Dominquez case in CA

who are the arresting officers? Post their names for the world to see who the "heroes" are.

CA assault weapons law has a 'specific destination' concept in 12285PC.

It's so loose that IMHO it's unconstitutionally vague. He was indeed complying with "locked & unloaded" provisions of CA AW law.

I note that typical airport ring roads are public roads. While CA reg'd AWs are not 'truck guns' a stop at midway point B in between authorized points A & C can readily be regarded as heading for that specific destination if B isn't particularly out of the way. Hell, if someone took a slightly longer route to his destination - because, say of traffic blockages - they could be in trouble by LA's logic.

The airport is not completely prohibited from AW ownership: folks flying to/from LAX could travel with their locked, unloaded registered AWs. (I fly with reg'd AWs with some frequency, from SFO and SJC.) Perhaps I have to fly down thru LAX with my reg'd ARs so I can show them to my lawyer friends - and we can see what the LA Gun Unit thinks of that ;)

Interestingly, recent information reaching me seems to indicate a fair number of LA-area LEOs illegally possess unregistered AWs. (Cops need dept signoff paperwork to get a CA DOJ AW registration.) Many of these are Roberti-Roos 'banned-by-name' guns with paper trails [as opposed to an off-list rifle w/ added or deleted 'evil feature'. Some of these instances are due to misunderstanding, thinking LEs are exempt.
But others are blatantly violating law, relying on a 'brass pass'. Some of these cops+guns have 18 years' worth of folks witnessing them at the gun range saying things like, "I'm a cop, nobody's gonna bust me". Other witnesses have described cops buying personal off-list legally configured ARs [i.e, in non-AW configuration] at SoCal gunshops, then removing compliance parts to render them as full-house ARs *in the trunk of their patrol cars, in the gunshop parking lot*.

Bill Wiese
The Calguns Foundation
San Jose CA

Short of incorporation via the 14th this guys is hosed. Go McDonald v. Chicago! Ditto Nordyke v. King!!!!

Once again, class, no matter how innocent you believe yourself to be, the *only* answer to "May I search?" is "No, I do NOT consent to any searches."

Yeah, sometimes they've got legislation asserting that the 4th doesn't apply to a certain area, but make 'em work for it, because those areas aren't nearly as big as the areas honest folks get tripped up in.

Re: "Knucklehead bring arsenal to an airport"...any why not? An airport's just another place. People need to lose the awe of certain mundane situations and places that they attained on the bad advice of others.

That's why I don't like living out here, Kommiefornians would be shocked at DIA, when I was there I saw a lot of guns. No, Mr. Knucklehead reporter, you can bring guns to the airport.

Hopefully this guy will be vindicated.

For anyone who wants to help defray Phil's costs of defense, The Calguns Foundation is facilitating donations to his defense. Dave Hardy is correct that everything he is charged with is legal in Arizona but there are some additional issues with his case that donors should be aware of (and which preclude CGF from taking the costs on 100%.)

-Gene

I'd be screaming FOPA and federal pre-emption.

Notwithstanding any state or local law, federal law allows you to transport an unloaded and cased firearm from anyplace that you can legally possess it to any other place you can legally possess it.

And I have sadly concluded that the only correct answer to a request to search is no.

Once again, class, the State of California does not have a fence around it. The border is not lined with guard towers keeping you in. If you are a gun owner/enthusiast, why are you there?

If you have any sense at all, you will leave California now. The collapse is coming.

"I'd be screaming FOPA and federal pre-emption."

FOPA applies only to interstate travel, and then preempts only states other than the origination and destination.

Reminds me of how things used to be in Texas with handguns in cars...if you were going straight to the range and straight back and got stopped, cops would blow it off, but if you made any side trips and could not prove you were "traveling", i.e. on an overnight trip, you could be in a heap of trouble. It took 2 attempts but TSRA lobbied the Texas Ledge and got this nonsense thrown out once and for all. You can now travel in Texas with a loaded handgun in your car with no permit required, no questions asked, so long as it is kept out of sight (i.e. glove box, or in a case under the seat).

Long guns have been ok to transport around in vehicles without hindrance for some time, so this guy would be definitely in the clear in Texas as well.

Mr. Dominguez's case saddens and sickens me.

Umm...

>>[Letalis Maximus wrote:]
>> Once again, class, the State of California
>> does not have a fence around it. The border
>> is not lined with guard towers keeping you
>> in. If you are a gun owner/enthusiast, why
>> are you there?
>> If you have any sense at all, you will leave
>> California now. The collapse is coming.

California's in many ways a good place to be.

I can go down the road to any of numerous fine
restaurants. The SF Symphony is one of the worlds' greatest. The weather is great. That little thing called Silicon Valley is here too (and it's still doing fairly OK) and keeps some of us more than decently employed. And there's fewer Bible thumpers per capita.

I'd rather stay and fight, as life in Indiana or some other BFE area would not be as good. The road to full RKBA will run thru California.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Letalis M,

I'd rather stay and try to fix what's wrong than flee at the first sign of adversity. Eventually, I'd run out of space to flee, eh?

Why don't you help us out and make a small donation to Gene's foundation. We've made great strides in the last 4 years. We can continue to do so with your help.

-jdberger

"FOPA applies only to interstate travel."

Maybe, but I don't get that out of the wording of the law. It says "any place".

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.

"First sign of adversity"?

Oh. Yeah. Right. I'm buying into *that*.

I gave up my California Bar license last year after I realized that I was unlikely to ever set foot in the state again. And, more to the point, would NEVER live there under any imaginable circumstances.

I've managed to avoid New York since the Spring of 1975, I guess I can do the same for California. There really IS nothing there that isn't available elsewhere.

P. S. I've never been in New Jersey either.

Sorry people, but I was born in California and I escaped. I am one of those who say "leave".

That's right, leave. Get the Hell out. If enough of you do it. The black hole that is Cal's economy will tank even further. The tax base will wither to nothing. The Bloods, Crips and MS13 will take over, completely. That is a good thing.

Yes! It is a good thing. It will be a true and undeniably accurate laboratory whose conclusions as to the efficacy of overreaching, dictatorial government cannot be effectively disputed.

Let the elites in Sacramento, and the prosecutors' offices deal with that when they have no tax money and no tax base with which to further oppress honest men and women. Let them deal with the very real threat to their lives that criminals will put them under when there are no good people left in the state.

Some, or maybe many, won't leave. So, to Hell with them. They won't fight, they won't elect people who value them, their lives or their rights. Of course, they will be at the same risk as the LEO's and legislators once the criminals hold invulnerable sway. But, so what? Who needs them? What good are they to society, or their fellow man when they won't even stand for themselves?

Some say they would rather stay and fight. Under current conditions that is simply stupid. Scorch the earth! That's right, take away their claim on your assets, your productivity and your cooperation with which they constantly encroach upon your rights.

Leave! Leave and let them achieve the system they think they want. Then wait for them to die or see the light. Either way we will be rid of them and their tyrannical ways. At this point either way is acceptable to me. Some people just cannot be saved. Those who insist on residing in California are such people.

Sorry, if this is not sweet or "understanding" or tolerant. And it isn't. All out of those when it comes to people willingly aiding in the supplanting of liberty with tyranny. I care not anymore whether they do it out of ignorance or intent. Leave them to their wishes. We will be rid of them.

insanity, thy name is Kalifornia.

Gene, where might one find info on the "additional issues with his case that donors should be aware of"?

Amen SA, AMEN! The only thing you forgot was a dome so those who stay can't flee and spread the infection.

I put a last update on my page here:

http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/01/anti-gun-la-police-and-visit-from-swat.html

I don't know all the details, but it appears the police went through his property with a fine tooth comb and managed to find a few misdemeanors.

I have stated for many years now that California should be walled off with 20 ft. thick concrete walls around its entire perimeter. With signs every 20 ft. saying "Do not enter, insane asylum".

Or my other preferred alternative could be pursued. The Civil War settled the issue of whether a state could voluntarily secede. It cannot.

However, the question of expulsion hasn't been settled and we could just expel them from the union. Remove all interstate ties, all military assets, exept those owned wholly by the U.S. government, which would all have constabulary status, and just cut them loose.

Any idea how long it would take them to beg to come back? But if we were smart we would not allow it until the current and the subsequent generation had died off. I guarantee that third generation would have an appreciation of liberty and the concept of individual rights by then.

Surely the folks who swore to defend the US against enemies foreign and domestic will attack these brazen domestic enemies and vanquish them.

"I can go down the road to any of numerous fine
restaurants. The SF Symphony is one of the worlds' greatest. The weather is great. That little thing called Silicon Valley is here too (and it's still doing fairly OK) and keeps some of us more than decently employed. And there's fewer Bible thumpers per capita.

I'd rather stay and fight, as life in Indiana or some other BFE area would not be as good."

Sigh. This is a good part of why there is such a revulsion for California among many people. You're an RKBA guy, but other than that sound like what many consider a "typical Kali lefty" speaking of the rest of the country ("BFE") with disdain. Makes it a little difficult to work up much sympathy for you.

For all Maximus' many talents (and I believe he's a bright guy), if the founder's had the same spirit as he does, we all be singing "God Save the Queen." Ditto straightarrow. I marvel at the willingness of some of our "fellow" citizens to write off a portion of their country, whose purchase was paid for in blood. Among the other ways our neighbors have failed us is in the enforcement of the federal border of our country. Now we Californians live with millions of illegal foreign invaders that our federal government (and that is a federal responsibility folks, not a state one) refuses to evict. And so on. But we're not looking for pity. What we do want is constitutional government, where unlike our President opines, the Bill of Rights means the same thing in Chicago as in Cheyenne as in Los Angeles. Now the rest of you go back and enjoy the snow up to your collective @$$e$. I'm going for a walk on the beach today.

RKV

Um...my people didn't start out here (and the odds are your's didn't, either). My ancestors did indeed kick the Romans out of Germany. But the Kaiser's stranglehold on the country proved too much. Great grandpa got the hell out just in time to send one of my great-uncles back to fight in France, but they missed the total destruction of their old country in WWI and WWII. They missed the joy of a real "Springtime for Hitler and Germany."

Opinions can vary, but I say great grandpa made the right call. Every time I hear somebody defending California is always, ALWAYS, comes down the "weather" at the end. Every fire-trucking time. Well, weather changes from day to day. The bad government in California is permanent and the only thing you can do to get away from it is leave.

And don't blame the federal government for your immigration woes. California's congressional delegation is big enough that, if they teamed up with the delegation from TX, NM, and AZ, they could get it done. But they don't. And they won't. They won't get serious about drugs coming in from Mexico either. Why? Because if the drug money and the money illegals send back is ever cut off from Mexico, the country will collapse and then, friend, well, you ain't seen illegal immigration like you will if that happens.

So enjoy your walk on the beach. I'll enjoy my many non-registered handguns, semi-automatic military style rifles, silencers, and my transferable machine gun. You makes you choices, you lives with the consequences.

Oh yeah, and by the way, why is it that you pretty much only see this kind of crap in California?

http://projectyano.org/educationnotarms/

This is criminal abuse by the government lawyers to use the laws as a weapon on lawful citizens. I can not allow myself to follow such a law without using any common sense. This is pure BS and nothing but.
The government punks in this case are so short sighted that they have no clue the degree they are a part of in destroying this country. They are so selfish that they willingly will take a few coins of silver to destroy the country and their own children will suffer in this once great land. Despicable parasites is the nicest words for such people who are destroying our nation.

I say without hesitation or doubt, that anyone who left California because of the restrictive gun laws is a coward.

For those of you sunshine patriots who pillory those of us who remain and fight, shame on you and your despicable ethics.

You left. You're not a fighter. You're a loser. The idea of "fleeing" to avoid persecution is a false hope. You know damn well that history proves again and again that unless totalitarian behavior is stopped at its source it will spread. You can't run away fast enough or far enough to stop it from spreading.

Those of us who remain in California to fight these laws (for your benefit, I might add) need your support, not your scorn. We need lawyers, guns and money, and because you left you can't even vote.

No one likes to be called a coward, but you need to face some facts here. If you want a fight, right now here in California is where it is. This is the front lines and everytime we lose one here, it shows up someplace else, in Massachusetts, or Indiana, or Michigan.

We NEED your help to change people's minds before THE ANTI's leave and pollute Salt Lake City, or Las Vegas, or Tucson with their horrible progressive lies.

If you keep running away, they'll win. And you know it.

+1 to the philosophy of stand and fight.

What if everyone who lived in a state that was once NOT shall-issue had simply tried to move to Vermont or Alaska?

What if Marion Hammer had not spearheaded shall-issue in Florida during the mid-80's?

CA is worth the fight, and it is too important to abandon.

Approximately 10,000,000 people live in Los Angeles County alone, and like it or not LOS ANGELES is a trendsetting place.

As CA goes, so goes the USA.

Los Angeles County CA is today's "ALAMO"--would any of you like to suggest that the Alamo should have been abandoned because the fight was unwinnable and because unwinnable not worth fighting?

I didn't think so.

All pro-2AM Americans need to band together and stand together and not squabble over nonsense.

We cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought.

We all need to hang together, because if we don't hang together we will all surely hang separately.

Maximus. I take back the nice things I said about you. The Feds failed to do their job. Period. Any other words about illegal immigration are bullshit excuses.

And yeah Tarn Helm, like Ben Franklin said.

I left many years ago and not because of guns. I left because I simply did not like the culture of kneeling before Caesar. Oh, and the weather sucked. It was boring as Hell.

And no, I will not fight for those who will not fight for themselves. I will fight and have the scars and x-rays to prove it. But I will not waste effort on those who do not value themselves enough to aid in their own struggle.

California has for a long time not really been a part of the United States, she holds no American ideals, honors no concept of American liberty and therefore should be let go. She should not enjoy her large voice in national politics because she is not culturally, emotionall or ethically aligned with the nation.

I think it cowardice that Californians want the security the nation provides her, without any loyalty to the ideas of that nation. So no, I won't fight for her. I am willing to let her walk away, rather than destroy her. I think that rather generous, considering the treatment most enemies of any nation can expect.

I say the cowards are those who will not leave and try to make a life somewhere else because they don't want to suffer financial loss and or begin again. When your enemy holds all the cards, destroy the deck. That is what scorched earth warfare is all about. You destroy everything your enemy can use. You let him starve on his own aggression. When he is weak enough he loses.

If all productive people who are being abused in the state left, how long before the message is received in Sacramento that this crap is no longer viable? Not long, I wager.

But that is not what we see. What we see are people hoping to slow the encroachments just enough to live their lives in comfort and leave the mess to their children and grandchildren. That is cowardice.

RKV, you miss the point. Fact is, the CA, AZ, NM, TX, and also FL, *federal* congressional delegation has the combined numbers necessary to get the INS and the other agencies of the *federal* government to get serious about illegals if they wanted to. The bottom line is they don't want to. Now it is too late. The gun control issue isn't the only problem with California, but it is symptomatic of the disease.

Stay if you want. The collapse is coming. Don't let it crush you when it happens if you have stayed.

You ran away from the fight Maximus.

By passing a law that stopped the Attorney General of California from listing more assault weapons, the California legislature effectively legalized assault weapons in California. We're turning the tide in California. Don't abandon all hope.

Actually, I never lived there. And never will.

You're still wrong on the illegals, Maximus. Dead wrong.

Bill Wiese said:
"California's in many ways a good place to be. ... I'd rather stay and fight, as life in Indiana or some other BFE area would not be as good."

Dear Bill:

While I wholeheartedly agree about the bible thumpers, you made us read between the lines for the part about the condescention and vaingloriousness of Californians ... which really are among finer qualities of many Golden Staters. I lived in LA several years back, and need to be reminded from time to time. Thanks.

But at any rate, conceited pro-gun rights people are still pro-gun rights people. Keep up the good work. Seriously.

Critic ... you're saying that the CA legislature has overruled the National Firearms Act? They affectively legalized assault weapons in California? Excellent! Hope returns.

Well, lets do the numbers. TX has 31, NM has 3, AZ has 8, CA has 53, and FL has 25. That's 120 members. They could surely pick up a hundred or so from NY, IL, and some of the other states with illegal immigration problems to get to 218. CA currently also has the Speaker of the House among its Representatives and she claims to pack a little stroke. The Senators from those states are also fairly powerful legislators. CA has Feinstein and Boxer, AZ has Kyle and McCain, and they are all very influential Senators. Bingaman, Udall, and the two GOPers from TX aren't slouches either.

Bottom line - if that many powerful Representatives and Senators wanted it done, it would get done. They don't. And it won't.

I apologize for having referred to semi-auto rifles as Assault Weapons. I've often wondered at other gun rights supporters falling into the gun banner's trap. The big problem we have with the Assault Weapon term is that we don't have anything else good to call them. Maybe we should make a major effort to find some better description. "Semi-auto rifles" might be OK but it doesn't distinguish between hunting style semi-autos and military looking ones. "Sport utility rifle" sounds good but is a little too broad. "Military looking semi-auto" is inartful, too long, and probably not helpful politically. "Black Rifles" probably doesn't help much either. Got any ideas?

I was thinking about just getting our politicians to take back the assault weapon term. Almost all politicians support the ban on machine guns. So maybe it would be worth it to sacrifice machine guns by having gun rights supporting politicians say they support bans on assault weapons, but that the assault weapon ban doesn't ban any assault weapons, and that their opponents are trying to fool the voters by banning guns that look like assault weapons but have had their assault weapon functionality removed and thus are not significantly more dangerous than regular civilian hunting style semi-autos.

I hate to sacrifice machine guns like that, but as far as I know none of the politicians support them anyway. And a militia is probably better off without ammo wasting full auto as well.

> Almost all politicians support the ban on machine guns. So maybe it would be worth it to sacrifice machine guns

You can't "sacrifice machine guns" to do anything - they're already effectively gone. No one trades something for nothing.

> by having gun rights supporting politicians say they support bans on assault weapons, but that the assault weapon ban doesn't ban any assault weapons, and that their opponents are trying to fool the voters by banning guns that look like assault weapons but have had their assault weapon functionality removed and thus are not significantly more dangerous than regular civilian hunting style semi-autos.

"Tastes great, less filling" is the model for effective messages.