The provocateur accused of racial harassment of former state representative Kiah Morris was charged Wednesday night with buying banned high-capacity firearms magazines.
The Vermont State Police announced the arrest of Bennington resident Max B. Misch, 36, in a brief news release. He was scheduled for arraignment Thursday in state court in Bennington.
Morris, the only black woman in the Vermont legislature before she resigned last fall, cited Misch’s torrent of hateful online messages as one reason she stepped down. She previously obtained a yearlong protective order against him. Misch is an avowed white nationalist.
On January 14, Misch crashed a Bennington press conference during which Attorney General T.J. Donovan announced he would not bring criminal charges against anyone accused of harassing Morris. Misch strode into the event, held at the Congregation Beth El synagogue, bearing the image of alt-right meme Pepe the Frog on his shirt.
Just 11 days later, the Vermont State Police began investigating an allegation that Misch had purchased high-capacity magazines, according to the news release. Last year, Vermont banned the purchase or possession of magazines that contain more than 10 rounds for a long gun or 15 rounds for a handgun, though people can legally possess magazines they owned before the law went into effect.
Police executed a search warrant at Misch’s residence on Wednesday, the release states. Misch faces up to a year in jail and a $500 fine.
Donovan’s office will prosecute the case, according to the release.
The state police, Bennington police and the Attorney General’s Office did not return calls for comment Wednesday evening.
Clarification, March 5, 2019: This story has been updated to clarify Vermont’s law regarding the possession of high-capacity magazines.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Patrick,
First, you explain what I already understood, then you evade my point entirely.
Let me restate the salient facts. There are 4 magazines: two were purchased legally, 2 illegally. All that can be shown by specific evidence, which in the news articles at least, appears convincing: receipts and surveillance camera footage of the purchase on the illegal dates, etc. (See https://vtdigger.org/2019/02/07/guns-seize…)
Originally, you asked how prosecutors (or a jury) could tell WHICH magazine was which, to which I replied: they dont need to. It doesnt matter. Two of the four were purchased illegally. That can be proved WITHOUT reference to the magazines themselves.
Try it this way. All of the facts remain the same, EXCEPT that Misch managed to dispose of or hide the magazines. Assuming he cant or doesnt attack the evidence to which Ive already referred, prosecutors now have NO magazines, therefore NO need to distinguish one from another. And yet, the evidence is still sufficient to prove that the crime was committed.
Or to repeat one of my analogies, I rob a bank and then spend all the money. Does that mean that there is no way for prosecutors to prove that I robbed the bank? Of course not.
Obviously, in every case, the strength of the OTHER evidence needs to be sufficient to prove the crime, but thats another matter entirely.
None of this requires anyone to draw ANY conclusions about Mr. Mischs politics (which I gather we agree are pretty awful). Indeed, they neednt be mentioned at all.
Freedomtothink,
No offense, but you and I must have different definitions of “simpler”. I didn’t fully follow, but it reads similar to “Sovereign Citizen” type arguments. I don’t believe there has been a successful sovereign citizen defense ever before, or am I mistaken?
Patrick Cashman
I don’t disagree with your viewpoint, but it is actually a lot simpler than that. All the defendant needs to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the court to try this matter against him and produce a verified complaint from the third party claiming they were damaged by his actions, resulting in an actual crime instead of possession of a thing somebody else doesn’t like. Without a verified complaint sworn & signed under oath by a third party, not the state, not the prosecutor, not the cops, the court has no lawful jurisdiction to proceed against him.
What he is being charged with is legal, not lawful, legal violation of a state statute, not a crime. Statutes are regulatory in nature, applying only to persons, not people, persons engaged in a regulable activity, such as a corporation engaged in firearms manufacture doing business under a license which constitutes a contract with the state or federal gov. Unless the court can prove the man was engaged in an activity they have a contractual jurisdiction over, which there is no way they could, the court can never prove jurisdiction over this man & his private possessions.
The court did contrive an unlawful jurisdiction by giving him a public defender, who is a fellow Bar Association member & officer of the court, with an obligation to the court that is over his obligation to his client. That P.D. dutifully advised his client to answer “yes” when asked if he understood (stands under) the charges against him and further entered a plea, unknowingly agreeing to hand the court jurisdiction it didn’t otherwise have & allowing them to misapply a statutory regulation to a man rather than the legal fiction/corporation it was written for.
John,
Because the legality of the items doesn’t depend upon how they were transferred between owners as with the stolen items in your example. The items were legally purchased in places and times where it was legal to purchase them. The discriminating factor among otherwise identical items that would make them “illegal” is when they were brought into Vermont. Bought it on 30 September? Legal to buy possess in Vermont in perpetuity. Brought it into Vermont on 30 September? Perfectly legal to possess in Vermont forever. Brought it into Vermont on 2 October? Illegal to possess. As they are not individually distinguishable in any way and there is certainly no registry of how many magazines everyone owned before 1 Oct or after, a simple “oh, I’ve had that forever” is kind of an unbeatable defense.
I know it ends with the Jury and conceivably if the prosecutor says “racist” or “white supremacist” enough maybe he could get the jury to go with emotion vice application of the reasonable doubt standard required in all criminal cases: ” “[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” But should our state be advocating subversion of due process as a tactic?
All to get, best case possible, a misdemeanor conviction.
Misch is an ass, yes. But twisting and exploiting the mechanism of our government to blatantly punish legal but distasteful behavior is an astonishing crime. Those supporting this act need to slow down and consider exactly which of their rights they are eager to do away with to punish one person they don’t like, and consider that someday after they give up those rights they may be that person.
“Additionally it looks like it might be an issue to get him for “possession” of “illegal” magazines as magazines are not generally serialized. Even if there were two magazines in the house, how do you go about proving they were the “illegal” ones as opposed to the “legal” ones?”
Why would anyone have to?
If the prosecutor can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that 2 of the magazines are illegal, he doesn’t need to prove WHICH ones any more than a DA would need to prove which bills were stolen from a bank or which bottles of booze were stolen from a liquor store. Just as possession of legal currency or booze would not be an adequate defense in the face of clear evidence that the perpetrator is in possession of illegally obtained currency or booze, so too this guy’s possession of legal firearms is no defense either.
If you read the affidavit it states that the magazines were actually paid for and transported into Vermont by his ex-wife. That is for both the first two purchased legally in September, and the subsequent two purchased in NH and transported into Vermont after December 1, so it is going to be an issue charging him with “buying” 30 round magazines. Additionally it looks like it might be an issue to get him for “possession” of “illegal” magazines as magazines are not generally serialized. Even if there were two magazines in the house, how do you go about proving they were the “illegal” ones as opposed to the “legal” ones?
On the plus side, it looks like there is a very solid case against his ex-wife for buying 30 round magazines in NH and transporting them into Vermont after 1 December.
Pass stupid laws, get stuck in stupid situations.
@Cyndy Andrews Phillips
Tell me Cyndy, what kind of narcissistic megalomania goes on in your mind that makes you believe I have to justify any thing I do to you? Have you anointed yourself my & every one else’s keeper?
If I felt you were in anyway sincere & not just being snide & judgmental, I could present numerous reasons I keep what I do. One of them, is because this world seams to have more and more neurotic people who feel they have the right to demand someone they dont even know, justify why they have this or why they need that. People like that freak me out. You see them on TV, hear them on the radio, usually behaving in a totally vile manner with some sense that they must be answered to. You never know when someone like that might crack, or worse, run for public office.
You call my statements weak insults essentially framed as a veiled insult, of someone you know nothing about. Thats your opinion & given the light in which you present yourself, completely unimportant to me.
@freedomtothink I am very curious as to why you’d need these types of guns and this kind of ammo? What is this level of defense used for? Should we move towards no government if we can’t trust the people we’ve placed in power? Would you say now that we are living in a time, with a governing body that works in our best interests or not? When was the last time you would say this statement was actual true: “The government being a creation of man, man at all times stands above the government he created, unless you prefer living as a slave to other men.” Lots of weak insults and vague statements taken from other sites but no substance to your comments.
I get you want the guns, but why? For what?
Turns out his ex called the Bennington PD on October 16 to say he had bought several 30-round clips in New Hampshire between October 1 and 16.
Politically motivated uses of police forces are just fine and dandy when they’re good for our side….am i right??