Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    NY Prosecutors to press case against retired special forces soldier in high capacity magazine case

    NY Prosecutors to press case against retired special forces soldier in high capacity magazine case

    I previously reported on the case brought against retired and injured special forces soldier, Nathan Haddad, Injured special forces soldier arrested in upstate NY for possession of high capacity ammunition magazines

    Nathan is a decorated soldier who has been recognized for his community service in helping other veterans.  (More on Haddad here.)

    Nathan Haddad

    Nathan was charged with 5 felony counts for possession of empty 30-bullet magazines.

    Nathan had a court appearance today.  I have confirmed that prosecutors insist on pursuing criminal charges, offering Nathan the opportunity to plead guilty to 5 Class A Misdemeanors.  The plea would not result in jail time, but would result in Nathan having a criminal record which would cause him to lose his civilian job with the Department of Defense.

    Nathan’s attorney, Seth Buchman, told me that Nathan is not willing to take the plea because of the criminal record, and that their position is that the charges never should have been brought.

    The case is being prosecuted under the old NY gun law, not the new law recently passed, as the arrest took place prior to enactment of the new law.

    Nathan’s brother Michael has started a legal defense fund.

    In related news, the Office of Attorney General in the District of Columbia responded to a FOIA request I served for records regarding the decision not to prosecute David Gregory.

    The OAG is refusing to release the letter sent by Gregory’s counsel which was referenced in the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute.  That letter apparently set forth the facts showing how Gregory came into possession of a high capacity magazine, as well as the grounds upon which Gregory argued that he received confusing advice from the D.C. Police.  We will be pursuing an administrative appeal and will litigate the issue if need be.

    Updates 2-21-2013:

    Patrick Howley at The Daily Caller, Prosecutors to pursue felony charges against ex-soldier for possessing  high-capacity magazine

    Emily Miller at The Washington Times, A gun tale of two cities


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    My error, I misread the former post.

    BannedbytheGuardian | February 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    So in effect , the case is going to court with the previous touted 10 year prison term off the table.

    The prosecution gets to present their case.

    He gets to explain his actions .

    Seems to be within western models of justice.

    Are you guys trying to bully the court?

      Sanddog in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | February 20, 2013 at 5:52 pm

      Being arrested for possession of a legal item… legal under NY law…. and then being threatened with prison and being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to prove no law was violated seems just a tad extreme to me.

      Ragspierre in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | February 20, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      “…the case is going to court with the previous touted 10 year prison term off the table.”

      Where did you get that?

      “He gets to explain his actions.”

      Perhaps. It depends on how the judge rules on defense theories.

      “Are you guys trying to bully the court?”

      You really have no earthly idea about that which you post…do ya?

        No he does not.

        An annoying a-hole, isn’t he? Probably the only way he can get attention.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Ragspierre. | February 20, 2013 at 11:21 pm

        The 10 years was canvassed on the original LI thread & his brothers follow thru.

        I would hope a man gets to explain why he had these in his possession to the court . Why else have a court case? I have sat thru many Petty Sessions & everyone gets to bleat their excuses.

        Rags – remember The Alamo.

          Ragspierre in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | February 21, 2013 at 7:50 am

          As in any negotiation, when you refuse an offer, it goes away unless it is expressly stated otherwise.

          This is what makes a plea-bargain offer such a powerful lever.

          You take the offer, or it is the full enchilada (at the discretion of the prosecutor).

          In a strict liability case, a judge could easily rule that WHY he had the mags is not relevant. It is neither a burden of the state, or a defense. That is the kind of law we are dealing with here, unless I’m badly mistaken, and one of the reasons I deplore strict liability generally.

    The police officer that decided to arrest Nathan on these charges must be vying for a position on the fuhrer’s private security detail. Despicable.

    malclave | February 20, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    Seems like a great opportunity to educate potential jurors on “jury nullification”.

    BannedbytheGuardian | February 20, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Why cannot you let the case proceed & await the outcome ?

    It might answer some questions here including then Samddog’s intriguing idea that the article was legal. (Previously it was agreed. Here it was petty but definitely contraband ).

    You guys really need to hang on to your hats when Chris Kyle’s much be -medalled Marine hero killer gets paraded out.

    Don’t throw them hats up yet.

    The other side know they got you with that one. Kid you can’t successfully argue me out then you are going to get crushed. I know they are going to hit it big.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend