He's not allowed to cruise around with this weapon according to the laws.
Although the weapon was legal, he can only go to and from a range,
Not the airport. This guy screwed up and challenged the laws he already knew.
But that's the point. He claims he did not know the law. And "Ignorance is no excuse" assumes that a law is knowable. If a law is vaguely worded or if its existence is not publicized, then ignorance does become an excuse. If the State lists illegal activities on an "assault" rifle registration, and leaves that one law off the list, then he can argue that the law was hidden from him and thus was unknowable.
I don't think the military uses AR-15's.
Well, here’s what the law actually says:
“(7) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed gun dealer...”
Strangely, it does not say “without stopping”, or “directly” or any other such thing. I know that the California AG wants it to say that, but it does not. Do you think that a good defense lawyer can’t convince just one juror that that this guy should let off the hook?
That is alright, if CA pushes this he becomes another test case for incorporation. I would think the whole thing gets thrown out under probable cause. The airport drop off lane is not a secure area and they have no reason to check vehicles there.