Marijuana Cultivation Dispute Leads to Arrest for Felony Possession of an Assault Weapon, Says MCSO

This is a press release from the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office. The information has not been proven in a court of law and any individuals described should be presumed innocent until proven guilty:

FirearmOn 10-15-2020, at about 8:39 PM, Mendocino County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to a marijuana cultivation dispute in the 25300 block of Barnes Lane in Covelo, California.

While at the location, Deputies contacted Miguel Velazquez-Garcia who resides on the property and manages the un-permitted marijuana growing operation.

As Velazquez-Garcia was showing the Deputies around the property, the Deputies observed a small plywood structure with the door open and an AR-15 style assault rifle leaning against the door.

Deputies obtained consent to search the structure and noticed the rifle had no serial numbers.

It was determined during the investigation that the rifle appeared to be homemade and is commonly known as a “ghost gun”.

The firearm was a semi-automatic center fire rifle, which did not have a fixed magazine and was equipped with a telescoping stock, pistol grip and was loaded with .223 caliber ammunition in violation of 30605(A) PC.

Deputies were able to link Velazquez-Garcia to possessing the rifle for personal protection purposes.

Velazquez-Garcia was placed under arrest and transported to the Mendocino County Jail where he was to be booked on the listed charge.

In accordance with the COVID-19 emergency order issued by the State of California Judicial Council, bail was set at zero dollars and Velazquez-Garcia released after the jail booking process.

Please visit the following link to hear Sheriff Matthew C. Kendall provide a Public Safety Message on the current COVID-19 emergency order related to zero bail:

https://www.facebook.com/MendocinoSheriff/videos/2568683186688486/

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

32 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Big Bang
Guest
3 years ago

Bummer, ‘Ole Valazquez-Valazquez sounded like such a nice chap and all…

Attention Kym Kemp
Guest
Attention Kym Kemp
3 years ago
Reply to  Big Bang

So much for Uneducated Matt Kendall being a believer in the constitution. It appears that homemade weapons are constitutionally legal. Perhaps under Uneducated Matt Kendalls Badge the constitution only applies to white ranchers, Mexicans, Indians, Latin Americans are not protected by our contitution in Sheriff Matt Kendalls racist Department….. racism is running amok in Mendocino. Kym: Can you look deeper in to the resignation of Mendocino Counties first Black Woman Police Chief in Willits. There is a big cover up taking place by the Willits City Manager meanwhile Crooked Derek Hendry who notoriously stole from growers for years and [edit] father and sister in Willits is now the interim Police Chief. Crank and Cocaime are about to get a really bad in the City of Willits, keep parents: track of your kids! Willits New Police Chief has a record of being corrupt. Now the corrupt officer is the new interim police chief…..

Prometheus
Guest
3 years ago

Spot on about homemade guns… Homemade guns are legal as long as the gun maker doesn’t sell the gun and isn’t prohibited from owning a gun, according to the ATF. Deadliest feature: They can be unpredictable.

Mendocino Mamma
Guest
Mendocino Mamma
3 years ago

Thats just a garden tool. As essential a a shovel in these parts!!!

Big Bang
Guest
3 years ago

M.M. You are the only bastion (humor goes along way) of sanity on this site! Go baby, go!!!!!!!!!!!!!

North west
Guest
North west
3 years ago
Reply to  Big Bang

I love her too She always has words of wisdom

Boo
Guest
Boo
3 years ago

It’s not illegal to make your own firearms and never has been when done correctly. The only issue was the adjustable stock and pistol grip which is literally only a commiefornia issue. Good thing the assault weapon ban is about to get shot down and bs like this won’t matter

TrashThePlanet
Guest
TrashThePlanet
3 years ago
Reply to  Boo

There’s this amendment in the thing called the Constitution that states that we have an unalienable right to possess weaponry

Weird how one small club of tiny hat wearing people have the ability to deny us our rights.

Geist
Guest
Geist
3 years ago
Reply to  TrashThePlanet

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The second amendment was written to protect the state’s ability to form militias. State militias haven’t been “necessary to the security of a free State” since the mid-1800’s, when all modern states began to maintain professional militaries.

Is “tiny hat people” the new anti-semitic dog whistle, now that everyone knows what “gLobAlIsT” means?

Edit: After a quick search, Tiny Hat People is indeed anti-semitic baby talk from the alt-right weirdos of frenworld.

Freddie
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Geist

Go back and read it again. It says “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, not “the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms”. Where did you go to school, anyway?

Prometheus
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Freddie

Spot on…

The Constitutionalist
Guest
The Constitutionalist
3 years ago
Reply to  Geist

Actually not true the constitution recognized our rights they did not give them to us . And no the second amendment isn’t about a malitia it’s about being Abel to protect against the government if it becomes tyrannical. And to be able to defend yourself from enemies foreign and domestic.

2 million people use fire arms to save there lives every year yet only 12,000 by the way of murder.

50,000 die in car crashes
250,000 doctor mistakes
1.2 million by cigs
66,000 flu

And it’s a right the government don’t give rights the constitution is the rule book for what the government can and can’t do.

Yesterdayscoffee
Guest
Yesterdayscoffee
3 years ago

2 million using firearms to save their lives? Where do you get your information?

Nuttincowboy
Guest
Nuttincowboy
3 years ago

So sorry ammosexual. That’s not what the second amendment is about. It was included in the bill of rights to mollify the state of Virginia where they were concerned about a slave rebellion. And while this may well suit your purposes, at the end of the day if you don’t have a stinking badge from that government you’re gonna take on with your AR whatevvvvverrrr you don’t have a right to own a gun.
Gun ownership is a privilege granted by custom, nothing more.
You can start the process of getting over that now.

noteverythingisaboutrace
Guest
noteverythingisaboutrace
3 years ago
Reply to  Nuttincowboy

Firearm Ownership in Pre-Revolutionary America

Firearms were quite common in the American colonies during the 18th century. Based on data of a survey conducted in New England in 1775, historian Robert Churchill discovered that somewhere around one third of free white males owned at least one firearm in New England.(1) This number might seem low since common misconceptions seem to think everyone was armed, but firearms were expensive to buy and to maintain. Unless you lived on the frontier, they were generally not necessary for a colonists’ survival. However, firearm ownership at least doubled during the earliest stages of the American Revolution.

Armed Rebellions of the Pre-Revolutionary Era

In the build up to the American Revolution, tensions grew between the common people of American society and the elite who were often viewed as manipulators of laws and wealth in order to oppress the underclasses. No better example of this can be seen than in the case of North Carolina where an armed insurrection turned the politics of the state upside-down. This insurrection is known as the Regulator Rebellion between farmers living out west and the gentry who controlled the economy and government.

These farmers, who called themselves The North Carolina Regulators, came to the state “seeking a haven for independent farming” in a state controlled by the gentry who wanted “to create a society dominated by large plantations and enslaved laborers.”[2]. When oppression escalated due to the corruption of the government (the governor even had their own elected representatives thrown in jail), these farmers took up arms against the government in order to fight to be left alone. They called themselves ‘regulators” and they wanted to regulate the government who they saw as deeply corrupt. The regulators lost their rebellion when the gentry called up a militia and marched west. The two sides clashed, leading to about three dozen dead and even more hanged in June 1771. While this rebellion may seem irrelevant, it most certainly influenced future events.

The 1780s:

The Constitution was created in 1787, but the Bill of Rights was not ratified until December 1791. Because of this, it’s extremely important to understand what was happening in America during this time period. This context is critical because it directly influence how and why the US Constitution was assembled. Economic hardships and uprisings defined the 1780s. While uprisings happened across the United States, the most famous one, known today as Shays’ Rebellion, directly influenced the creation of the Second Amendment.

Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising led by former Massachusetts militiamen and veterans of the American Revolution which took place between 1786 – 1787. Daniel Shays led several thousand ‘rebels” to fight against the economic injustices that were facing farmers and agrarian peasants all across America. (3) These farmers were experiencing extreme poverty following the end of the Revolutionary War. All across America, farmers saw their lands foreclosed on in unfair property seizures, and they wanted to fight back. They were also trying to fight taxes which were beginning to be levied against them.(4) People in rural American fought these perceived injustices in a few ways, with Shays’ Rebellion being the most violent. Shays’ Rebellion would ultimately be put down, but it startled the gentry who feared further uprisings throughout the United States.

While we call it a “rebellion” today, these men did not label themselves this way. They called themselves “regulators,” specifically they called themselves the “Massachusetts Regulation,” modeling off of the North Carolina Regulators that we saw just a moment ago.(5) This was the larger part of a trend of poor Americans fighting back against economic injustice. The idea of “civilian regulation” was catching on and becoming a popular idea for ending government corruption. They believed that if the government wasn’t regulating itself on behalf of “We the People”, then “the People” had the right to regulate, or take back the government – to take it back and do what they believed was right. They didn’t see themselves as a rebellion, but rather the gentry labeled them as such in order to de-legitimize their cause. By calling them “rebels,” neutral Americans would see these men as insurgents who needed to be stopped. But this regulation was not the only type of fighting Americans across the country participated in. Many states saw widespread revolts, with one historian explaining:

In Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, and South Carolina, protesters closed courthouses, halted sheriffs’ auctions, and threatened violence if state officials continued to confiscate property for unpaid taxes. In Massachusetts, widespread popular resistance turned to civil war. (6)

By the time the the constitutional convention convened, America was under extreme duress. In Terry Bouton’s article “A Road Closed: Rural Insurgency in Post-Independence Pennsylvania” he masterfully explained the fighting and rebellion that took place in the rural country sides of Pennsylvania that mirrored what had happened in Massachusetts.(7) The gentry were terrified that they were losing control of rural America, and as a result they would not be able to seize foreclosed land and collect taxes, which they needed. Empowering militias to be trained and carry firearms allowed the gentry to call up these men in times of need and suppress these rebellions that were taking place. The Founders knew that the only solutions were to call up militias as they had done in North Carolina and Massachusetts.

American Revolutionary veterans like Benjamin Lincoln raised a militia and mounted his own assaults against the “rebels” in Massachusetts and eventually defeated the Massachusetts Regulators in June of 1787, the exact same time that the Constitutional convention was convening. So as they begin to debate this on the national stage, especially in 1787 at the Constitutional convention, the gentry singled out Daniel Shays (even though there were actually many other leaders), and they said he was crazy and people were only following a demagogue. They hailed leaders like Benjamin Lincoln and his “Massachusetts Militia” as the victors and saviors and asserted that militias are what will save America in the future against such madness. Thus they needed to protect the government’s right to call up militias when necessary.

Writing the Second Amendment

The Bill of Rights was something hotly debated from the start. Some well-known politicians, particularly Federalists like Alexander Hamilton did not even want a Bill of Rights created, believing that it was unnecessary. Others, like James Madison, insisted that in order for all states to get behind this constitution, a Bill of Rights would be necessary. So James Madison first introduced the first draft that would become the Bill of Rights in 1789. These items then were debated, both publicly and privately, were re-written, and then incorporated in a little over two years. Of course among these became the Second Amendment.

A precedent existed at the state level for protecting militias. Multiple other bills of rights from other states had already protected a militia’s right to bear arms (such as Section 13 of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights) and many of these states were fighting to have the federal government protect this as well. Here their declaration stated:

SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.(8)

This wording is even more carefully crafted then in the national Bill of Rights. Here, they define “well-regulated” meaning they were trained my military officers. You also see that they define the purpose of it as being necessary to “defend” the state (implying against people in rebellion) and they of course explain why they feared a standing Army. Now if you examine the wording of the Second Amendment, we can see some clear similarities:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like in Virginia, “well regulated” is the key phrase. They are referring to militias led by people like Benjamin Lincoln and his Massachusetts Militia, not Shays and his “rebellion”. The idea that people need firearms to protect themselves from the government is not accurate. It was a message propagated by anti-gun control advocates of the 1980s. This “right” was crafted when rebellions were happening everywhere and the only way the government could maintain control was to make sure they could call up their militias.

It’s worth mentioning a newer theory that’s often cited these days. Carl T. Bogus, a law professor argued that slavery was a driving force behind the 2A.(9) His argument is based off of the number of slave-owning individuals in the south who were afraid of slave rebellions. It’s a plausible theory, but not one embraced by the academic historical community. No slave rebellions were ever attempted in America during this period, thus were not a serious threat.

The 2A was created out of fear of uprisings of the 1780s. The Founders protected an individual’s right to own firearms so that when threats presented themselves, they could call up militias to defend them.

Prometheus
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Nuttincowboy

You are incorrect about gun ownership…It’s an unalienable right not a privilege…Your driver’s license is a privilege.

The Bill of Rights puts flesh on the bones of those “unalienable rights” of life and liberty, and numbers “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” among them.

Why? Because the founders believed, rightly, that everyone has an inherent right to self-defense.

Angela Robinson
Guest
Angela Robinson
3 years ago
Reply to  TrashThePlanet

Scalia, in Heller, did say this about the 2nd:

“not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Matthew E Chen
Guest
Matthew E Chen
3 years ago
Reply to  Boo

Can I ask you out you sound great. Im dead serious

JanetCrosbee
Guest
JanetCrosbee
3 years ago
Reply to  Boo

The state actually now required homemade guns to have a serial number.

HOJ in Training
Guest
HOJ in Training
3 years ago

Covelo back in the news yet again. Way to go!!

Apparently, Mendocino needs to substantially raise the grower fees to possibly “weed out” some of this riffraff BS.

Pelosi feeds us.
Guest
Pelosi feeds us.
3 years ago

Typical Democrat. Take your freedoms away Raise the fee’s and over regulation to get rid of the riff raff . I think it’s time to step up to the oppressive Democrats in commifornia, who keep the downtrodden going

Coyote
Guest
Coyote
3 years ago

And while you take an us and them stance to fuel the infighting the fox is in the hen house. From a Democrat Coyote with a loaded 1911A1 in reach. Sorry to pop your Republican’s narrow minded bubble, brother. GROW WISE and live long.

Geist
Guest
Geist
3 years ago

Reagan signed the act that made it illegal to open carry in CA. Reagan signed the act that made new machine guns illegal to own. Reagan endorsed the Brady Bill. Tell me more about this amazing political party you have.

Prometheus
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Geist

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by then governor of California, Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were lawfully conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.

Nuttincowboy
Guest
Nuttincowboy
3 years ago

Typical republican. Angry, prone to violence and utterly devoid of factual information. You have no idea what communism is. You just think any person who expects responsible adult behavior from you is a commie coming for your guns.
It’s good to see propaganda is still effective on the simple minded. But there’s no need to worry. Eight years of Obama and you still have your guns. Behave responsibly and you’ll still have them eight years from now.

TrashThePlanet
Guest
TrashThePlanet
3 years ago

It’s crazy how the right to bear arms doesn’t even apply in this fucking country anymore let alone California

Geist
Guest
Geist
3 years ago
Reply to  TrashThePlanet

Yeah, its almost like nobody’s used self-armed militias to defend their country for 200 years.

The Constitutionalist
Guest
The Constitutionalist
3 years ago
Reply to  TrashThePlanet

And you think that why ? The government don’t own the people

burblestein
Guest
burblestein
3 years ago

Indeed, there is an amendment to the constitution that modifies the militia’s right to bear arms. Number two.

Coyote
Guest
Coyote
3 years ago

States rights collide with the Constitution on a regular basis. This is due to US living in and with the adversarial system that the founding fathers assumed from the British. It’s a us versus them mentality that preoccupies the people with infighting while the fox is in the hen house. I’ve got a pistol grip on my 1911A1 .45ACP along with detachable magazines loaded with 185 gr +P and have had for the last 48 years. I have presented it several times in my life to some evil hombres and that stopped progress of any problem with them. Stay strong; stay safe. We’re responsible for our own safety from harm from anyone, especially the government. Police are law-enforcement not required to protect anyone. One gun-toting Democrat here.

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago

Punish criminal action (assault robbery etc) but mere cultivation and mere possession for self defense should be no crime.

Atson
Guest
Atson
3 years ago

Amazing so many people are pro freedom in Humboldt! Everybody needs to be heavily armed. It has always been that way in Hum. I always use to carry a loaded 12 gage sawed off shotgun on the dash of my car. Never thought anything of it? You never know when you are going to need one at a garage sale? The cops saw it and didn’t care! The Hum Sherifs department use to understand freedom. I wonder if they still do? I hope so. Not all cops are bad and this from an old hippie.