Army veteran avoids prison but still vows appeal of SAFE Act convictions

[Madmallard]

An Iraq War combat veteran who served seven years in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division avoided prison time and received a conditional discharge Wednesday for his three felony violations of New York State's gun control law.

Simeon D. Mokhiber, 42, still plans to appeal his conviction.

A Niagara County jury convicted the Niagara Falls resident of possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines, which are illegal under the state's Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013, commonly known as the SAFE Act. Police found the items in his car during a traffic stop in April 2016 in North Tonawanda.

"I think that the SAFE Act is clearly unconstitutional," Mokhiber said after his court hearing. "The Second Amendment is only one sentence long. It's written in plain English, that one sentence, and the SAFE Act clearly violates it. It's not a complicated matter."

Mokhiber testified in his own defense at the trial. He said he hoped the jury would ignore the SAFE Act, even though the judge in the case instructed jurors to follow the law whether they agreed with it or not.

"The facts that I tried to get across to the jury are that our rights that are enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not for New York State or Gov. (Andrew M.) Cuomo to infringe upon," Mokhiber said. "We have rights that are supposed to be protected. I think it's important that a jury judge the law and the facts."

Army veteran avoids prison but still vows appeal of SAFE Act convictions

 

[Grimscale]

judge in the case instructed jurors to follow the law whether they agreed with it or not.

Sounds like judicial misconduct and jury tampering to me.

 

[Jezman]

That's how you fight a fire, with water not fire! Good for him a man who is a true fighter.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Might be the case?

 

[Phazer]

The magazines - three 17-round Glock models, loaded with bullets - were in a container that police opened. There was no gun in the vehicle.​

Huh? Carrying loaded magazines but no firearm? What am I missing here?

 

[Darth]

The magazines - three 17-round Glock models, loaded with bullets - were in a container that police opened. There was no gun in the vehicle.​

Huh? Carrying loaded magazines but no firearm? What am I missing here?

?

They aren't permanently connected you know. They do come apart from one another.

 

[@thewheels]

That's ballsy to represent yourself in something of this magnitude.

It looks like he had a lawyer? James Ostrowski?

 

[camper4lyfe]

It looks like he had a lawyer? James Ostrowski?

My bad. I read that wrong. He testified himself, not represented himself.

 

[Mosinitis]

There are two systems of justice in this country. One for the elites and one for the average schmo. One can literally get away with murder, the other can't even get Constitutional protection in a victim-less case.
Next time someone lectures you that we are a nation of laws, tell him to go fuck himself.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Come on supreme court...

 

[Phazer]

?

They aren't permanently connected you know. They do come apart from one another.

Really? I thought magazines were disposed of when empty.

 

[Darth]

Really? I thought magazines were disposed of when empty.

Oh yeah, forgot about that.

 

[togmaster]

Sounds like judicial misconduct and jury tampering to me.

No it actually sounded like the judge was only doing his job.

"As a trial judge, it's my sworn duty to follow the laws as written," Murphy said.

He said he "may have personal views" on the SAFE Act, but he did not say what those are.

 

[spat]

No it actually sounded like the judge was only doing his job.

"As a trial judge, it's my sworn duty to follow the laws as written," Murphy said.

He said he "may have personal views" on the SAFE Act, but he did not say what those are.

He just needs to uphold the 2A as written and we're good.

 

[SomeSoldier]

No it actually sounded like the judge was only doing his job.

"As a trial judge, it's my sworn duty to follow the laws as written," Murphy said.

He said he "may have personal views" on the SAFE Act, but he did not say what those are.

What about the laws pertaining to jury nullification?? He didn't mention or instruct on those. Matter of fact he did the exact opposite, saying to go by the written law as is.

 

[C3D]

Now if RBG keels over dead before this gets to SCOTUS, we have a chance.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Now if RBG keels over dead before this gets to SCOTUS, we have a chance.

The trip to SCOTUS through Rochester, and then the 2nd Circuit will likely only take about 5 years. Of course, NY may just reverse his conviction at some point before then, just to keep NYSAFE from being heard at SCOTUS.

Please wake me when it gets there.

 

[C3D]

The trip to SCOTUS through Rochester, and then the 2nd Circuit will likely only take about 5 years. Of course, NY may just reverse his conviction at some point before then, just to keep NYSAFE from being heard at SCOTUS.

Please wake me when it gets there.

No not quite that bid; about 24 months. That's good time. Although in this case it will be going to SCOTUS via the NYS 4th Department appellate division and then the NYS Court of Appeals as it's a state case.

 

[Saltwater60]

Maybe Ginsberg will be gone by then. Glad he avoided jail time and I'd love to see him press this.

 

[Defilade]

I'm sure the NRA will step up.

 

[Acer-m14]

Vet should have read the definition of Jury Nullification right then and there .. FUAC ..

 

[libertysnake]

I'm sure the NRA will step up.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Where is the NRA screaming about how unconstitutional the unSAFE act is? They've been sitting with their thumbs up their asses when it comes to our constitutional rights being stripped from us in this state. So much for the union I guess.

 

[Acer-m14]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Where is the NRA screaming about how unconstitutional the unSAFE act is? They've been sitting with their thumbs up their asses when it comes to our constitutional rights being stripped from us in this state. So much for the union I guess.

NRA busy making Lemon commercials .. it was sarcastic .. lol

 

[GOPerfect]

That's ballsy to represent yourself in something of this magnitude.

He did NOT represent himself.. He had an attorney, James M. Ostrowski.

His lawyer gave him very good advice throughout the trial. He serves no time at all. Should have never been charged, but was looking at a lot of time. The Judge was very fair throughout the trial as well. There was no misconduct.

He will be fighting this as far as possible. He has a good case to chase the SAFE Act with.

 

[libertysnake]

He did NOT represent himself.. He had an attorney, James M. Ostrowski.

His lawyer gave him very good advice throughout the trial. He serves no time at all. Should have never been charged, but was looking at a lot of time. The Judge was very fair throughout the trial as well. There was no misconduct.

He will be fighting this as far as possible. He has a good case to chase the SAFE Act with.

What's the stance of most LEO regarding the SAFE act, or gun control, in general? Do they care about / actively try to enforce it? Or do they not see it as a high priority / something they can't use discretion on?

I'd imagine it's not the law abiding owners you guys are concerned with bothering so much.

 

[GOPerfect]

What's the stance of most LEO regarding the SAFE act, or gun control, in general? Do they care about / actively try to enforce it? Or do they not see it as a high priority / something they can't use discretion on?

I'd imagine it's not the law abiding owners you guys are concerned with bothering so much.

I speak only for myself, I took an Oath many years ago when I first enlisted in the Army, I took a very similar Oath when I got hired at my current job.

Both of those Oaths were in regards to my supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, not to some anti-Constitutional laws passed by a bunch of cowards in the State capitols. All of my friends that I work with agree. If they do not agree with protecting the Constitution, they are not my friends.

As for a priority, anything that has to do with the Bill of Rights is my priority.

 

[libertysnake]

I speak only for myself, I took an Oath many years ago when I first enlisted in the Army, I took a very similar Oath when I got hired at my current job.

Both of those Oaths were in regards to my supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, not to some anti-Constitutional laws passed by a bunch of cowards in the State capitols. All of my friends that I work with agree. If they do not agree with protecting the Constitution, they are not my friends.

As for a priority, anything that has to do with the Bill of Rights is my priority.

Is there a reason why LEO doesn't speak up about this more? I'd assume it's a professionalism thing -- you don't want to be criticizing the management as much? Or maybe it's just not publicized as much, which is totally possible and honestly likely given the MSM.

Additionally, as LEO, have you ever came across someone who was non-compliant and used your discretion to give them a warning rather than bring them in? I'm curious as to what discretion LEO gets to exercise on this topic.

 

[camper4lyfe]

He did NOT represent himself.. He had an attorney, James M. Ostrowski.

His lawyer gave him very good advice throughout the trial. He serves no time at all. Should have never been charged, but was looking at a lot of time. The Judge was very fair throughout the trial as well. There was no misconduct.

He will be fighting this as far as possible. He has a good case to chase the SAFE Act with.

Right. I was corrected farther up. I read it wrong.

 

[Robin]

"Where is the NRA?"!!!! is the hue and cry, where the hell is SCOPE, where's NYSPRA, where's GOA, where's SAF, where's Any of these pro gun organizations, where the fuck are you.
Robin

 

[GOPerfect]

Right. I was corrected farther up. I read it wrong.

\

Sorry, saw that after the fact.