Court decision good news

There is good new for gun rights advocates today. The U.S. Supreme Court is keeping on its docket a case challenging a New York City gun control regulation – even though the city, apparently seeing the handwriting on the wall, erased the regulation from its books.

The court, since deciding in 2010’s McDonald decision that the Second Amendment apples to the states, has steered clear of the gun debate and still could decide to declare the case moot after hearing arguments in December.

New York City had banned transporting legally owned guns outside city limits, even unloaded and locked in a container. A district court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the regulation. The Supreme Court in January agreed to hear a challenge mounted by gun rights groups. Groups backing gun control worked with the city and state to rescind the ban rather than risk a loss in court.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, already has set off a partisan debate with five Senate Democrats urging the court to dismiss the case or face being “restructured.” All 53 Senate Republicans fired off a letter to the court complaining Democrats “openly threatened this court with political retribution.”

The court to its credit was not intimidated by the threat and chose to hear the case no matter New York City’s rescission of the reg.

As our friends on the Left tirelessly work to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, to deprive them of a means of self-protection and recreation, we can only wonder at their final goal. Some of what they do is baffling and seemingly has no relation to their stated aim of making us all “safer.” What, then, do they really want?

We are left to remember the late Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese’s sage observation:

“A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia.”

Indeed.

One Response to Court decision good news

  1. Marlin Savage October 7, 2019 at 1:16 pm

    NY Army Veteran Charged with Possessing Pistol Magazines Faces 21 Years in Prison

    By Faye Higbee

    Posted April 29, 2017 In 2nd Amendment, opinion

    Niagra County – A NY Army Veteran charged with violation of New York’s SAFE act faces 21 years in prison after his conviction on Friday, April 21. But is isn’t the weapon itself that caused his plight, it was the three pistol magazines he had in a locked box in his car when stopped by police in April of 2016. No weapon was found, but each magazine is punishable by 7 years in prison.

    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.

    Background

    Mohkiber was a Staff Sergeant who served 9 years in the US Army. He was involved in Iraq in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. After his service, he became a US contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was licensed as an armed New York Security Guard. He was also an EMT-B. He has no prior criminal record.

    He was currently employed by G4S Security Services.

    But he is now a convicted felon.

    The incident allegedly went south as soon as Mokhiber asked the officers to turn on their body cameras. He is reportedly a licensed owner of a registered handgun. But no weapon was found in the vehicle, only three Glock 17-round magazines.

    New York Law prohibits possession of magazines that carry “over 7 rounds,” but grandfathered in magazines for 10 rounds purchased previously as long as only 7 rounds were loaded into them.

    Did Mokhiber screw up? Yes, according to New York laws. Did the police do the right thing? Not necessarily. Whether or not they acted out of spite because of Mokhiber’s attitude is anyone’s guess.

    Mokhiber will appear before sentencing Judge Matthew J. Murphy III in two months. It’s another US veteran with no criminal record going to prison at at time when New York is actively helping criminals and illegal immigrants. It seems backwards.

    Update note: we were contacted by a retired Maryland state trooper who gave us two court cases in which may have affected this situation: “SIA was turned on its head when the decision on Arizona v. Gant came about. The original scope of the SIA was that you were searching for “fruits of the crime” or further evidence of the crime the person was being arrested for. If you found additional illegal items, then it was a bonus.” (SIA= Search Incident to Arrest.) The original case from the Supreme court was New York v. Belton.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For information, sizing, and rates of banner advertising space we have available, please e-mail Mark Hopkin at markh@porcaro.me, or call him at (907) 276-4262.