“He just made a very bad decision and should not have been carrying those weapons.”
A man who was apparently just showing up at Los Angeles International to pick up someone who was arriving on a flight was stopped at a vehicle checkpoint and arrested after 16 guns were found in his truck. The guns were in a container “in the back of his truck” according to the story.
The man was arrested for investigation of felony transporation of an assault rifle, he said.
Police initially reported that 37 weapons were found in the truck. Castles said that count was an estimate based on the number of containers in the truck, which did not all contain weapons.
Holcomb said there was no indication the man was out to do any harm at the airport and was apparently there to pick up someone.
“He just made a very bad decision and should not have been carrying those weapons,” Holcomb said
So the police acknowledge that there’s nothing that leads them to believe he was doing anything threatening and the weapons were in a container in the back and yet he “should not have been carrying those weapons.” Why? I’m curious what “felony transportation of an assault rifle” is all about. I’ll have to check on that and get back with you.
My initial feeling on this is pretty much outrage because a law-abiding citizen who’s not threatening anyone should be allowed to keep and bear arms. That said, it’s pretty much common knowledge that airports are places where federal, if not state, regulations are far more severe about carrying weapons. I don’t know enough about the situation yet to have a good sense about whether the cops really just overstepped the line the law permits but I’m going to pursue and find out.
If any of you readers have an insight into the felony law they’ve referenced, let us know in the comments.
Comments
Comment from Bob James
Time January 12, 2009 at 10:35
…and you’d be wrong, jonolan. Last year’s SCOTUS decision explicitly removed the concept of militia and/or military service as a requirement for the “bear arms” clause. The 2nd Amendment protection for the “keep and bear” right extends to all citizens whether or not they serve, have served or intend to serve in military capacity.
Although I disagree with the Supremes on their interpretation, it is no longer open to question. That question was *answered*, after 200+ years of back-and-forth argument. Barring a future Supreme Court overturning the decision, it is done.
The case in question, if you’d like to read up on it, is District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), and there is a nice synopsis on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Comment from jonolan
Time January 10, 2009 at 09:28
While I agree with your summation of the events, I think you shouldn’t emphasize “bear arms” as the justification of your stance.
The right to “keep arms” is the art of the 2nd Amendment that covers this situation. The right to “bear arms” is the right to serve under arms in the military and/or militia. It was set up so that people couldn’t be turned away from military service based on religion.
If you wish, go here for my long ramble on this topic.