Man with 21 guns at airport: I'm law-abiding

[CybrSlydr]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28589280/

[quote]Man with 21 guns at airport: I'm law-abiding

FBI, LAPD, ATF investigating after pickup driver's 'very bad decision'


http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gifupdated 7:56 p.m. ET, Sat., Jan. 10, 2009

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.

"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-style 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' lawyer, 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."[\quote]


I hope all he gets is a stern talking-to by a judge and a slap on the wrist if he is in legal posession of all those firearms and is properly registered.

[CybrSlydr]

Especially considering how they were stored (locked in separate boxes) and his cooperation (giving keys and combinations willingly).

[chemlite]

Cullyfawnia has some totally stupid gun laws. If the guy broke them, based on the story he's still on the right side of the US constitution which should trump the nanny-state at every turn.

[CybrSlydr]

Cullyfawnia has some totally stupid gun laws. If the guy broke them, based on the story he's still on the right side of the US constitution which should trump the nanny-state at every turn.

Proving that sounds like a long and expensive process.

[chemlite]

Proving that sounds like a long and expensive process.

And it will be. Mr Dominguez will lose his guns and truck, though he very likely will not be found guilty of the felony transportation charge. Once the state has your stuff, they are loath to give it back. He will be made to feel grateful that he "got off", and told to go away.

[CybrSlydr]

Disgusting, isn't it?

[Willy]

In my experience, once the police confinscate a gun, you'll play hell ever seeing it again.

[Foggy]

They'll melt the guns down and make steel manhole covers out of them. Standard operating proceedure and been doing it for years.

When I walk across manhole covers - I wonder how many valuable antiques are in the mix.

Any assault convictions in my state - the local police confiscate by warrant ALL guns from the convicted person's place of residence. Including antique collections. This includes misdemeanor convictions.

Also misdemeanor drug possession - they won't take the car but any guns are confiscated at said residences. And the residences are completely trashed in the search. They don't clean it up afterwards either.

Felony drug convictions - vehicles and guns are bye, bye. This even before court dates are set.

Don't know this first hand - but know it second hand.

[kurt190]

It's nice to see that citizen's rights are not being stamped on in the home of the free......

Of course it couldn't happen in the UK because the only people who could possibly have guns like that are either the governnment forces or the criminal element. Actually I'll rephrase that - the only people who could possibly have guns like that are the criminal element.

kurt

[Toastmaker]

And it will be. Mr Dominguez will lose his guns and truck, though he very likely will not be found guilty of the felony transportation charge. Once the state has your stuff, they are loath to give it back. He will be made to feel grateful that he "got off", and told to go away.



I understand how you feel re; gun ownership, but the above is just not true - as you wrote it. Let me explain;

In California (as in most states) this case will result in the impoundment of the vehicle and weapons/ammo as evidence relative to the criminal charge filed against their owner.

If he is not indicted, the state MUST return all property that is not illegal to otherwise own. This is true even if he is indicted, yet later found to be not guilty at his trial. The only time firearms that are legal to own are destroyed (or otherwise not returned to a criminal defendant) is if he is found guilty of an offense involving said firearms.

I've seen many incidents in which, for example, a subject is arrested for DWI but he's carrying or transporting a firearm with a carry permit or in another legal manner. The weapon will be impounded and held at central evidence until the subject is either released (found not guilty or only fined) or completes his sentence, as long as it is under one year of confinement. He can then recover his legal firearm afterwards.

The State of California, nor any other state, arbitrarily permanently confiscates legally owned firearms not used in the commission of a crime.

[Willy]

I do know that in the early 80s, it was amazing how many confinscated weapons the Miller County Sheriff's department in Arkansas had come up with no record of. Especially if it was a really nice or expensive one.

My younger brother was pulled over with our Mom's expensive Browning 22 rifle in back window of his truck. They claimed the gun was loaded and confinscated it. When me and Mom went up there to see about getting it back there was "no record" of it and the arresting officer claimed no knowledge of it. Even in court when my brother's case came up. The judge went right along with it covering that deputies butt. Never did make sense to me why a fine had to be paid for a loaded gun that supposedly didn't exist. Mom hired a lawyer afterwards, but she never saw that gun again.

And her's wasn't the only one like that. I know of several similar cases back then.

[Toastmaker]

Willy, what I wrote above does not take into account theft committed by the authorities. That's what it sounds like your mom and brother experienced.

[bzhyoyo]

trust the word of a police officer, eh?
this kind of thing makes me mad.

[chemlite]

I would like to trust the word of a police officer. On balance, I think I can.

However, human beings tend to identify with systems they serve and they tend to adopt the ideologies of those systems; often to the point of surpassing the ideologies they serve.

California has some uber-****ty gun laws. Limp-wristed, nanny-state, sociology 101, perfection of humanity through legislation stupid gun laws. The legal system that enforces those laws has a reputation among gun owners as being over-zealous, arbitrary and capricious in its operation.

Toast, I know you were an officer of the law (LA, yes?), and I mean no disrespect (though I think you won't take any). I know the way the system is supposed to work. But supposed to and does are often two different things. I am cynical about Californian gun legislation in action. I hope I am wrong.

[Toastmaker]

No offense taken at all, Chemlite. And I heartily agree that California gun laws are almost a legal absurdity. However, I'm comfortable reporting without apology that in L.A., certain segments of society receive more, how shall we say, vigorous enforcement of gun laws out of a very real sense of self-preservation.

In my experience, law abiding citizens legally carrying or transporting firearms have absolutely nothing to fear from the police with regard to confiscation or refusal to return legal weapons after their evidentiary need has ended.