capacity itself is a clear case of “the right of the people was infringed”. We’re back to 5-4 conservative judges so do everybody a favor and give them a reason to end gun control for good.

    • Random Disabled Person

      A bit long reply, and more to masseson this subject…. with all the we’re “going to have control of the supreme court”… We’re going to take our 2A cases to the Supreme Court Of The United States(SCOTUS)……

      The bigger problem with “Take it to the Supreme Court” is that the SCOTUS does not and will not hear every case appealed to them. They pick and choose , sometimes based on merit and more sadly on political influence. SCOTUS has fallen from the high pedestal they once held by turning away cases . Every case allowed can be argued on whether it had merit or not, just like the ones refused. From the bottom to the top the court system isn’t fair. The choosing of their docket is even a a heated subject, to say the least.

      How did we loose our right ti appeal to the SCOTUS?

      Congress’s passed in 1925 the workload-easing “Judges Bill.” During all of those decades since, and still today, it has not been true that anyone had a guaranteed right to have their case decided by the nation’s highest tribunal. And the baffling part for many Americans is that, most of the time, the court simply does not explain why it refuses to hear this case or that. That means our rights were well under attack in 1925. 1925 sounds ancient but is closer to us in 2017 than both the Civil War and Revolutionary War. Which means gun control is a fairly recent problem in our country one that didn’t exist in the first 150+ years. The people who object that that serial numbers would lead to backdoor registration and tracking were sadly proven non-“”paranoid””.

      Given there is limited amount of time in the year, even if the judges pulled continuous 16 hr work day which they don’t, they would not be able to here ever case appealed to them. Their website says there are around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term. The Court grants and hears oral argument in only about 80 cases. Not great odds there for us, even if we can spend everything and get to that point. 1 % to maybe 1.14285% if the presented petitions is closer to the 7000 number . Better odds than the lottery at least…. I guess that makes us the 1%’ers which if you exercise your right with disregard to unconstitutional state law you are a 1%’er. So go buy a Harley and have a free .40 cal thrown in with the purchase 😉 .

      The part that sucks here , is they don’t even have to state why the SCOTUS has chosen not to hear case. There have been recent ones that an official decision would have stopped some of the recent stupidity system resource drain like on transgender and immigration cases/issues.

      How many times have they refused a case to avoid opening a possible overturn of a previous ruling? With some judges sitting on the court for their long life(longevity is advancing greatly , since the founding fathers probably envisioned lifetime judges only severing for shorter periods due to life expectancy rates. The Justices may rehear cases/subjects which they have a predisposed bias to not contradicted themselves and/or change their already informed opinion and./or ruling. All humans are guilty of this, those who think they are above it are more likely to fall into the behavior trap than those that constantly check themselves to make sure they don’t repeat the same mistake.

      The protection our forefathers built in the founding of the nation to protect the judicial branch from political opinion, legal gerrymandering and/or party in majority/favor game playing has lead to issues where the SCOTUS fails the ideals upon which it is founded. The appointed for life was to make sure they ruled without fear of reelection influences. For more than 90 years, the Supreme Court has had very wide discretion to control its own workload, allowing it to shape the development of the Constitution and American law at its own pace and opinions.

      Sadly the SCOTUS has become very political, look at the fight over who would choose to fill the open seat. How each part wants a justice that leans more to their side nominated and appointed. Firearms and not politics, so as much as we want a ruling to tell these states violating rights to stop the crap, we may not even be allowed to present arguments.

      How our journey will be, if lucky enough to even be heard.

      Typically, all nine of the justices will hear each case. Sometimes less than the full nine justices may hear a case due to illness, a vacant position, or if one justice recuses him/herself (chooses not to participate in a case) due to conflict of interest. A minimum of six judges must be present to make a decision on a case.

      Each case is decided by majority vote. In case of a tie, the decision of the lower court is upheld.

      Since the court only reviews cases which are appealed from a lower court, there is no evidence presented, and no witnesses are heard. There are simply briefs (written arguments) and oral argument by the parties. Each side has 30 minutes to present oral arguments, and the justices interrupt with questions while they are speaking.

      After the attorneys are finished speaking, the justices meet in secret to discuss the case and come to a decision. No official record is kept of this discussion.

      When the Supreme Court announces what they have decided in a case, they issue a formal document called a decision, and sometimes more than one.

      The conclusion of the court is a majority opinion.

      The justices that disagreed with the majority vote may issue one or more dissenting opinions, explaining their reasons for disagreeing.

      Sometimes, one or more justices may be on the majority side but disagree with the reasoning behind the decision, and issue a concurring opinion.

      And we hope they decide in our favor, they haven’t in the past.

  • 22winmag

    Cops and DA were “just following orders” as usual.

    Where have I heard that before?

    • ActionPhysicalMan

      It’s ironic that that defense is named after some of the few trials where it didn’t work.

  • valorius

    Move to America, you won’t have these problems.

  • Audie Bakerson

    Seems like a perfect case to use for taking the SAFE act to the Supreme Court.

  • Bierstadt54

    Awful situation, awful law. Unfortunately, these things can happen when you don’t live in a free state.

  • glenn chin

    I know someone who got 5 years for one glock 19 magazine. He started his sentence about a year ago.

    • L Cavendish

      how did they even find that one magazine?

  • Lou

    ” No longer will the government be trying to undermine your rights…” President Donald Trump at NRA 2017

    So President Trump, what about this poor veteran from your home state???

  • Cosmoline ‘n’ Coke

    To further complicate this guy’s situation: veterans are held to the UCMJ even after honorable (or otherwise) discharge. So if it turns out he’s committed a felony, he could go to Leavenworth and do hard labor alongside Bradley Chelsea Manning.

    Note to self: do not retire to NY. Or MD. Or MA, CA, CT, NJ…

    • Brad

      That’s the whopper of the day. He served 9 years so his commitment is more than likely over. Had he not fulfilled his commitment (6 years or 8 years depending on when he came in or any advanced schooling ADSO) sure, he MIGHT have been recalled and tried under UCMJ IF the crime occurred while on duty.
      Retirees are different and, yes, ARE subject to recall but it has rarely happened unless the crime occurred while on duty.

    • Random Disabled Person

      Translated note to self, “Do not retire to 10% of our great nation”. Doesn’t that scare you, that precedence is being set and legally upheld in a tenth of of our country. That just sank in for bad it really is and not just a few states but a bigger problem than we admit.

    • robocop33

      BS! The military CANNOT charge me under the UCMJ after I completed my obligated service time which was 6 years, 4 active and 2 non-active reserve. I served 7 active so when I was discharged, that was it. This guy served more than 6 years so he is OUT and not subjected to the UCMJ. Who the hell told you that?

      • Cosmoline ‘n’ Coke

        I’m in the service at 14 years right now. Just had the usual training session that centered on drug use and the corresponding consequences under the UCMJ. This session went on to discuss current states that allow drug use recreationally and the potential problems that are encountered by Soldiers and veterans. It turns out that even veterans are prohibited from recreational drug use after retirement or discharge and can be charged under UCMJ for use. Veterans are equally held to UCMJ standards as their active duty counterparts, especially when offenses committed constitute felonies. Many times the govt won’t prosecute, but it is not unheard of. If you’re concerned/worried, I’d suggest you consult with a JAG representative.

  • Chuck Robey

    Being a NY Armed Guard does not make a Police Officer therefore he is not exempt from the law..

    • KUETSA

      The NY SAFE Act has a 4% compliance rate.
      The President has authority to limit immigration, but a district court judge slaps an injunction on the law until it is declared constitutional, because it may inconvenience some travelers.

      A state governor effectively repeals the Second Amendment banning semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines and a district court does NOT slap an injunction so that EVERYONE must DISPOSE OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF POSSESSIONS while they decide IF the law is constitutional! No inconvenience there!

    • robocop33

      While that is true, he isn’t a gang-banger either! The law is stupid, period.

  • John

    See, here’s the thing. California has long enforced its 10-round capacity laws, and done it so effectively that the gun industry now makes “California-compliant” magazines and pistols.

    A New York jury is going to look at this and say “why didn’t this guy just buy some 10-round magazines?”

    • KUETSA

      For the same reason that police REFUSE to comply with 10 round magazines!

    • gunsandrockets

      Actually New York banned possession of magazines before Commiefornia.

      The Commiefornia ban kicks in July 1st, 2017.

  • Bill

    This guy isn’t doing 21 years. theoretically he could, but unless he takes a dump on the fudge’s bench sentencing will be concurrent, not consecutive. That’s what happens in th vast majority of multi-count cases.

    • KUETSA

      ANY jail time for possessing magazines is UNACCEPTABLE.

      • Bill

        Then work to change the law. If it works for marijuana, it’d work for pistol magazines. Barking that something is UNACCEPTABLE is pointless and futile, but a lot easier than working the telephones, writing letters and canvassing the public.

        • KUETSA

          Everybody’s working to change the law, but if a political party decides that the constitution and bill of rights are no longer the law of the land, and have like minded judges in place to uphold their unconstitutional laws, every American citizen has a HUGE decision to make. A political party has effectively repealed the second amendment – that same political party refuses to adhere to federal law – all to push their agenda of “change” from a free constitutional republic to a “progressive” global socialist state. The second amendment is in place to ENABLE THE CAPABILITY of INSISTING on keeping our freedoms – there is NO place for surrendering our rifles SO THAT WE WILL BE DEFENSELESS WITNESSES TO THE TAKING OF THE REST OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

  • BillyOblivion

    Hopefully he can get the evidence suppressed do to a questionable search then GTFO of Mordor North.

  • Gun Fu Guru

    If what this article says it true, he has a good case for suppressing the evidence.

  • RICH

    Total BS thanks to the ridiculous liberal big city government ! ! !
    It was a bad search. He should beat the magazine possession, if his attorney is any good, due to a 4th Amendment violation Bad thing is that he might have to appeal it a couple of times if he’s convicted.
    They might soon start arresting citizens in New York for possessing illegal 32oz. soft drinks.

  • bd1143bc✓ᴷᵃᶠᶠᶦʳ

    Leftist police state aka New York.

    • Norm Glitz

      Don’t confuse NY state with NY city.

  • KUETSA

    The political party who’s ideology is flooding the EuroSocialist Union with mobs of violent immigrants, and was attempting to do the same to us, is outlawing the rifles and magazines that would enable American citizens the CAPABILITY to SURVIVE mob violence.

    The political party that is funding and encouraging GENOCIDAL RIOTS, is OUTLAWING THE RIFLES AND MAGAZINES that would “ENABLE THE CAPABILITY” (as IS the intent of the Second Amendment) of American citizens to SURVIVE genocidal riots – you know – the riots that THE COPS ARE ALWAYS ORDERED TO “STAND DOWN” IN!

  • KUETSA

    So, at this point in time, American citizens are to believe:

    A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Actually means:

    GOVERNMENT REGULATION, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE STATE, THE PEOPLE SHALL HAVE (UNTIL NOTICE OF FURTHER INFRINGEMENT) A LIMITED ALLOWANCE OF LOW CAPACITY SPORTING ARMS, THE RIGHT OF ACTIVE AND RETIRED GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Believe it or not – it’s where we are at.

  • Django

    The 2nd amendment is being trampled! Are the other Bill Of Rights torn apart this way? For example, can I be a Christian in N.D,. but not in lets say, N.J.?
    This is stupid, only in N.Y.!

    • Norm Glitz

      Don’t confuse NY State with NYC.

  • Calavera

    “Having lived in NY, it was stupid of him to have these magazines.”
    ===============================================
    There are at present several hundred thousand more just like him, who have refused to comply with the Safe Act. “Stupid” is enforcing laws that have been proven to have no effect on crime, and are intended solely to erode the rights of the citizenry,

  • Syed Ali

    Glock makes 18 round 9mm mags?

  • valorius

    Korea was a war of aggression by North Korea. Afghanistan was a direct response to a massive terror attack in the US.

    Vietnam was a fiasco i wont ever defend any aspect of that war.

    BTW, thanks for letting us know right up front in your title that you are an enemy of free men everywhere.

  • Phil Grassroots Green

    This is a horribly written article.

  • Old Gringo

    Couple of comments. First to those who say the search was illegal and should have been “squashed”. The legal term is “quash”. Squash is a vegetable best eaten when fried. To those who bad mouth the fact that he was a 9 year Army Veteran. To me, that just says he was not new to guns, and not likely a threat. As an attorney, I will tell you that it should matter to the judge. The reason is, prior acts always matter at sentencing. If he were a gang member or had prior convictions, or even neck tattoos (yes they mean something to judges–a large percentage of people with neck and face tattoos are violent, duh?) then he would likely get a long jail term, because this illegal act is part of a pattern. If this is his first offense ever, then hopefully he will get it reduced to a misdemeanor and probation. If he gets convicted of a felony, he can never own a gun again. Now, NY has a 10 round limit and Colorado as a 20 round limit, and so on. I no longer vacation or hunt in Colorado just for that reason. I usually carry and AR 15 when I camp in the rockies, just too risky that one of 30 round mags might be left in the truck. SO what we should all do is write letters to every elected officials we can find in NY, explaining their wacko gun laws is why we don’t visit there and demand this case be dismissed. Especially the governor of New York, we should flood his office with Emails. I no longer travel to NY just for that reason. Anyway, we also need to write our own federal Senators and demand a national carry law, so this will not happen to us if we venture there.. just my 2 cents. Oh yea, it may or may not be an illegal search. There was no reason for them to open a locked box when doing their inventory search, so if he did not give them permission, hopefully it will be thrown out as exceeding the scope of the search….

  • robocop33

    Stupid law. So you can only have a ten round magazine and if you Here is the kicker though. If you have ONE 12 round magazine you are illegal but if you have ten 10 round magazines you are legal. Someone see a problem with that? Change the law and turn this guy loss. He served his nation honorably many times and is still serving his community as a private guard.

  • Lammo

    “Police can search a vehicle incident to arrest according to long standing Supreme Court rulings.” That was true until Arizona v. Gant, decided in 2009. Quick and dirty, they can only search a vehicle incident to arrest for evidence of the crime of arrest. There couldn’t possibly be evidence of a DUI in a locked box inside a vehicle. This search should clearly be ruled unlawful and the evidence suppressed as seized in violation of the 4th Amendment (no need to even look at the unconstitutionality of New York’s magazine restrictions).

  • Silence Dogood

    I absolutely hate gun control, but I also support State’s rights. It’s going to be up to the people of NY if they want to decide to put up with their insane, draconian gun laws or not.

    Regarding this guy, he knew what the law was when he did it. Still, hopefully he’ll get jury nullification. 21 years is outrageous.

    Maybe his case will highlight to NY voters just how ridiculous their laws are.

    • Norm Glitz

      Unfortunately, the NY legislature in Albany (way upstate) is dominated by liberal democrats from NY city who don’t care about the Constitution and won’t listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

  • SteveK

    Shows the ridiculocity (my word) of the 10 round law! It’s just a chip, chip, chip away at the 2A law.

  • Warren Ellis

    Why would you get 21 years for holding three greater than-10 round magazines? He didn’t murder anyone or commit any previous crimes so why such a high amount of years for holding more than 30 rounds of handgun ammo in 3 magazines?

    I mean, isn’ double digit prison sentences normally for murder or rape?

  • L Cavendish

    so one box of 22LR? LMFAO

  • supergun

    Very wrong that an American Citizen can go to jail for 21 years, when the 2nd Amendment overrides any law in America. Very wrong indeed, when an American can go to jail for 21 years while we have the biggest dope dealers working right under our eyes, killing people with their dope. Very wrong when we have rapists who come to this country again and again only to be set free. Very wrong that a politician can do this to this great Nation.

  • BigC

    This INSANITY has to stop NOW!!!

  • BigC

    Yet they allow thousands and thousands of illegals to flaunt our laws, run unfettered and drain our resources and tax coffers……that’s OK right?? What a bunch of F’n MORONS!! If they want to do anything restrictive on magazine capacity, pass a law that provides a harsh penalty for using a firearm equipped with one in the commission of a crime, like the firearm stipulation!!

  • misterrabbit

    These same Marxist animals pulled this shjt in the 1920s and 1930s. I believe there are now museums commemorating the outcome.

  • Stephen Douglas

    If ever there was a law to be contested, the Mag limit is one. Especially in ones home. I can picture myself cold and dead because I had to reload while the home invading criminals pump them into me, with no regard for weapons or magazine bans! Massachusetts has the 10 round limit except on pre-ban magazines. Few cops know the difference, at least not the ones I’ve asked.

  • John Wisch

    The LIBERALS have it all wrong. THIS IS FASCISM in it’s literal meaning. And they support it. They should be fighting it tooth and nail !!! I pray that this guy gets off on 4th amendment grounds.

  • Daniel W

    ALL EVIDENCE RECOVERED FROM THE TRAFFIC STOP ARE FRUITS OF THE MFORBIDDEN TREE.YOU CANNOT USE THEM???

  • G.N.M.

    Police have a right to do a search incident to a lawful arrest but they should have obtained a warrant to open the locked box. In many states, the evidence regarding the magazines woould be suppressed. We are talking about New York, however, where the Second Amendment does not apply so he doesn’t have a chance.

  • Old goat

    This is a travesty but why do these people live in New York, Commiefornia et al thee unGodly places?

  • Core

    Disbar and Remove NY tyrants from office for violating the Article of the Fourth; Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution! Take out the trash!

  • Reuven Mizraha

    There are at 11 states of the Union that no self respecting gun owner should live in. Just don’t live there.

  • Frank

    This is what Senator Cruz meant when he mentioned New Yorker’s have a liberal mind set aye?

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    It’s crazy that Simeon Mokhiber is facing 21 years in prison for something that is not only 100% legal but extremely commonplace here in Kentucky, and in most of the United States. By just a quick estimate, there are enough magazines here in my home office, mostly within easy reach, to send me to a New York prison for about 420 years.

  • RPK

    What a crock! He made a mistake. He is not a Taliban or ISIS member…WTF? His honorable military service should count for something toward his redemption in the eyes of the Court. LET OUR BROTHER GO! LET OUR BROTHER GO! LET OUR BROTHER GO!

  • Don La Rue

    United States v Ross doesn’t rule here, it’s Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)….Opening a locked box to secure an unknown object for law abusement officer safety is a no-no. Arrested for DUI and he hadn’t even been drinking, would be an unlawful arrest also…His lawyer sucks ass.

  • bobk90

    New Yorkers should have been FIGHTING the 2nd Revolution after the “Safe Act” was ILLEGALLY signed into Law.
    When TYRANNY becomes Law then it is our DUTY to FIGHT it by all means!

  • RetiredSOFguy

    At least cops get to be more equal than citizens in NY…of course, that’s already the case in many locales.

  • Liberals_are_commie_crybabies

    INTENTIONALLY living in New York City is stupid to begin with as is driving drunk.

  • Paul Labrador

    Just another reason why I’ll never live in that state…..

  • Joe Ragman

    Just one more reason I don’t live in the hell hole known as New York. Liberals are enemies of the state.

  • Jim

    The upcoming SCOTUS case of Peruta vs. California, if found in favor of Peruta, hopefully will set a prescedent where ALL Second Amendment issues are decided on a national level instead of letting individual states or cities make their own, more restrictive laws.

  • BlackLion

    An inventory search is the routine inventory of an impounded vehicle. The Supreme Court has ruled that evidence of a crime uncovered during such a search can be used for prosecution. A warrant is not required because the state, in legally impounding the vehicle, bears legal liability for the contents of the vehicle. To protect itself against law suits, the state must have a written list of these contents. Under the plain view doctrine, because police conducting the inventory have a legitimate reason to look inside the car, it is not reasonable for them to close their eyes to evidence of crime.

  • Mike Crews

    Clear illegal search and seizure making up charges to break the law. but hey they pick and choose what to follow there. and federal law and the constitution means nothing to them.

  • Richard Lutz

    The NY SAFE Act violates 2A as high capacity magazines like this are commonly used by the US military so can be used by the unorganized militia.

  • Twomill

    Any and everyone involved in prosecuting or charging this man is not worth the oxygen they breath.

  • Mr. Manfredgensenden

    If I was Trump, I would pardon him just to piss off Cuomo and de Blasio. THEN tell Gorsuch to look into the Constitutionality of the Fascist ‘Safe Act’.

  • Victor Palatkin

    NY, LA are liberal cities. Gun industry didn’t gave donations to their politicians, so they are attacking your gun rights.

  • The Brigadier

    The Convention of States just got its twelfth state to sign to hold the convention. Texas approved it as the 11th state, and today Missouri signed to hold it. We are now 1/3 of the way there. There will be a new amendments that clarifies the intent of the 2nd amendment, and this should negate the Supreme Court opinion that states can put some restrictions on some common guns. Until that happens, if people want to leave New York because of their highly restrictive gun laws then they can go elsewhere. New York has never trusted their residents and I guess their politicians know their people better then the rest of us.