Dismissal sought in Max Misch firearms case

This article by Christie Wisniewski originally appeared March 18 in the Bennington Banner.

BENNINGTON — The first person charged under Vermont’s new law banning high-capacity magazines has asked the state to dismiss the charges under the claim that the ban is unconstitutional.

In a 27-page motion to dismiss, attorney Frederick Bragdon argues that the charges against his client, Max Misch, 36, of Bennington, may have been brought about because the state was “unwilling or unable” to charge Misch with a crime based upon his interactions with former state Rep. Kiah Morris, who resigned in fall 2018 citing racial harassment.

Misch appeared at the criminal division of the Bennington Superior Court Monday afternoon, represented by public defender Bragdon, who recently put forth the motion to dismiss two charges against Misch for unlawfully possessing two 30-round magazines.

On Feb. 7, Misch pleaded not guilty to the charges alleging he purchased those magazines in New Hampshire in December 2018 — after the ban took effect.

Read full story at the Bennington Banner.

(Fair use with written permission from the New England Newspapers Inc.)

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Steve Rainwater

4 thoughts on “Dismissal sought in Max Misch firearms case

  1. The Magazine ban is unconstitutional and is nothing more than a feel-good policy presented
    by Progressive Democrats who are puppets of Bloomberg’s Money …… trolls !!

    When will this state wake up, Liberals are trying to ruin our state. If I wanted NY or CA laws
    that’s where I’d be living………………. Take Back VT.

  2. Funny how they were able to get all sorts of information on this case so quickly. Still waiting to get public documents on eb5….doth vt have two justice systems?

  3. The law Act 94,is UnConstitutional and will be over turned,if the state decides to prosecute,a conviction if they can get one,will be overturned also by default.

    I know that if I was to sit on the jury should the state prosecute on the charge ,now would be the time for jury nullification and the law is un Constitutional both Article 16 and Federal,thus unjust,next case.

Comments are closed.