Man arrested at LAX for having guns.


PDA






DRZinn
January 9, 2009, 08:04 PM
Yep, that's pretty much the whole story: he had guns, he got arrested. Check it out.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=5QS&pwst=1&resnum=0&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1291430811

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/firearms-found.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6596169

http://www.ktla.com/landing_news/?Man-Arrested-at-LAX-with-Truck-Load-of-W=1&blockID=181315&feedID=171

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18450317/detail.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivzYeMThZS96kagBx73kv41jKzdQD95JTH481

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11416777

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct quote from the TV talking head:

"...and ammunition, some of it in military-style boxes." (As they show ammo cans half full of loose rounds.)

:barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "Man arrested at LAX for having guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nalioth
January 9, 2009, 08:08 PM
Driver with 37 guns, ammo arrested at LA airport

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A motorist with 30 handguns, seven rifles and fully loaded ammunition magazines in his pickup truck has been arrested at Los Angeles International Airport.

Airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles says the truck was stopped Friday by airport police officers at an entrance to the passenger terminals area.

Castles says the man was arrested for investigation of weapons transportation violations. His name was not immediately released.

Airport police official Jim Holcomb told the KCAL-TV news station that there's no indication the man was out to do any harm at the airport. He was apparently picking someone up.

The FBI, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Los Angeles Police Department are investigating.

sailsunfurled
January 9, 2009, 08:16 PM
I'm not from LA but...what did he do wrong? Can you not have guns in your truck in LA? I can see if he went in the airport on the other side of the check point and not check them at baggage claim.

jbauch357
January 9, 2009, 08:18 PM
I want to hear the full story...

What kind of rifles and pistols were they, was he a felon, are weapons allowed on LAX property, etc...

gladi8tr
January 9, 2009, 08:19 PM
If he had loaded magazines they consider magazines extensions of the firearm so in Kali talk he had a truck full of loaded guns.

taprackbang
January 9, 2009, 08:22 PM
EVERYTHINGS illegal in Kommie fornia, except sodomy.

Tman
January 9, 2009, 08:23 PM
If you've ever driven around the neighborhood of LAX you'd understand why he was carrying 37 loaded weapons....:eek:

Japle
January 9, 2009, 08:31 PM
Authorities say the weapons were found inside the man's Chevrolet Silverado truck shortly before 11 a.m. when he stopped at one of the airport's vehicle inspection points,

What the hell are "vehicle inspection points"?? In Florida, you can carry a gun right up to the terminal building. They sure don't search your car!

Man, I'm glad I live 3,000 miles from that place!!

harmonic
January 9, 2009, 08:38 PM
Can you not have guns in your truck in LA?

I didn't read all the OP's links, but if he had the handguns in the cab, he's required by law to have them in a locked case. The glove box/console doesn't count.

Also, the ammo must be transported separately.

Old Fuff
January 9, 2009, 08:38 PM
This pretty well sums up the story...

Airport police official Jim Holcomb told the KCAL-TV news station that there's no indication the man was out to do any harm at the airport. He was apparently picking someone up.

But of course that doesn't matter, because...

The FBI, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Los Angeles Police Department are investigating.

He probably wasn't at fault, but going to an airport in Los Angeles with a car full of guns and ammunition was a bit half-bright considering where he was.

Hopefully whomever he was picking up will take a taxi next time, or maybe fly in to a different airport.

In the interest of preserving High Road standards the Old Fuff will refrain from writing what he is really thinking. :banghead:

black ridge
January 9, 2009, 09:24 PM
This is the country were living in folks

CWL
January 9, 2009, 09:45 PM
It's just the news agencies trying to sensationalize the story.

zxcvbob
January 9, 2009, 10:08 PM
but if he had the handguns in the cab, he's required by law to have them in a locked case. The glove box/console doesn't count.
I read in a news report this afternoon that they were in a big box in the *bed* of the truck (not in the cab)

shotgunjoel
January 9, 2009, 10:50 PM
I see about 3 of these stories a week on comcast.net, why, WHY!?!? :cuss:

harmonic
January 9, 2009, 11:21 PM
I read in a news report this afternoon that they were in a big box in the *bed* of the truck (not in the cab)

If that's the case, then he broke some other kalifornistan law. Maybe he had the ammo in the same container as the handguns. That's a violation of the law, IIRC. I lived in kal till three years ago, so they might have changed the laws.

Seriously, they were changing laws so fast and often that anytime I was going to the range I called the DOJ just to find out the flavor of the week.

Chukpike
January 9, 2009, 11:28 PM
It is the media dealing out all the bull. In watching the news report watch how guarded the police were in their statements. One of the rifles may have been a banned assault weapon. The ammunition was only by "media description" sinister. They did show a loaded hand gun which would be a violation. His truck had a locked bed cover and they did show gun cases. The police took him into custody but gave vague reasons. Once thay got him out of the airport and away from the news media it is possible they will just have to let him go. It which case it will not be reported in the news.

DRZinn
January 9, 2009, 11:44 PM
According to calgunlaws.com:

With certain exceptions, a concealed handgun can legally be transported within a motor vehicle without a permit only by carrying it: 1) unloaded and 2) locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a separate locked container other than the utility or glove compartment. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, it must be carried in a locked container separate from the utility or glove compartment. Ammunition cannot be attached to the handgun in any manner.

Rifles and shotguns can be carried either openly or concealed within a motor vehicle as long as they are not loaded. However, registered rifles and shotguns on the list of regulated "assault weapons" must be transported in a motor vehicle in the same manner as that required for transporting handguns.

So at worst (and this is assuming the media got the facts straight), he had a loaded gun in a box in the truck bed, which could only be an oversight.

Cuda
January 9, 2009, 11:52 PM
Why was he stopped and searched? I didn't know that California cops could search without a warrant.

Just a question, I'm sure there is more than we know.

C

ants
January 9, 2009, 11:59 PM
As long as it is unloaded, there is no law against it.
That's how you go on a hunting trip. You check your rifle/shotgun/handgun as checked luggage on the airplane.

That's also how FedEx and UPS ship guns overnight.
It's not illegal to have an unloaded gun at an airport.

There is some part of the story we're not being told. As usual.

DRZinn
January 10, 2009, 12:19 AM
The TV news report said he told the cops about the guns.

mjstef
January 10, 2009, 12:23 AM
Comments from the bottom......................

# Yes my son has a gun collection, that is not a crime, they were locked up in the back of his pickup, they are all legally registered to him and he volunteered the information about his guns at the checkpoint. He IS a nice guy and he was picking a friend up at the airport. To "the doctor", he isn't on any 'meds', are you! Maybe you should wait until you know something about a situation before you shoot your mouth off. Thank You to those who didn't jump to the worst conclusions. A Proud mother! ...

# RAY PACI 16 minutes ago FLAG COMMENT HEY SCOTT HE IS MY BROTHER AND PICKING UP A FRIEND FROM THE AIR PORT TO GO TO THE RANGE .ALL THE GUNS ARE REGESTER TO HIM AND LOCKED IN GUN BOXS AND LOCK IN THE BED OF HIS TRUCK . BUT YOU ARE RIGHT IT SHOULD BE LOOK ATHEY SCOTT HE IS MY BROTHER AND PICKING UP A FRIEND FROM THE AIR PORT TO GO TO THE RANGE .ALL THE GUNS ARE REGESTER TO HIM AND LOCKED IN GUN BOXS AND LOCK IN THE BED OF HIS TRUCK . BUT YOU ARE RIGHT IT SHOULD BE LOOK AT

# Sarah 44 minutes ago FLAG COMMENT This is his daughter and he is an American Citizen born and raised. He was simply picking up a friend and heading to a shooting range. FYI Thank you for the comments not attacking him.

DoubleTapDrew
January 10, 2009, 12:45 AM
Thank the holy government for stopping this dangerous criminal from killing everyone in the airport! Obviously anyone with firearms is out to cause death and mayhem along their path to their ultimate goal of blowing up the world.

This is so idiotic isn't not even funny. California is gone. There is no hope for it and I seriously feel for any true Americans left living there. We want to increase acceptance of firearms across the country but that state has skewed so far into anti-gun liberal absurdity it appears to be beyond hope honestly.

The airport here forbids weapons however they have been notified that they have no legal ability to do so (outside the security checkpoints), yet they still try to enforce it. The "powers that be" seem to have forgotten who they work for. There are too many people in positions of authority that are on a serious power trip. These aren't powerful and bold commanders making these rules. They are guys that earned C's in high school and have a mortgage and a case of hemhorrids. What can you do? Honestly?

Rob P.
January 10, 2009, 01:30 AM
If he had loaded magazines they consider magazines extensions of the firearm so in Kali talk he had a truck full of loaded guns.

PLEASE do not spread false information. The law is quite specific that loaded magazines are NOT "weapons" until and unless they are connected to the firearm. In California you can waltz around in public with a visible loaded magazine and you have NOT committed any crime. (Caveat: UNLESS you are a gang member in which case it is illegal for you to possess ammo and/or a loaded magazine anyway.)

From what I've heard/read/seen on TV the guy had several guns in gun cases in the back of his truck. The bed of the truck had a solid fiberglass locking bed cover. The "assault weapon" did not appear to ME to be anything other than an "OLL" rifle (but I could be wrong as I am not an expert nor did I get to examine the rifle) which is perfectly legal to possess/own/transport in California without any special permits. AND, the "stop & search" was not done on the airport but was on a street that intersects with the airport access road (ie: a side road and not the road into the airport).

Unless there is something very different from what has been reported, I have a feeling that the driver will be getting an apology and a fat check sometime in the future from the City of L.A.

zxcvbob
January 10, 2009, 01:54 AM
Unless there is something very different from what has been reported, I have a feeling that the driver will be getting an apology and a fat check sometime in the future from the City of L.A.

I have a feeling that all he gets is a "We'll let it go... this time."

mjstef
January 10, 2009, 09:48 PM
I doubt he will get a "We'll let it go this time" in Cali Screw You. He's being charged with a Felony because in Cali Screw You if your the owner of an EVIL BLACK RIFLE you have to go from your home DIRECTLY to the range with no stops in between. I wish our government would do us all a favor and give that state back to Mexico!!!!

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_11424504

zxcvbob
January 10, 2009, 10:16 PM
The same California where the BART cop that shot an unarmed and restrained man in the back and killed him last week still hasn't been charged with *anything*. (at least the AG has appointed a special prosecutor to make sure the Internal Investigation doesn't just whitewash it. We'll see...)

But back to Mr. Dominguez, do you think the NRA will assist with the case -- the appeal, anyway?

ktd
January 10, 2009, 10:53 PM
Quote:
If he had loaded magazines they consider magazines extensions of the firearm so in Kali talk he had a truck full of loaded guns.

PLEASE do not spread false information. The law is quite specific that loaded magazines are NOT "weapons" until and unless they are connected to the firearm. In California you can waltz around in public with a visible loaded magazine and you have NOT committed any crime.

Not really false info. Actually, "connection" to a weapon is usually interpreted to mean if both are within easy reach and especially if the gun is not in a locked case. If you unload your gun and throw it in the back seat in a soft zipper case and put your loaded mags in the glove box, you still have a "loaded" gun, which is what I think the first quote meant. A lot of people get busted when they use this bit of common sense. Having loaded mags in a locked trunk with firearms is an oft debated scenario as to legality, but I think in Cali it is better to be safe than sorry.

Also depends on who you mean by "they". Letter of the law? The second part of the quote above is technically true, but what matters when its you being searched is what the cop thinks is true, then later on what the DA thinks is true. If the cops think you are trouble they will often arrest and sort it out later. If the prosecutor argues that a loaded magazine is a loaded weapon and you are not articulate enough to argue it, and the judge does not have knowledge of the subject, then that is what you will be busted for. DA's and the police are always trying to test interpretations of the law in the system, just look at the court wrangling over if one-handed knives are switchblades, or New York's constant enforcement of their law over federal when it comes to HR 218 or air transport law.

We were instructed to consider a loaded mag in the same general area as the firearm to be loaded. But then again, we were also told to be loose in the interpretation if the person was obviously not a criminal or gang member type.

Big Daddy Grim
January 10, 2009, 11:00 PM
I would like to know the hole story but that will never happen:confused:

.38 Special
January 10, 2009, 11:03 PM
Guess jumping to conclusions is more fun than actually informing yourself before typing up a "************!!!" post.

Per the links, the gentleman was arrested for violating California penal code 12280A1.

"12280. (a) (1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six, or eight years." Cite. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12280-12282)

As for the checkpoint, locals will understand that the area in question is not "Just a road near an airport". It is the main road that goes nowhere BUT the airport. If you are on it at the point mentioned, you are going to LAX whether you want to or not. Being as the Republicans have continually reminded us that "9-11 changed everything!!!" police checkpoints on airport roads are only to be expected. Don't forget to thank that eternal defender of civil rights, Karl Rove.

Now, the "assault rifle" law is obviously stupid, and the idea that it is dangerous to have a gun in the vicinity of an airport is obviously stupid too. But the basic fact of the matter is that the gentleman transported an illegal gun through a police checkpoint.

Oops.

DaveBeal
January 11, 2009, 12:10 AM
.38 Special, please be aware that facts are not welcome in this forum. This forum is to be used only for raving about the BATFE, homicidal BART cops and the liberal mainstream media. ;)

Seriously, thanks for providing the information.

Mauserguy
January 11, 2009, 03:45 AM
Per the news this evening he is being charged with the illegal transportation of an assault weapon. They are not charging him with possession of an assault weapon.

As stated above, assault weapons must be transported directly to the range, and they must be accompanied with their registration. It sounds as though they are getting this guy for either not having his paperwork or for stopping at the airport before going to the range. Either way, it's pretty dumb. I wish I would be on his jury.
Mauserguy

Golden Hound
January 11, 2009, 03:48 AM
"Assault weapons."

I hate California with an intensity that I can't even begin to convey. That place is literally hell on earth. It is the most overrated place in the entire universe. And it has quite literally a communist government. Nobody in their right mind should live there.

TAB
January 11, 2009, 03:52 AM
"Assault weapons."

I hate California with an intensity that I can't even begin to convey. That place is literally hell on earth. It is the most overrated place in the entire universe. And it has quite literally a communist government. Nobody in their right mind should live there.


yeah that helps alot...

harmonic
January 11, 2009, 11:28 AM
Nobody in their right mind should live there.


Depends on which part of the state. If you look at one of those blue/red political maps you see that most of the state, geographically, is conservative. I lived in the valley for seven years and with the exception of college towns, they're mostly down to earth people.

The problem is that the population masses are centered in sewers like San Fran, LA, Sacramento, etc.

Those are the animals that screw everything up.

dcal
January 11, 2009, 11:38 AM
Text from the above linked article quoted below.

The bolded text is what he was charged with.

We have this type of law here in NJ. Only one step further. All our firearms can only be transported to and from a legal place to possess the firearms, e.g. range, hunting, gunsmith. You are allowed reasonable stops. The only problem with that is there is no no definition of what is reasonable.

He's absolutely right about a law that ostensibly targets felons and criminals is being applied to an otherwise law abiding citizen. I hope the best for him. This situation is one I fear if I get stopped between home and the range.
LOS ANGELES - 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."

Airport police saw it a little differently.

"He just made a very bad decision, and should not have been carrying those weapons," airport police Sgt. Jim Holcomb said on Friday. A call to an airport police spokesman seeking comment was not immediately returned Saturday.

Dominguez, 47, of Orange, said he went to LAX to pick up a friend from Baltimore on Friday. They intended to go target shooting at an outdoor range in San Bernardino County.

As Dominguez entered the airport's ring road, his truck was pulled over for inspection. Dominguez says he knew police would want to look inside the locked cover of the truck bed so he got out, opened it and declared that he had firearms there.

Dominguez said he had 16 pistols, including an 1858 black-powder Army revolver. He also had five rifles - one of them an assault rifle - and nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

Dominguez said he didn't think he was breaking any
Advertisement
laws since all the weapons and ammo were in separate, locked boxes. At least half a dozen times since Thanksgiving, Dominguez said he made similar stops at the airport carrying his guns and never saw a police checkpoint.

He showed officials the paperwork proving the assault rifle was registered and gave them the keys and combinations of all the lockboxes, he said. The Bushmaster "Shorty," a semiautomatic rifle modeled on the military's AR15, was the reason he was finally arrested.

"It posed no threat to nobody," said Dominguez.

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.

Dominguez said he was handcuffed, taken to a jail, and held for six hours before he was booked. He was released at around 11 p.m. after his family posted $50,000 bail. But his guns and his truck were confiscated.

He faces a Feb. 6 arraignment.

Dominguez, who owns a construction company, says he doesn't blame airport authorities for stopping his truck for inspection but he believes he isn't the target of the gun law.

"I am being charged for a law that is meant for ex-felons and bank robbers, that kind of individual," Dominguez said.

Dominguez says some Internet writers have been questioning his intelligence - if not his sanity - for hauling his stash of handguns and rifles to a place where folks might be jittery about terrorism.

The man who owns about 80 guns, however, remains defiant and said he'll be well-armed in a different way when he confronts his accusers in court.

"I'm contacting their worst nightmare - an attorney," he said.

DRZinn
January 11, 2009, 11:44 AM
Depends on which part of the state. If you look at one of those blue/red political maps you see that most of the state, geographically, is conservative. I lived in the valley for seven years and with the exception of college towns, they're mostly down to earth people.

The problem is that the population masses are centered in sewers like San Fran, LA, Sacramento, etc.

Those are the animals that screw everything up.Problem is, they screw everything up even if you're not in one of those parts.

Geno
January 11, 2009, 12:08 PM
There's the problem:

As Dominguez entered the airport's ring road, his truck was pulled over for inspection. Dominguez says he knew police would want to look inside the locked cover of the truck bed so he got out, opened it and declared that he had firearms there.

Don't ask; don't tell.

Doc2005

harmonic
January 11, 2009, 12:21 PM
said he'll be well-armed in a different way when he confronts his accusers

I hate to break the news, but if this is true.......

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.


......he's out of luck. If it's law, then the best he can hope for is a plea bargain. Kalifornistan is very unforgiving of even the most minor gun law violations.

Problem is, they screw everything up even if you're not in one of those parts.

The worst part is when they immigrate to civilization and screw up those places. Viz. Oregon, Washington State, Denver, Boulder, Tulsa, Nashville, Austin, et al.



_

LTB15J
January 11, 2009, 12:41 PM
another person was just arrested. for a 12 gauge and 20 gauge shotgun

apparently un registered



umm..... im sorry, since when did you have to register a NON AW long gun in the state of CA?

ill answer that. you dont

DRZinn
January 11, 2009, 12:43 PM
Well, when I break out of LA and immigrate to America, just don't mistake me for one of Them.

Timradcliffe345
January 11, 2009, 12:47 PM
EVERYTHINGS illegal in Kommie fornia, except sodomy.

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.

DaveBeal
January 11, 2009, 01:17 PM
If you're going to live in a state that is well known for having restrictive gun laws and you choose to drive around with 37 firearms in your vehicle, you'd better be cognizant of the laws, like them or not. This guy has no one to blame but himself.

BTW, overnight the weapon count somehow went from 37 to 21. What's up with that?

DRZinn
January 11, 2009, 01:35 PM
I'm reminded of a certain quote. "There's no way to rule innocent men..."

Mauserguy
January 11, 2009, 01:35 PM
I agree, in theory people should be cognizant of the law, but in California the gun laws, among others, are very confusing and contradictory. Our AG's office has reversed its own findings several times on various assault weapons interpretations because the laws are so badly written. Its not fair to hold average citizens, people who work for a living, accountable for such poorly written codes. It's just unfair.

This guy was just trying to have fun with a buddy after picking him up at the airport. There was no mallice there. Every one of us in California has probably broken some law at one time or another. Where's the ill intent? I feel sympathy for this guy.
Mauserguy

LTB15J
January 11, 2009, 01:56 PM
it doesn't matter if you know the laws. for every person that knows the law there is 3 cops that dont and vise versa. especially when it comes to guns. if you get pulled over in CA, and you get ****ed with for guns, you should really keep your mouth shut and call a lawyer. and thats really any time you get falsely detained or arrested. not just with guns


unless you know someone in the precinct, you are not going to be anyones hero for playing mr know it all and mr. "look at me,i can recite all the penal codes". they dont care.


but you should. because after your charges get dropped (if you arent committing a crime) its time to get that cop fired for false arrest.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 11, 2009, 02:09 PM
arrested for investigation of weapons transportation violations.

What the hell? Since when can you be arrested to help with a mere investigation? :scrutiny: How about a CHARGE accompanying the arrest? So he's being held without charges? Sounds like the freakin Gestapo to me.

KelVarnson
January 11, 2009, 10:40 PM
Kalifornistan is very unforgiving of even the most minor gun law violations.

That's quite a generalization, what are you basing that on? I know of two individuals who live near me, who were each stopped and found to have loaded handguns in their cars, without a carry permit. Both were allowed to proceed home with their guns after their respective stops.

I agree, in theory people should be cognizant of the law, but in California the gun laws, among others, are very confusing and contradictory. Our AG's office has reversed its own findings several times on various assault weapons interpretations because the laws are so badly written. Its not fair to hold average citizens, people who work for a living, accountable for such poorly written codes. It's just unfair.

I will second that. Prior to buying my 7.62 Saiga, I wanted to be absolutely certain that it was legal for me to own, so I called the DOJ. Oh how I wish I would have recorded that call. First the guy told me he had "no way of knowing" whether the gun was legal. Then he told me that would have to me determined by my local law enforcement agency. I pressed him, insisting that the DOJ should be the final authority in determining which guns are and are not currently legal.

Finally he agreed, and grudgingly told me that the gun was legal, but that it was "gray area", and I really shouldn't buy it. So I pressed him more, "IS IT LEGAL OR NOT?!", and he finally said it was indeed legal, and that I would suffer no repercussions for buying it. After all of that BS he tried to get friendly with me and talk about guns, like he was my range buddy or something.

It was just silly. If you can't even call the DOJ and find out whether a particular gun is legal or not, what are you supposed to do?

By the way, do they just do random vehicle stops and searches at LAX now?

glockman19
January 11, 2009, 11:19 PM
Now it's happened twice in 24 hrs. Another guy had hi s12 & 20 gauge "high powered" shotguns.

Oh yea and they werent, "registered", guess what there is no registration. LAPD has his firearms, good luck in getting them back.

Would someone please bring some law to this city. Please. Is it time for another Federal Concent decree.

The fist guy with the 15/16, can't get it stratight, his only infraction appears to be a transportation of a registered assult weapon issue. basically the law in CA says you can travel with a registered assult rifle if you go directly from home to the range. He stopped to pick up his buddy at the airport before going to shoot in the desert. It's a very mino technicality IMHO. He will be without his rifle for a while though. The second guy had his cased, unloaded shotguns confiscated for, "not being registered". There is NO LAW in CA where a rifle or shotgun requires registration.

We live in a police state here. IT will only get worse with the economy.

chieftain
January 12, 2009, 12:38 AM
There are still free States in this country.

Move to one.

I married a California girl in the early 70's while in the Corps. When I left the Corps, I refused to live in California. Although I am from Florida, the compromise was Arizona.

Very happy here. And as the years go on, my opinion gets lower and lower of California. Like many a socialist paradise, there are reasons to live there, that make putting up with the lack of freedom and liberty worth it. I don't see it.

The part that has me fascinated is the number of folks still there. Don't whine, leave.

Go figure.

Fred

DRZinn
January 12, 2009, 12:47 AM
Believe me, I'm gone as soon as it's feasible. It's looking like about 2 years from now. Three at the most. Now, that'll be about 8 years too long, but better late than never.

harmonic
January 12, 2009, 01:43 AM
That's quite a generalization, what are you basing that on?

Uh, try reading the original post. The episode is not from a gun rational state.


I know of two individuals who live near me, who were each stopped and found to have loaded handguns in their cars, without a carry permit. Both were allowed to proceed home with their guns after their respective stops.

Let's see. Two cases out of a state of what, 70 million people? In a state of the most draconian gun laws in the nation? Sorry. Your "anecdotes" don't prove a thing.

Old Fuff
January 12, 2009, 09:58 AM
I am sure that many of our members who live in California resent the constant and sometimes emotional attacks on “**********,” or “The Peoples Republick of **********,” etc. But while your resentment is understandable, you should remember that California’s left-wing, anti-gun government is a constant pain in the lower extremities for the rest of us, and insult becomes injury when liberal California residents move to other states and bring their political views with them. This is especially so in nearby states north and east of you. Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona are prime examples. So it’s understandable that we wish that a major earthquake might give us some relief.

Members of California’s shooting and gun owning community should understand that we wish them no ill will, our ire is directed toward the government in that misbegotten state. The incident under discussion is an example of something we would (and do) consider intolerable, yet in California it is not only considered to be acceptable, but perfectly normal. Given the circumstances, a clash of views is quite graspable, and sometimes we slip off The High Road. That’s the reason we have moderators.

LTB15J
January 12, 2009, 10:24 AM
don't worry old fuff. i, a true american, and californian, am glad to see people exersizing their right to free speech. you can call california whatever you want.

and thats the point really. it is not the californians that are hated, its the people who run (or ruin) the state by restricting rights that are essential to how we live our lives. for the most part, CA is a great state. i live a block from the beach and an hour from the snowy mountains. if only a few things could be changed, people can see what a great place CA is to live. but since we cant appeal to everyones hobbies and interests this is what happens. thank the govt

maybe we should just get rid of hollywood. i think the rest of the world watches us alittle too closely.

chieftain
January 12, 2009, 10:47 AM
but since we cant appeal to everyones hobbies and interests this is what happens. thank the govt


Who elected the Government?

Elections have Consequences.

Draw your own conclusions.

Last of my comments on this subject.

Go figure.

Fred

DRZinn
January 12, 2009, 10:57 AM
Who elected the Government? I sure as hell didn't. It's getting really old to hear that "the people" are to blame because "they" elected the despots. Factually, about 20% (that is, a slim majority of the 40% or so who show up) of the people elect the idiots. Blame that 20%, and the ones who didn't show, but quit this collectivist BS about "the people."

MDW GUNS
January 12, 2009, 11:56 AM
To arrest someone because he did not drive directly form his house to the range is wrong.
Remember, this fellow paid sales tax when he bought these guns.
He paid the fees for the background check.
He paid AW registration fees and god knows what else.

While I think this law is unconstitutional I think the LAPD and the media makes out of nothing the big deal.
Uhhhhh, there we caught someone with X evil black guns!
They punish someone for just having something, which is legal but not right in the eyes of some who on the other side a corrupt and burn your money!

Welcome to CA and make no mistake:
Soon it will be like this in the state where you live thanks to people like Feinstein, Boxer, Brady and so on!!

KelVarnson
January 12, 2009, 01:39 PM
Let's see. Two cases out of a state of what, 70 million people? In a state of the most draconian gun laws in the nation? Sorry. Your "anecdotes" don't prove a thing.

Actually, they do. They indicate that the entire state is not subject to the craziness often portrayed in the media. Los Angeles is worlds away from the part of the state I live in, in terms of political climate. You could think of Kali more as a country, in terms of political diversity. Some people don't get that.

Yes, the laws "technically" apply to everyone here, but I wouldn't say that enforcement is the same across the board. That is what my anecdotes show. For one person to know of two individuals who were caught red-handed with loaded guns, and get to walk, with their guns, I think that's pretty significant. That must mean it happens fairly often. And as I understand it, concealed carry without a permit is a misdemeanor. I wouldn't exactly call that "draconian".

Yes, Kali is pretty bad, I wish it were MUCH different, and I won't spend much time defending the gun laws here, but I can think of places that are WAY more "draconian" D.C., Chicago, NYC... At least we can OWN guns.

BTW, the population is more like 36 million. You were off by a factor of two. Have you been here? Please don't generalize.

Librarian
January 12, 2009, 03:43 PM
Not really false info. Actually, "connection" to a weapon is usually interpreted to mean if both are within easy reach and especially if the gun is not in a locked case. If you unload your gun and throw it in the back seat in a soft zipper case and put your loaded mags in the glove box, you still have a "loaded" gun, which is what I think the first quote meant. A lot of people get busted when they use this bit of common sense. Having loaded mags in a locked trunk with firearms is an oft debated scenario as to legality, but I think in Cali it is better to be safe than sorry.

California has quite specific laws about "loaded" and 'within easy reach' is not included. See my thread at Calguns (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=103660).

subknave
January 12, 2009, 06:20 PM
Well after trying to wade throught the maze of California firearms laws I can't find where it says specifically that a person with a permit for an assault weapon can only transport it from his home to the range with no stops. AND I have a headache, I never saw so many except as in section this which refers you to section that and back to a different section and of course law enforcement/public safety/politicians are exempt from all the laws. Does anyone have a link to where it says someone with a permit can only take their assault weapon from home to range with no stops?

.38 Special
January 12, 2009, 06:54 PM
I am sure that many of our members who live in California resent the constant and sometimes emotional attacks on “**********,” or “The Peoples Republick of **********,” etc.

Speaking for myself, I don't resent the attacks, I just get a little fed up with the knee jerking, disinformation, and general moronic comments made on the subject. Stuff like "A literal Hell on Earth" is just so blindingly stupid that all you can do is roll your eyes and click on through.

Old Fuff
January 12, 2009, 07:11 PM
If you were on the other side of the California/Arizona border and had to put up with some of the transplants from your side, you'd understand why some of our residents get a bit overwrought when the subject of California comes up - gun laws not withstanding. :cuss: :banghead:

KelVarnson
January 12, 2009, 07:21 PM
I understand, Old Fuff. All I had to do was drive into Oregon with California plates to experience it, first-hand. And I can certainly understand the basis for it.

.38 Special
January 12, 2009, 07:23 PM
Yabbut... Most of California is populated by decent, sensible, fairly conservative citizens. We have a couple of major population centers -- Los Angeles and San Francisco -- that are apparently peopled primarily by nutcases. Unfortunately, enough of those nutcases vote that the rest of us have to put up with all manner of silliness. Most of the rest of us Californians would be perfectly content to turn L.A. and S.F. into their own state.

And as a resident of a very conservative county located right next door to L.A., I can understand a bit of heat under the collar where transplants are concerned. The ruckus caused by our Board of Supervisors importing a new Sheriff from L.A. still hasn't died down.

Short version: I'm sure the Californians posting on this board would appreciate it if folks were to make a distinction between the L.A./S.F. dingbats and the rest of the state.

skoro
January 12, 2009, 07:33 PM
37 GUNS? :what:

Ya know...

I kinda feel like I could make do with no more than a dozen guns, no matter what airport I was driving to. :D

Librarian
January 12, 2009, 07:36 PM
Does anyone have a link to where it says someone with a permit can only take their assault weapon from home to range with no stops?

The limitation doesn't quite say that. It's 12285(c) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12285-12289.5.html).

(c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a
.50 BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of
the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is
first obtained under Section 12286:
(1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other
property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with
the owner's express permission.
(2) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private
club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing
shooting at targets.
(3) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business
license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(4) While on the premises of a shooting club which is licensed
pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.
(5) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational
project which is about firearms and which is sponsored by, conducted
under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a
nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or
promotes education about, firearms.
(6) While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a
firearm described in Section 12276, 12276.1, 12276.5, or 12278, is
specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.
(7) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between
any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed
gun dealer, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12290, for
servicing or repair pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12290, if
the assault weapon is transported as required by Section 12026.1.
What's missing is any language specifying 'directly' to those places; the Legislature knows how to say that; see, for example, this snippet of PC 12026.2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12020-12040.html) (4) The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section
12026 directly between any of the places mentioned in Section 12026. - just one of 12 items using the directly language.

DRZinn
January 12, 2009, 07:37 PM
I don't think I'd call Orange County "very" conservative. They might look that way compared to LA, but still.

.38 Special
January 12, 2009, 07:51 PM
Thanks for your input.

MistWolf
January 12, 2009, 08:07 PM
You know what- those of you who castigate this poor fellow are Fifth Columnists. You are giving the fears of those who restrict our liberties fertile ground to grow and justify their position. The man put his weapons in the back of his vehicle in good faith. He did not flash them around and he was forthright with the police and cooperative. The cops failed in their duty and you are supporting that failure. I find this criticism of a fellow enthusiast shameful and cowardly in these circumstances. One firearm or a hundred, it does not matter!

How about if it had been you going about your business and found yourself in a similar situation? How would you feel about folks making the same kind of criticism? As you isolate each sportsman who finds himself in this position with your condemnation you will find there is no one left to defend you when it becomes your turn

cassandrasdaddy
January 12, 2009, 08:12 PM
The cops failed in their duty

do you imagine that?

.38 Special
January 12, 2009, 08:26 PM
Again, the fellow apparently tried to illegally transport a weapon through a police checkpoint. Unless you are arguing that the police should not enforce laws that you don't like, you really don't have a point, unless you're simply trying to prove Godwin's law.

FiveFiveSixFan
January 12, 2009, 08:49 PM
What the hell are "vehicle inspection points"?? In Florida, you can carry a gun right up to the terminal building. They sure don't search your car!
Unfortunately, they have them periodically here as well. It can be on an entrance road to the airport, in which case it's usually set up by the airport police, or even at the entrance to a short or long term parking area in which case it's conducted by highly unmotivated, underpaid and undertrained unarmed contract private security people.

They make you open the doors (front and rear) to your vehicle as well as looking in the bed of trucks and requiring that any bed-mounted tool boxes be opened for visual inspection.

subknave
January 12, 2009, 08:55 PM
Thanks to Librarian:

(7) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between
any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed
gun dealer, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12290, for
servicing or repair pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12290, if
the assault weapon is transported as required by Section 12026.1.

It does not say anything about not stopping or having to go directly to the range with no stops. He was not illegally transporting his firearms. He had registered his "evil assault weapon" and had the paperwork with him. He tried to be cooperative and comply with the police and was not in a socalled gun free zone. In fact he did everything right and was arrested for it.

Lets say it wasn't an airport and he was going to pick up his friend at his friends house but gets stopped at a checkpoint where he obligingly opens the locked back of his truck and claims the guns shows the paperwork and gets arrested. That is not substantially different.

KelVarnson
January 12, 2009, 09:18 PM
I don't think I'd call Orange County "very" conservative. They might look that way compared to LA, but still.

If you were to use the ease of obtaining a carry permit as a bellwether, then indeed I think you could say O.C. was RKBA friendly, compared to other counties.

And Mistwolf, I agree with you 100%. Well said.

KelVarnson
January 12, 2009, 09:39 PM
The cops failed in their duty

(how) do you imagine that?

Unreasonable search and seizure, maybe?

ants
January 12, 2009, 09:54 PM
The cops are neither lawyers, legislators, nor Department of Justice staff members. In LEO training they are given instructions regarding the law, outlining the circumstances when it is premissible to arrest a person (or not arrest a person). If the State issued faulty instructions, don't blame the cops.


As I read California gun law posted by Librarian above:
It seems that the qualifier 'directly' appears in certain sections of gun law in California, and the Department of Justice advises that it also applies to other sections. This may or may not be true, depending upon prior court cases and other tests of the law.

Until this case works its way through the system, we are unable to draw a conclusion.


Poor Mr. Dominguez. There, but for the grace of god, go I.

Librarian
January 13, 2009, 12:53 AM
The cops are neither lawyers, legislators, nor Department of Justice staff members. In LEO training they are given instructions regarding the law, outlining the circumstances when it is premissible to arrest a person (or not arrest a person). If the State issued faulty instructions, don't blame the cops.

Poor training is indeed not the fault of the street officers. The responsibility goes to administrative and political levels; Los Angeles has an 'attitude problem'.

As I read California gun law posted by Librarian above:
It seems that the qualifier 'directly' appears in certain sections of gun law in California, and the Department of Justice advises that it also applies to other sections. This may or may not be true, depending upon prior court cases and other tests of the law.
DOJ may so advise, but other court cases in CA have made the point I did earlier - when the legislature shows it knows how to write a law for a particular result in one part of the Penal Code, and it does not write a different part in the same way, a court is quite likely to conclude that the intended results in the second part were not supposed to be the same as in the first part.

In this case, the court's reasoning is likely (IMHO) to go 'if directly in one part has a kind of result, NOT using directly in a different place has a different result, and since the code shows the legislature knows the difference, the difference was intentional'.

Of course, very little is certain when it comes to California courts.

DRZinn
January 13, 2009, 12:58 AM
I totally agree but I have to admit I wonder about the origin of your username. Dr. Zinn is a notorios "collectivist" (i.e. communist) who slings an awful lot of BS. He's one of the very worst in fact. I just wondered if your name was somehow connected to that guy. I strongly doubt it based on your posts but it's hard to tell sometimes.I can only argue with your characterization of Howard Zinn by saying it should be stronger. I hate the fact that the one person with my name who's well-known is such an odious figure. My initials are D. R., hence the nick.

But I'd love to know if you're talking about something I've written that makes it "hard to tell" how I'd feel about someone like that or if you mean it in more general terms.

MistWolf
January 13, 2009, 11:57 AM
From .38 Special- "Again, the fellow apparently tried to illegally transport a weapon through a police checkpoint. Unless you are arguing that the police should not enforce laws that you don't like, you really don't have a point, unless you're simply trying to prove Godwin's law."

The man wasn't trying to do anything illegal or immoral. He was trying to pick up a friend & go shooting. This situation is very analogous to being arrested for being black in a white neighborhood. Instead of criticizing this man, we should be offering him our support.

So what if the failure on the part of the police is due to training an/or ignorance. We don't excuse it, we educate and right a wrong

jfh
January 13, 2009, 12:34 PM
Is there an update available on this issue yet?

Jim H.

Chukpike
January 13, 2009, 02:14 PM
The last update has already been posted. He has been charged with illegally transporting an assault weapon. He intends to fight it. It was a small article around Pg 4 in the LA Times with a AP byline.

You will probably never see another follow up on this story. As most likely since the assault weapon was properly registered the charges will be dismissed after a few visits to court over the next few months. And the news services can't make a mountain out of it.

By then some other person will hit the news and this type of California bashing, government bashing, people bashing thread will start all over.

Nothing wrong with a "little rage against the machine" relieving every one's tension level until the next incident.

seale
January 13, 2009, 02:19 PM
By then some other person will hit the news and this type of California bashing, government bashing...will start all over.So we should just ignore tyranny?

cassandrasdaddy
January 13, 2009, 02:41 PM
"This situation is very analogous to being arrested for being black in a white neighborhood."

you gotta explain that one.... please

SoCalShooter
January 13, 2009, 03:48 PM
New Member



Join Date: 01-09-09
Posts: 5 I doubt he will get a "We'll let it go this time" in Cali Screw You. He's being charged with a Felony because in Cali Screw You if your the owner of an EVIL BLACK RIFLE you have to go from your home DIRECTLY to the range with no stops in between. I wish our government would do us all a favor and give that state back to Mexico!!!!

I dont. Heck I have even thrown the black rifle on the backseat and driven to the range or to my gun dealers, its not illegal to carry a rifle in your back seat its illegal to carry a loaded weapon or where ammunition can be easily reached for that weapon.

MistWolf
January 13, 2009, 04:19 PM
Simply because the man had firearms he had to be up to no good regardless of the fact he broke no laws. The popular culture has created the an image of gun owners as being unfit for society as they have others who they hate or fear. Gun owners receive the same treatment and attitude as blacks got from racists.

We are told we have no need for certain types of firearms- Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Assault Shotguns, Assault Pistols, Saturday Night Specials, Rifles, Shotguns and Handguns with no Sporting Purpose, firearms with High Capacity Magazines, Pistol Grips, Bayonet Lugs, Flash Suppressors. It is said that only those with serious flaws in their nature would defend any and all of the above. It is said gun owners are unfit to decide what is an acceptable feature. We must ask permission to exercise our rights. We face oppression.

The rights of blacks were broken down in such a manner to oppress them. Separate But Equal facilities, being arrested for being in the white part of town for no other reason than being black, not being allowed to buy houses in certain parts of town, being denied the right to keep and bear arms because they were BLACK, denied the right to vote, among a few. Blacks were categorized as having serious flaws in their nature and had to ask for permission to exercise their rights.

Examine close the oppression of our rights. You'll see how it's the same

TAB
January 13, 2009, 04:28 PM
he did infact brake the law.

DRZinn
January 13, 2009, 04:33 PM
And?

cassandrasdaddy
January 13, 2009, 05:50 PM
i live in break the law and get caught you get charged. hows it work in yours?

then you either pay up or go to court and fight it

subknave
January 13, 2009, 05:55 PM
He did not break the law (see my previous posts) there is nothing in the law that says he cannot stop while on the way to the range with his properly registered assault weapon. If there is another law you are aware of that he broke please inform us what it was?

cassandrasdaddy
January 13, 2009, 06:02 PM
thats what the court part is for. with a lil luck he'll set precedent but since hes trying the "they didn't tell me defense" don't hold your breath

cassandrasdaddy
January 13, 2009, 06:04 PM
The limitation doesn't quite say that. It's 12285(c).

Quote:
(c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a
.50 BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of
the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is
first obtained under Section 12286:
(1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other
property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with
the owner's express permission.
(2) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private
club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing
shooting at targets.
(3) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business
license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(4) While on the premises of a shooting club which is licensed
pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.
(5) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational
project which is about firearms and which is sponsored by, conducted
under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a
nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or
promotes education about, firearms.
(6) While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a
firearm described in Section 12276, 12276.1, 12276.5, or 12278, is
specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.
(7) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between
any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed
gun dealer, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12290, for
servicing or repair pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12290, if
the assault weapon is transported as required by Section 12026.1.
What's missing is any language specifying 'directly' to those places; the Legislature knows how to say that; see, for example, this snippet of PC 12026.2
Quote:
(4) The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section
12026 directly between any of the places mentioned in Section 12026.

this part will be clarified one way or the other if he pursues it

subknave
January 13, 2009, 06:52 PM
The Real reason he was arrested?

"The man, who did not have any gun on his person, was arrested for investigation of weapons transportation violations, Castles said. The man's name was not immediately released.

The scene was observed by a KCAL-TV news helicopter overhead."

One newspaper account said that they had also this year stopped one man with 2 unloaded shotguns in his trunk and a worker at the airport who had an old .22 rifle in his trunk.

All of this was at "vehicle inspection points".

DRZinn
January 13, 2009, 07:07 PM
in the world i live in break the law and get caught you get charged. hows it work in yours?

then you either pay up or go to court and fight itYeah, yeah, we get it. If you break the law they'll arrest you. As I've tried to explain to you in the past, we're not arguing how it is, we're arguing how it should be. Droning on and on about "the law" is irrelevant to the question at hand.

.38 Special
January 13, 2009, 08:40 PM
The man wasn't trying to do anything illegal or immoral.

Doesn't matter what he was "trying" to do. It's what he actually did. As has been repeatedly pointed out, he allegedly transported a firearm illegally. I hope he didn't. I hope he gets off scott free, and I hope his experience clarifies the law so that other people don't suffer the same fate. In fact, I hope this episode casts some light on a foolish law and gets Californians "up in arms", so to speak, about the law and getting it changed -- as unlikely as that is.

But the bottom line remains the same: the gentleman was arrested for allegedly breaking the law. Period, Q.E.D., end of story.

.38 Special
January 13, 2009, 08:43 PM
Yeah, yeah, we get it. If you break the law they'll arrest you. As I've tried to explain to you in the past, we're not arguing how it is, we're arguing how it should be. Droning on and on about "the law" is irrelevant to the question at hand.

"Droning on and on" kind of defines discussion at THR. And if the question is "Should it be illegal to transport menacing-looking semi-automatic rifles near an airport?" then I don't think you're going to get much debate.

KelVarnson
January 13, 2009, 08:44 PM
Again, I have not heard of these "vehicle inspection points". How can they search your car without probable cause? I was under the impression that the loop roads through LAX are public thoroughfares. Can they somehow just pull you over and search your car for no reason now?

DRZinn
January 13, 2009, 08:50 PM
if the question is "Should it be illegal to transport menacing-looking semi-automatic rifles near an airport?" then I don't think you're going to get much debate.Really? Which side of this question do you think most posters on THR are on? Which side are you on?

.38 Special
January 13, 2009, 09:04 PM
Again, I have not heard of these "vehicle inspection points". How can they search your car without probable cause? I was under the impression that the loop roads through LAX are public thoroughfares. Can they somehow just pull you over and search your car for no reason now?

There's a "border" checkpoint on the I-5, not really anywhere near the border. They can and will pull you over and go through your car anytime they feel like it. I don't for an instant see how that is constitutional, but then the constitution has not been a respected document during our lifetimes.

.38 Special
January 13, 2009, 09:06 PM
Really? Which side of this question do you think most posters on THR are on? Which side are you on?

Is this a serious question?

DRZinn
January 13, 2009, 09:18 PM
They can and will pull you over and go through your car anytime they feel like it.They can pull you over, but they can't go through your car without permission or PC. It was at the other BP checkpoint on the I-8 that I refused them permission. They brought out the drug dog and let him sniff around, and that was it.

Is this a serious question?Yes.

Mauserguy
January 13, 2009, 09:20 PM
I've gone through the loop road in the middle of the airport many times, and I have never seen any signs showing what you may or may not have. Furthermore, it is simply the end of the city street. Frankly, without any convoluted legal interpretation of the law, I would think that the loop road is a city street and not "inside" the airport. Inside the airport there are signs stating that you may not carry any weapons "beyond this point".

In short, I don't think that we should castigate the guy for having a gun in his car as though he had tried to carry it into a secured zone. The loop road is clearly not a secured zone.

Whether he broke a silly law by making a stop on his way to go shooting appears highly debatable.
Mauserguy

MistWolf
January 13, 2009, 10:28 PM
Breaking a law does not mean you'll get arrested. Law enforcement officers can exercise their judgment in many cases. I have been pulled over for speeding, yet the officer didn't write me a citation nor did he haul me into jail for six hours just to be safe.

The only reason the man was hauled into jail is because of the fear and hatred of gun owners in California.

When the so-called "assault rifle" act was passed, they couldn't even tell you what firearms were covered by it. It was not until after the deadline to register your firearms was passed that they even began making any kind of clarification. By that time, it was too late.

The man was on his way to shoot his weapons and stopped to pick up his buddy. Police took him in for six hours and they confiscated his truck, firearms and ammo, ruining his outing. Why? To protect us? No. That's not the job of the police. It was because it's the policy of the PTB in California to foster fear and hatred of gun owners and turns a blind eye when they are oppressed

subknave
January 14, 2009, 10:39 AM
"Breaking a law does not mean you'll get arrested."

Ain't that the truth. If it happened then every criminal would be in jail. I read once that you could break any law once and stand a good chance of getting away with it. It is the people who repeatedly perform burglaries, rapes, sell drugs etc. that end up in jail. How many illegal things have you gotten away with in your lifetime? How many times do you speed before getting a ticket? That is why it is estimated that getting one criminal off the street can stop dozens of crimes.

MovedWest
February 8, 2009, 02:27 AM
Hi all,

I'm new to posting in this forum, in fact this is my very first post. The lot of you have helped me immensely when came to getting started reloading. So much that I joined the forum to give back what I've learned. It was just now that I read what the group opinion was on this event in LA. It seems like there is a bit of confusion about which laws were really broken. I was hoping to shed some light on the topic as I am very interested in the outcome on a personal level. Please read on if you're interested.

The man truly only had 16 guns with him, two of which were loaded. The assault weapon is an OLL AR, which is quite easy to modify so it is not an illegal assault weapon by Cali laws. As long as the magazine is not detachable without a tool , it can have any other "evil features" you like and not be classified as an illegal assault weapon. California law even specifies that a "bullet" is considered a tool. Google the Bullet Button and you'll find the mod. It might look illegal, but with the Bullet Button you're pretty much in the clear. Judging by what his wife said, he had one installed.

Unfortunately, the LAPD officers that inspected his cargo were not properly trained on how to identify an assault weapon. He didn't break that law, LAPD improperly enforced it.

As far as being in the airport, there are no laws that prohibit firearms except beyond the security checkpoint. But let's face it - you can't even bring a bottle of water past the checkpoint. I've shown up at the San Jose airport with a case containing a pistol, a shotgun, and ammo for both and checked them on my plane as baggage! There's no law against this as long as the guns are NOT loaded and you don't try to get them past the security checkpoint.

In my eyes as a gun owner in California, this man broke only 1 law. That is the law that says you are not allowed to transport a loaded weapon. Two of his weapons were loaded. This is a misdemeanor offense in Cali and does not warrant an arrest. But because of a lack of training of the officers, he was fingered as a felon. He is worthy of the same punishment he would get if he were caught speeding.

He entered his plea today of "not guilty" to all 11 counts pressed against him. My guess is it will all be thrown out of court if he has a decent attorney.

I'm following this case closely as I am a resident of California, a voter, and a gun owner. I even own the black rifles - legally. I agree that CA gun laws leave something to be desired, and I won't argue with the folks that poke fun at them. I admit it's frustrating. I have read about people wanting to leave the state because of the guns laws. This makes me sad because California is part of the United States of America. And the good 'ole USofA was not built by running away from our problems, but by standing up for what we believe in. If we don't like it we should fix it.

Just my 2 cents,
MovedWest

CountGlockula
February 8, 2009, 12:58 PM
In my eyes as a gun owner in California, this man broke only 1 law. That is the law that says you are not allowed to transport a loaded weapon. Two of his weapons were loaded. This is a misdemeanor offense in Cali and does not warrant an arrest. But because of a lack of training of the officers, he was fingered as a felon. He is worthy of the same punishment he would get if he were caught speeding.

He entered his plea today of "not guilty" to all 11 counts pressed against him. My guess is it will all be thrown out of court if he has a decent attorney.

I'm following this case closely as I am a resident of California, a voter, and a gun owner. I even own the black rifles - legally. I agree that CA gun laws leave something to be desired, and I won't argue with the folks that poke fun at them. I admit it's frustrating. I have read about people wanting to leave the state because of the guns laws. This makes me sad because California is part of the United States of America. And the good 'ole USofA was not built by running away from our problems, but by standing up for what we believe in. If we don't like it we should fix it.

Just my 2 cents,
MovedWest

Thanks for the follow up Moved.

Chukpike
February 9, 2009, 02:26 AM
The only law he broke was being caught by a news crew on a quite day. Know that it has been all over the news the police are obligated to try for any conviction they can get. Otherwise the news will be back claiming this "Gun Crazed Maniac" got off Scott free.
Being under the news cameras left the police with no choice but to arrest him or be depicted as incompetent.

As per MovedWest the saga continues and it will probably be another month before he gets his day in court. MovedWest update is pretty much what I said a month ago.

See my post #16 on this thread.

Yosemite Sam
February 9, 2009, 04:07 AM
Thanks for the update MoveWest. I've been trying to keep up.

Why haven't the charges been dropped yet if they've recognized their mistakes? Hope the guy gets attorney fees reimbursed when he wins.

RippinSVT
February 9, 2009, 04:25 AM
Ok guys, I am as gun-loving and anti gun-control as the rest of you...but I would call the cops too if some guy pulled up with 37 guns in his truck's cab along with loaded mags. It's not that I care that he has guns, but what in the HELL is gonna do with 37 of them at an airport? I mean, sure 2-3 guns is normal to me, but 37 is rediculous. Where would you even put them all?

jojosdad
February 9, 2009, 05:22 AM
Ok guys, I am as gun-loving and anti gun-control as the rest of you...but I would call the cops too if some guy pulled up with 37 guns in his truck's cab along with loaded mags.
Um...Why? What business it is of yours if someone has 37 or 2-3 guns? Or 37 Ipods? Why do you (or anyone else) get to decide what is normal to have with you? What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
I really think that you need to re-examine your thoughts about gun control, because what you are stating is most certainly a pro gun control position.

DRZinn
February 9, 2009, 11:03 AM
I would call the cops too if some guy pulled up with 37 guns in his truck's cab along with loaded mags.- No-one called the cops; he was stopped randomly.
- The guns were in the bed of the truck under a locked cover.

Southern Rebel
February 9, 2009, 09:29 PM
For you guys who insist he was stupid because he broke the law and should have known better........

IF the Democrats pass a law that says you MUST voluntarily bring all of your guns and ammo to your local police department for immediate destruction, I want to see you be the first in line because, after all, it will be the law and you should know better if you decide to ignore it. If you talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk!

MovedWest
February 9, 2009, 10:06 PM
I mean, sure 2-3 guns is normal to me, but 37 is rediculous. Where would you even put them all?

This exemplifies the sensationalism of the media and police when it comes to guns. The man turned out to only have 16 guns - 1 of which is black powder (IMO that shouldn't even count). How did they come up with 37? Of all the OOL's involved and not a ONE of them can count to 16?? How can we expect them to get the laws right?

...but I would call the cops too if some guy pulled up with 37 guns in his truck's cab along with loaded mags. It's not that I care that he has guns, but what in the HELL is gonna do with 37 of them at an airport?

Second amendment rights do not quantify or specify. The right to bear arms is intended to be all-encompassing.

(I don't mean to pick on you RippinSVT... I'm just setting some facts straight.)

Why haven't the charges been dropped yet if they've recognized their mistakes? Hope the guy gets attorney fees reimbursed when he wins.

I think they're trying to make some of the charges stick. Evidently because of the felony charges they were able to procure a search warrant for his home. They found a steroid there which was a controlled substance and charged him for that. It wasn't even marijuana or meth like you expect in California. It wouldn't be hard for me to believe there are liberal friends of the DA that want the courts to make an example of this fellow.

I did some research on the attorney he procured though. He's a know gun rights defender and has taken on way more serious charges than this guy has had thrown at him. He's also known for his pro bono work for clients. This will probably get thrown out, but I hope it goes to trial just so we can hear a judge publicly proclaim that what he did was perfectly legal. That will help the struggle for 2A rights.

Here are links to the story (updated Feb 5th) and a video from CBS from that day:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/OC-Man-Charged-in-LAX-Guns-Incident.html

http://cbs2.com/video/?id=89184@kcbs.dayport.com

-MovedWest

HeavenlySword
February 9, 2009, 10:54 PM
I watched the second vid and read the article and they are so biased i want to vomit

Her perfect 'illegal assault weapons' and 'he did have some liscences for some of his weapons'

MovedWest
February 9, 2009, 11:13 PM
I watched the second vid and read the article and they are so biased i want to vomit

Her perfect 'illegal assault weapons' and 'he did have some liscences for some of his weapons'

Oh yeah... It definitely takes a strong stomach to watch. No matter what reporters say, they ARE biased.

sailortoo
February 10, 2009, 12:59 AM
MovedWest & MistWolf in particular: You are very High Road, very informative, and show how some (unnamed) others on this thread could conduct both their reading of the "evidence" such as it is, and their condemnation of a person who seems to have made a mistake in judgement, rather than commit a felony. I sincerely hope whatever court case comes from this incident, is a plus for the 2A rights of California. I was born and raised there, but won't ever go back. The thought presented to "stand and fight" is appropriate for those wishing to remain there. Good Luck!
sailortoo

If you enjoyed reading about "Man arrested at LAX for having guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!