Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The 'crime' of traveling freely

Don't have time for much today, so this is just going to be a quick update to yesterday's post.

New information indicates that our "gun criminal," Phillip Dominguez, tried very hard to comply with California's byzantine, draconian gun laws, and apparently almost managed it.

Dominguez said he didn't think he was breaking any laws since all the weapons and ammo were in separate, locked boxes.
One would think that would appease the "authorities"--the guns were rendered useless for self-defense, just the way the statists like it.
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.
Well . . . yes and no. There was no threat, apparently, of the Bushmaster being used to shoot anyone, but to statist thugs bent on utter domination of the subjects . . . er, citizens, the mere possession by private citizens of an effective fighting arm is a threat (which, come to think of it, is kinda the point of the Second Amendment, isn't it?).
Dominguez said he got state permission to own and use the assault rifle last month . . .
He got permission for the exercise of that which shall not be infringed, just as the Founding Fathers intended he should have to, I'm sure.
. . . 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.
Ah--there's your mistake, Mr. Dominguez--you somehow failed to realize that when you transport a so-called "assault weapon," even if you have jumped through all the little, unconstitutional hoops, you sacrifice the right to travel freely.

By what authority does California deny that right? Don't worry about it--just do what you're told.

3 comments:

opaww said...

It seems he was with in his legal rights to me but what do I know maybe I should the light worker.

Tom said...

Yet another case of "ignorance of the innumerable laws is not a defense."

Of course, the judge and persecutors get months on end to dig through them all and come up with whatever they want to charge you with.

I hope the guy fights it, I hope the real gun groups, excluding the Not Ready to Argue buffoons, get involved and squash more BS laws out in the peoples republic of Kalifornia.

I know it does seem odd, or at least to me since I've never hauled everything out to the range at once.

Anonymous said...

The Constitutional right to travel applies to discrimination between residents of a state and non-residents, or newly arrived residents. The right that you speak of does not guarantee free passage of a resident of a state within that state. I disagree with the link you provided on the right to travel, it is overinclusive and misstated the meaning of Saenz v. Rowe in my opinion. That case establised strict scruitiny as the standard of review for residential duration requirements for state services. The constitutional "right to travel" is really a misnomer in my opinion, it would better be desribed as a proscription against states discriminating against residents of other sister states or immigrants therefrom.

I do not know what statute this fellow was charged under, or the other facts of the case, for example where he stopped off and for how long. If the statute states that it is unlawful to transport the weapon except between a gun range and one's residence, than I would agree that the prosecutor has at least a plausible argument that the statute was broken.

I think the more interesting question pertains to the search and seizure. How much infringement into the 4th amendment are we willing to tolerate to keep our airports safe? Vehicle searches without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion are going to far in my opinion. Regardless, I do think that the guy had a serious lapse of judgement, as most of us understand that we at least give up some privacy when entering an airport. Even if he thought it was legal, who wants to risk running into cops with a semi-automatic rifle in their vehicle? Just because one isn't breaking the law doesn't mean that person won't be arrested and have their life ruined by unscrupulous law enforcement officials and prosecutors with an anti-gun axe to grind.

The last thing I want to do is run into cops when I am carrying, even if I am doing so legally in a state where I am licensed to do so. You just never know how LE is going to respond.