NYC Self-Defense Case Ends in Prison Term, Reigniting Debate Over New York’s Gun Laws

By Michael Phillips | NYBayNews

A Queens self-defense case that initially appeared straightforward has ended with a four-year prison sentence for Charles Foehner, a 67-year-old retired doorman with no prior criminal record—fueling renewed debate over public safety, prosecutorial discretion, and New York’s strict gun regulations.

Foehner was sentenced on January 14 by Toni Cimino after pleading guilty to one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He began serving his sentence this week, following a brief delay that allowed him to remain free through the holidays.

A Mugging Turned Fatal

The case stems from a May 5, 2023 incident outside Foehner’s Kew Gardens apartment around 2 a.m. Surveillance video shows Cody Gonzalez, 32, charging at Foehner during an attempted robbery. Gonzalez, who had 15 prior arrests and a documented history of mental illness, demanded money and cigarettes while brandishing what Foehner believed was a knife—later identified as a pen.

Foehner fired multiple shots from an unlicensed .38-caliber revolver, killing Gonzalez. After reviewing the evidence, Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz declined to file homicide or manslaughter charges, acknowledging the shooting was an act of self-defense.

The Search That Changed Everything

What transformed the case was what authorities found next. Executing a search warrant at Foehner’s apartment, investigators uncovered an extensive cache of illegal firearms and accessories: 26 unlicensed weapons—including four classified as assault weapons—more than 13,000 rounds of ammunition, 152 large-capacity magazines (10 loaded), and two bulletproof vests.

Under New York law, none of the items were legally permitted. Prosecutors initially charged Foehner with 25 felony counts, exposing him to a potential 25-year sentence if convicted at trial.

In November 2025, Foehner accepted a plea deal to a single felony count, avoiding the risk of decades behind bars but still facing significant prison time.

“Hero or Criminal?”

Foehner’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, has sharply criticized the outcome, calling New York’s firearms regime “draconian” and arguing that ordinary residents face nearly insurmountable hurdles to legal gun ownership.

“In a rational system,” Kenniff said, “this man would be recognized for saving his own life—not sent to prison.”

Libertarian policy groups, including the Cato Institute, have echoed that view, arguing the case punishes self-defense through regulatory backdoors. Commentators have noted the irony that the state conceded the shooting itself was justified, yet still sought years of incarceration for possession offenses.

Critics also point to broader concerns about public safety priorities in New York City, where repeat violent offenders are often released quickly, while a first-time offender who acted in fear for his life now faces years behind bars.

Prosecutors Stress Public Safety

The Queens District Attorney’s Office counters that the prosecution had nothing to do with the shooting and everything to do with the danger posed by an unregulated arsenal in a residential building.

Officials argue that allowing such stockpiles to go unpunished would set a dangerous precedent and undermine enforcement of gun laws designed to protect neighbors and first responders. From that perspective, the case reflects a necessary—if uncomfortable—line-drawing exercise.

A Human Cost Beyond the Courtroom

The legal battle has already taken a heavy toll. Reports indicate Foehner and his wife sold their home to cover mounting legal fees. During his incarceration, Foehner will also lose access to Social Security benefits, adding financial strain to an already devastating outcome.

A Broader Reckoning

The Foehner case lands at the intersection of two unresolved realities in New York: persistent fears about crime and some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws. For supporters, the sentence enforces necessary boundaries around illegal weapons. For critics, it exemplifies a system more focused on paperwork violations than practical justice.

As the city continues to grapple with violent crime and questions of self-defense, the imprisonment of a retired doorman—cleared of wrongdoing in a fatal encounter—will likely remain a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over whether New York’s approach truly balances safety, fairness, and individual rights.