Your opinions requested. Lawful or unnecessary risk?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Your opinions requested. Lawful or unnecessary risk?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    134

    Your opinions requested. Lawful or unnecessary risk?

    Man with guns at airport says he's law-abiding

    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.

    "I'm a law-abiding, taxpaying gun enthusiast. I have no felonies up until now," Dominguez said.

    Airport police saw it a little differently.

    "In the post-Sept. 11 (2001) environment, it is well-known by weapon owners that airports and weapons simply do not mix," said Los Angeles Airport Police Chief George Centeno.

    Today in Americas
    Illinois House impeaches Blagojevich for abuse of powerNo consensus on whether Obama's plan will workBiden in Afghanistan for talks"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 further comment Saturday was not immediately returned.

    Dominguez, 47, of Orange, said he went to the Los Angeles airport 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 laws since all the weapons and ammunition 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.

    Dominguez said he was handcuffed, taken to a jail, and held for six hours before he was booked. He was released 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 as well as about 80 guns says he doesn't blame airport authorities for stopping his truck for inspection. But he believes security should be looking for ex-felons and bank robbers. And he intends to fight.

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

    Dominguez' laywer, Bruce Colodny, said it's true that carrying weapons at airports is a sensitive subject but "there's nothing sinister about this. Despite the fact they're controversial, assault weapons continue to be lawfully possessed."


    Ok, maybe not wise to take an arsenal to an airport BUT if his weapons are all registered and legal and being transported legally which appears to be the case, then he should have been sent on his way. NOT harrassed by the Gestapo. JMO-Templar

    "Common Sense" gun laws. Common sense tells me that the gun didn't carry itself to the crime scene and pull it's own trigger. Punish the criminals, not the guns!

  2.   
  3. #2
    gpbarth Guest
    The guy apparently did nothing wrong. AFAIK, he wasn't prohibited from having guns ON airport property - he wasn't in the terminal (or apparently even near the terminal). If he was wrong, then there are a lot of people (including me) breaking the law by driving on airport property armed. His guns were properly owned, he had the paperwork, all of the weapons were properly secured, and he declared that he did indeed have weapons in the back of his truck.

    He and his lawyer should make a lot of money on this case.

  4. #3
    I am not sure what the CA laws say. If he committed a crime, then he should do the time. If not, then the authorities should be held accountable.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  5. #4

    Unnecessary risk,

    ..As Dominguez entered the airport's ring road, his truck was pulled over for inspection...
    Inspection for what? Tire Wear? When it comes to airports. A little common sense wll go a long way. But if you are already on the radar for a weapons felony, it is asking for double trouble.
    Semper Fi

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    Unless he simply wanted to be a test case, it seems kind of dumb to go testing one's luck like that.

    However, it sounds as if he were acting legally. The airport cops were probably being overzealous - too bad they likely won't be punished for it.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    733

    Angry It is starting already!

    Now they are arresting lawful owners that have broken no law!

    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    "In the post-Sept. 11 (2001) environment, it is well-known by weapon owners that airports and weapons simply do not mix," said Los Angeles Airport Police Chief George Centeno.
    And which of the 9/11 hijackers used firearms? And which penal code states that they "don't mix?" As far as I know, you can't arrest someone because they are doing something that you don't like, Chief Centeno.

    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    Dominguez, 47, of Orange, said he went to the Los Angeles airport to pick up a friend from Baltimore on Friday. They intended to go target shooting at an outdoor range in San Bernardino County.

    Dominguez said he didn't think he was breaking any laws since all the weapons and ammunition 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.

    Dominguez' laywer, Bruce Colodny, said it's true that carrying weapons at airports is a sensitive subject but "there's nothing sinister about this. Despite the fact they're controversial, assault weapons continue to be lawfully possessed."
    First, let me say that this lawyer sucks. WHY would he say that last sentence? I hope that Mr. Dominguez gets a better 2A lawyer. He is just giving more ammo to the prosecutor (sorry, couldn't help myself ) Second, it sounds like he was transporting said firearms in a safe manner consistent with laws. He also had a very reasonable excuse for having those weapons in the truck. Believe me, there were a couple of guys at my old range that would back up a rolling arsenal to the outdoor firing line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    Ok, maybe not wise to take an arsenal to an airport BUT if his weapons are all registered and legal and being transported legally which appears to be the case, then he should have been sent on his way. NOT harrassed by the Gestapo. JMO-Templar
    Although I agree with you about the harassment, I have to disagree on the wisdom. The only legal issues that are federally recognized is in the terminal AFTER the security check. Besides, what driving to the range directly from the airport would save one, two, three hours or more? (you know L.A. traffic)

    What if it was YOU with one or more firearms locked in cases (per TSA guidelines, see below) because you were headed for an IDPA shoot? The issue here is that these jackboots were unhappy with the QUANTITY of the firearms. Well, too bad for them, I say. It doesn't matter if it was one or one hundred. The guy had them legally, and he wasn't even in the terminal!

    Incidentally, Ricbak, I think you misunderstood:

    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    "I'm a law-abiding, taxpaying gun enthusiast. I have no felonies up until now," Dominguez said.
    The "now" to which he is referring is this incident, not a previous one. If he already had a felony, all of those weapons would have been illegal, and this discussion would be moot.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    This should be an interesting case. He made a mistake by declaring the firearms. If they want to inspect the bed of my truck, so be it. I woudn't volunteer any info. He's not carrying concealed, so AFIK, there's no law that requires him to declare the firearms. Sounds like all of his firearms were properly cased and unloaded. I've been stopped numerous times by airport security or police at their "check points". The take a look in my trunk and have never had any issue with my gun case or ammo, regardless of the quantity. I once had 4 cases of ammo, a few rifles and a Pelican case with 6 hadguns. They didn't ask what was in the case. All they did was look at the cases, closed up my trunk, and told me "have a good one". I didn't understand the point of the "check point", but in any case, I had no problems.

    It seems like this guy did something to provoke the officers to arrest him. Maybe he wants to be a test case or has some other agenda.

    I agree with "Boomboy", the guy's attorney needs to choose his words more carefully. The statement about "assault weapons" being "controversial" wasn't a very wise one.

    Lastly, it would help our cause if everyone stopped using the word "weapon" and began using terms like "firearm", "pistol", "rifle", etc. We should make a concious effort of not feeding the media hype by avoiding the use of the word "weapon" whenever possible. The media likes that word because it has sizzle and stirrs strong emotion. We can difuse the "anti-gun" arguments to an extent by not encouraging their desired knee jerk reactions by not using the word "weapon".




    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    If he wasn't carrying concealed on his person without a permit or in the terminal or secured area, and didn't have the firearms loaded and within reach, what did he do that was wrong? Furthermore, is it airport policy to randomly inspect vehicles passing through for apparently no reason?
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  10. #9
    If his firearms were registered as some of the articles seem to suggest then he should not have been arrested. The only way I can see it happening is if the law doesn't allow any sort of stops between home and the range, or gun store, or gunsmith, etc. All the stories point to his having no desire to harm anyone and was just picking up a shooting buddy. Here's some other articles:

    http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&cl...ncl=1291430811

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...rms-found.html

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=6596169

    http://www.ktla.com/landing_news/?Ma...315&feedID=171

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

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...jKzdQD95JTH481

    http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11416777
    Last edited by ronwill; 01-11-2009 at 09:10 AM. Reason: Added News Articles

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    553
    I do not know the Laws for CA..Sounds to me that He wanted to be the "test case" because, if I read it right, didn't he say he has done this before and never had a problem? From reading His replies to the authorities sounds like TO ME that He wanted/expected this to happen, and wanted to see what would happen. If He has all the proper paperwork etc., I do see anything wrong except trying to prove something .
    I DO agree with Glock Fan about giving out information. I do not give any out unless asked....period.
    (All the above are MY opinions/suggestions ONLY....AND, I like to bust ball's, it's called having a sense of humor. In other words, no intent to offend anyone, so get over it)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast