Update on Phillip Dominguez case
Sensibly Progressive has update. I blogged about his case a few days ago -- Mr. Dominguez is a law-abiding construction company owner, who owned a registered "assault rifle," which in California he could legally take from his house to a shooting range. He was going shooting with a friend who was arriving by plane, and was arrested at the airport on the apparently claim that by stopping at the airport in the middle of that drive he broke the law.
The update notes that they followed with a SWAT raid on his house and seizure of all his (legal) firearms, and those of his family.
Fortunately, he's got some first rate firearm attorneys. If you'd like to contribute to his defense, click here.
UPDATE: Mr. Dominguez writes:
Thank you for all of your support, I can't wait to tell all of you the whole story and all that my family has been through and all that I have learned over the past few weeks.
It may shock you to learn just what your tax dollars are doing for you, and what lengths some will go to force their agendas, legal or not.
My lawyer will prepare a statement and it will be made available after Feb 6th.
This is outrageous. These folks who are attacking this man are are poster children for "Enemies, Foreign".
Posted by: Robert at February 1, 2009 01:46 PM
This is the same in NJ - if you stop anywhere on the way to or from the range they can arrest you because the way they interpet the permit.
This is a warning that the ranges and clubs give new members from what I understand.
Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2009 07:40 AM
The city of Denver used to be somewhat like this before preemption. They didn't arrest you for stopping, but they would call the range you said you were going to and make sure you actually showed up. If you didn't, they'd specifically come looking for you.
Thanks to our last Republican Legislature for pre-emption!
Posted by: Steve W. at February 2, 2009 04:21 PM
"It may shock you to learn just what your tax dollars are doing for you, and what lengths some will go to force their agendas, legal or not."
Sadly, I would not be shocked.
Posted by: TJP at February 3, 2009 06:59 PM
Wouldn't the Federal Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 provide protection to Mr. Dominguez? Specifically:
§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
(Emphasis added). Note that by its language, this protection ("from any place") is not restricted to interstate transportation.
Posted by: Kevin P. at February 4, 2009 09:06 PM
nope, it has been repeatedly ruled that FOPA does not apply unless you are crossing state lines
Posted by: chris at February 5, 2009 02:53 AM
This case makes me more pessimistic about America's future. As an entrepreneur, an employer, a family-man, etc, Phillip Dominguez is the sort of man who helped make this country great. And our public servants are attacking he and his family, taking his property and threatening his liberty. I can't believe the media is mocking him and not criticizing the public servants tormenting him. He even jumped through all of their unconstitutional (and irrational) laws!
The LEO's and politicians attacking him define 'Enemies.... domestic'.
Posted by: HTownTejas at February 5, 2009 12:45 PM
I wish Mr. D the best, hope he wins his case. I couldn't blame him if, after all this mess is eventually over he does the next sensible thing and moves to Texas, or Montana, or Alaska....but on the other hand, only people like Mr. D will be able to change California from within.
Posted by: JJR at February 6, 2009 07:14 AM
How exactly did they find out he had it?
Do they do car searches up there?
Posted by: CB at February 6, 2009 05:43 PM
It was a "random checkpoint" at the airport of questionable legality. However, who'd question the legality of it. The same DA who jumped at Phil Dominguez's case?
Posted by: n at February 8, 2009 02:47 PM