Posted on 01/11/2009 10:44:48 AM PST by Beaten Valve
The man arrested at Los Angeles International Airport with a trunk full of guns and nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition said Saturday that he is a law-abiding weapons enthusiast who had no idea he might be breaking the law.
A day after he was arrested for suspicion of felony transportation of an assault rifle, Phillip Dominguez said he's confident he'll be exonerated.
"Our Second Amendment rights are being trampled in the name of law enforcement," Dominguez said. "I'm a law-abiding, taxpaying gun enthusiast. I have no felonies - up until now."
(cont'd)
Federal, that’s the quandary. Federal gives states the right to have status above National law.
Now here is the clarifier... but not when it violates constitutional law
I have seen, in multiple posts, that our LEOs don’t need to ‘know’ the law. They merely have to ‘feel’ that there was a violation.
Oh, and that they felt threatened. And with those conditions they can rob a citizen of their rights without consequence. And there are throngs of supposed conservatives that support their ‘feeling’ because our LEOs are bona fide saints.
Do I sound disgusted? Good.
For those of you who support police action in this case, just wait until Obama starts enforcing federal laws against otherwise lawful gun carry within 1000 ft of the socialist government schools.
And if you think that your CCW allows you the privilege, wait until that law changes too.
The man in this story was apparently not planning to commit any crime, let alone a felony. The police should have let him go with a warning.
Since when do conservatives believe that enforcing gun control keeps us safe??
Hauling any amount of guns and ammo is my private business. I don’t have to declare that fact to anyone because there is absolutely nothing illegal about carrying firearms in the trunk of your car. Period!
The guy was supposed to be picking up a friend. Like thousands of people do every day at an airport.
The anti gun freaks are having a fainting spell over 1000 rounds of ammo like it is a capital offense.
For me, 1000 rounds of ammo would be a fun weekend at the range, but expensive. But not an illegal activity either. I can transport as many guns and rounds of ammo as I want.
The guy will spend a fortune on lawyers defending himself from what? Illegal confiscation of firearms and the denial of his Constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment.
I would gladly give him money to help with his legal fees because this is bullshit.
No, I don’t. Because I don’t think like a commie lib.
Because to all libs commies, everyone with a gun is a criminal. You are seemingly agreeing with that sentiment.
Are you sure you want to go there on THIS site?
Because when I go to the ‘big’ city to pick up my wife at the airport after a TDY, I d@mn sure pack CCW. Am I a criminal?
Making laws that ban possession in any number of areas surrounding schools etc is Unconstitutional. People have a right to transport firearms and ammo from point A to point B. Putting large buffer zones around schools, parks, or where could theoretically block transportation of a firearm beyond your driveway. Or make it illegal to own a gun because you live within a half mile of a school zone or something like that.
I see these gun free zones and buffer zones as another way to harass legal gun owners. If we can’t take our guns to the shooting range or hunting area without passing x number of park zones or school zones, or having to make huge detours is unconstitutional bullshit.
Pay close attention people. they could make it illegal to take your gun out of your house. Or transport ammo from the store to your home. Screw them if they think I am going to pay a fee for some stupid travel permit every time I want to take my gun(s) shooting or hunting, or just because I feel like it.
This site is loaded with commie operatives specifically for the purpose of promoting unconstitutional methodology.
Theres one or two in every thread with Constitutional significance and the Bill of Rights.
Just because they are registered on Free Republic don’t make them a Freeper. I know you and I have made this observation on some other recent threads.
You realize that you could innocently drive by my house and be within shooting range? But the gun in my closet isn’t smart enough to make that determination. The only way that gun comes out is if I make that decision. But that still don’t make the gun dangerous just because you happen to be within range. I could even be sitting on my front porch with it, loaded and locked. But from that position I could hit you with a rock because you are within range.
Point is, just because there is a firearm and it has a specified range don’t make it a danger to anyone unless the trigger is pulled. I can’t believe how you people freak out over a loaded gun just because it is somewhere within your comfort zone and i don’t stand up with a looney sign and blaze orange and yell I have a gun. Because I guarantee if I announced I have a gun anywhere in public, you would be kissing dirt.
We don’t even have to shoot to make a wussie tremble.
(from the article)
Dominguez said he got state permission to own and use the assault rifle last month but the approval letter didn't mention it was illegal in California to make a pit stop while transporting the weapon from his home to the gun range.
That code requires that “registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations,” according to the Web site of the California Attorney General’s Office.
If a person is transporting an assault rifle, and stops for gas, or is stopped by the police along the way, are they in fact in violation of this law. Or is a more common sense approach as the question of taking out the fire arm from the locked container ... the “measure” of the violation under this law.
The article does not contain enough information to make a sound judgement. Diane Feinstein has a carry permit. I bet she could walk through the airport with her handgun and not get arrested.
The law is in many instances written around what you are carrying not what you intend to do with it, unless you are Diane Feinstein or someone who is connected.
In the first half of the 1900s most people were prosecuted because of what they did and what they intended to do. Now the people are being arrested because of what they possess or how they defended themselves.
Our state governments, MD in my situation, all too often protect the criminals and arrest those who would defend themselves against the criminals. They call us vigilantes.
I never mentioned this earlier, but what the hell is an assault rifle?
Is that like an assault rock?
These laws are ridiculous.
I think the article contains plenty of info for a judgment.
The guy didnt do squat.
He was on the way to the range and was picking up a friend at the airport on the way.
He got nailed on some airy technicality that says “That one rifle looks scary”
There is a gun store in PG county, MD. They primarily sell shotguns and single shot rifles. The police have upon occasion staked out the store and followed people who purchased guns. If they stopped at 7-11 to get a cup of coffee they were in violation of the gun laws. Their shotguns or whatever were confiscated.
I imagine they lost their right to vote and could not participate in scouts with their kids etc. Does this remind anyone of NAZI Germany, or other liberal countries.
Studying terrorism is a hobby that does not suffer from a lack of fresh information.
You will probably be pulled over and searched next time you go to an airport.
As far as the article goes, I see no harm or illegal activity. Of course he did stop while transporting the rifle. If I was on the jury and that was the only issue, I would acquit the guy because the state is in violation of the constitution by placing a limit on how to transport the rifle.
My only point is that many times the media does not state all the information relevant. For instance if the guy has a whole bedroom of AlQaeda videos and just returned from training camps in Libya then my opinion of his guilt or innocence changes also.
I have no problem with prosecution if they can demonstrate intent to break the law with malice, but it is clear this guy is being hammered for a BS technicality.
Wow! I know I could never live in CA.
If they make a law saying you need a letter each time you drive from point A to point B, are you going to get a letter from the govt each time?
The point is not to avoid understading local laws, but at some point (such as int he case of CA) they become oenerous, and not reasonable in any sense of the word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.