Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 239

Thread: Arrested, Un-arrested, and Trespassed from SeaTac Airport

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    I’m waiting to talk to Lonnie and an attorney before going into too many details. Decide for yourself whether or not you should carry in the airport until we get this sorted out.

    They put on a big public show of disarming me and pulling me into the stairwell -separating me from my minor child. There they decided that what the TSA told them was enough to arrest me so they cuffed me and took my cell phone and wallet, patted me down (missing one item). My son, unbeknownst to me, began to video tape with his phone as soon as they disarmed me, so they harassed him. They did pat him down while we were separated.

    I was told (among other things) that Port of Seattle property does not allow firearms. I was told that if I came to the airport with a gun again I would be arrested for criminal trespass. I was given a stern lecture and escorted to my car where my handgun and ammunition were placed in the trunk.

    I don’t mean to be a tease but that’s probably all I should say for now.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    section 3-16 of their rules and regs. www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/Rulereg.doc

    16.Firearms and Explosives:
    a. No person, except for Port of Seattle Police Officers, Port of Seattle Certified Wildlife Hazard Management personnel, and fully commissioned law enforcement officers, shall carry firearms on the Airport. Other persons authorized by municipal, state, or federal government carrying firearms on the Airport in performance of their official duties shall have prior approval from the Port of Seattle Chief of Police.

    So they question is...is the port of seattle public property? if so, state preemption invalidates this rule....

  3. #3
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I knew TSA wasn't all that smart, but I thought that Port Authority had their poop together. Talk about a forehead slapper.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  4. #4
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    jddssc121 wrote:
    section 3-16 of their rules and regs. http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/Rulereg.doc

    16.Firearms and Explosives:
    a. No person, except for Port of Seattle Police Officers, Port of Seattle Certified Wildlife Hazard Management personnel, and fully commissioned law enforcement officers, shall carry firearms on the Airport. Other persons authorized by municipal, state, or federal government carrying firearms on the Airport in performance of their official duties shall have prior approval from the Port of Seattle Chief of Police.

    So they question is...is the port of seattle public property? if so, state preemption invalidates this rule....
    The answer is yes and preemption does "preempt and repeal" this rule.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  5. #5
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    RCW 9.41.300
    1(e)
    The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    just sent this email to the port. let's see if i get an answer

    Can you please clarify your policy regarding Firearms at the airport? Specifically carrying a legally owned firearm within the non-secure (e.g. baggage claim) areas of the airport? I see that your rules and regulations document states that this is prohibited, but WA State law (RCW 9.41.290 & RCW 9.41.300) invalidates this policy as the port is public property. Could you please inform me as to why the airport has this policy?

  7. #7
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    The Port of Seattle, is supported by Tax Levy's, the Port Commission are elected officials, has it's ownpolice department trained and commissioned by the State of Washington and has to hold meetings to get public comment on things it wants to do.

    I would say that qualifies them as a government agency and the airport would then be public property. Full State Preemption would apply there.


    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  8. #8
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    It will be interesting to see how many zero's fit on a Port of Seattle check....



    Edited for spelling
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  9. #9
    Regular Member Shy_Panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    Have fun with this one... I can't believe that you are still getting hassled. Perhaps if you were to change your screen name to Hasslehoff and wore a t-shirt that said "Don't hassle the hoff" they might reconsider their illegal position before acting. After all only Chuck Norris could ever get away with hassleing the hoff.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    I knew TSA wasn't all that smart, but I thought that Port Authority had their poop together. Talk about a forehead slapper.
    They don't have their poop together. I can't find enough bad words in my extensive vocabulary of bad words to properly describe my opinion of the Port Of Seattle (POS) Palice Dept.

    Back in the Eighties there was a rape case on POS property where the victim said her attacker drove a Citation. POS police arrested the first guy they found (fitting age and other broad descriptions) driving a Citation. They absolutely refused to check out a list of other Citation owners, refused to find other exculpatory evidence or even listen to that which was offered to them, and insisted on a trial, where he was found innocent.

    The wrongly accused man was helped by a Seattle Times reporter who acted as a private investigator. This launched the reported's (new) career as PI, and would have been the stuff for a movie except that the wrongly accused man died of congestive heart failure at age 35, reportedly due to the effects of long term stress.

    This account is entirely from memory of newspaper articles read at the time of their occurrence. It is therefore subject to the usual errors of memory and inaccurate original reporting. Additionally, I think that the falsely accused brought about some of his own trouble by not having the proper mind set. By that I mean that when they accused him of the crime he should have gone right back at them, rather than taking to heart what they were trying to put in his head.

    MD

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    One moment please . . . .

    This issue of administrative gun proscription on public property is not yet settled. The only case I'm aware of where a member of the public was trespassed for carrying a gun in the normal public areas of public property while there on legitimate business is Estes. We lost that one.

    The issue probably won't be settled until this Seattle/Nickels thing gets sorted out. For all of you to say that what happened at KSEA is clearly a violation of state preemption is hubristic.

    Post it as your opinion and buttress it with something other than a cut and paste of the RCW, but don't pass it off as fact when it may not be.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    WOW I guess I got lucky in the airport. good luck i hope all works out for you

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    There was a posting a few weeks ago about someone who OC'ed at SeaTac without any problems. What changed?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    It sounds like some over zealous TSA morons got their 2 cents in, but we won't know until Mainsail posts the details. I'm thinking about sending them the following email:
    As a responsible gun owner and law abiding citizen, I had a few questions regarding the wording of your firearms policy:
    16. Firearms and Explosives:
    a. No person, except for Port of Seattle Police Officers, Port of Seattle Certified Wildlife Hazard Management personnel, and fully commissioned law enforcement officers, shall carry firearms on the Airport. Other persons authorized by municipal, state, or federal government carrying firearms on the Airport in performance of their official duties shall have prior approval from the Port of Seattle Chief of Police.

    1. “…shall carry firearms on the airport.” Please define “on the airport.” Does this apply to legally armed citizens who are picking up family or friends who happen to be armed while waiting (circling) in their vehicle outside the baggage claim area on the lower level? What about the “cell phone waiting” lot?
    2. Also addressing the same wording, what about a person who is legally carrying a firearm, drives into the parking area to park their vehicle, and chooses to leave their firearm inside their locked vehicle. Would this be considered against your policy?
    3. Lastly, also addressing the same wording of “on the airport” would it be legal to carry a firearm (openly or concealed) into the baggage claim area or any other that is not behind the security checkpoints?
    I understand that you have your own Rules & Regulations, however I am also aware of another regulation that seems to conflict with the wording of your current policy:
    RCW 9.41.300
    1(e)
    The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process.
    These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.
    I would appreciate a response clarifying Section 3-16(a) of your Rules & Regulations, specifically regarding and defining “shall carry firearms on the Airport.”

    Anyone have an opinion of my wording? Should I send it over?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    Sending them emails at this point isn't going to help anything and is probably premature. Please wait until we can get all the players involved and up to speed.

    They just called to inform me that they are sending it to the prosecutor as a violation of RCW 941.270; my actions (sitting in a chair chatting with my son) warranted alarm for the safety of others in that time and place. It’s up to the prosecutor now.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Go get 'em, Mainsail.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    Good luck, bro.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    Sending them emails at this point isn't going to help anything and is probably premature. Please wait until we can get all the players involved and up to speed.

    They just called to inform me that they are sending it to the prosecutor as a violation of RCW 941.270; my actions (sitting in a chair chatting with my son) warranted alarm for the safety of others in that time and place. It’s up to the prosecutor now.
    I can see where they would prosecute under .270. After all, if sitting in a chair talking with one's son doesn't warrant alarm, what would? sarcasm/off.

    Seriously, it sounds as if a few people need to be schooled in the definitions of "warrant" and "cause". RCW 9.41.270 wouldn't be so badly written if it weren't being read by unreasonable morons.

    MD

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Agreed, I will hold off. Seriously though, I can't believe they are forwarding that over to the DA. Anyone with a half a brain should be able to see that their policies directly conflict with the RCW.

    Not to mention, about the part in the RCW that talks about "warrents alarm.... a resonable person.... blah blah." Yes, sitting in a chair with a gun on your hip is not an everyday occurance, but it doesn't even come close to "warrenting alarm."

    What about golf clubs? 'OMG, THAT MAN... HE HAS CLUBS... A WHOLE BAG OF THEM... AGHHHHHHH... RUN FOR YOUR LIFE......."



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Skagit Valley, Washington
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    It seems to me their wording is vague and doesn't fit or encompass all conditions.
    I have "carried firearms on the airport" many times, and never had an issue.
    The long arms were cased, locked, and unloaded.
    There is usually confusion when I want to check them for the flight. They stumble along, trying to figure out what the correct procedure might be.
    Then proceed to do it incorrectly, sometimes inconveniencing me in the process.
    There is like disarray at bag claim time.
    Cases are to be in the baggage check area, not the carousel. It can go either way. One needs to be present when the carousel starts.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. You've been at the wrong end of the stickwith people who don't know what they are talking about before, (and won) so I have faith that the same will happen in this case. In light of the recent SCOTUS ruling, I would have thought that POS authorities would be smarter than to step on the toes of 2A'ers (did I just coin a new term?) without being totally sure of what they were doing. You have already won. The only variable is how long it will take for the paperwork to catch up with that fact.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    jddssc121 wrote:
    section 3-16 of their rules and regs. http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/Rulereg.doc

    16.Firearms and Explosives:
    a. No person, except for Port of Seattle Police Officers, Port of Seattle Certified Wildlife Hazard Management personnel, and fully commissioned law enforcement officers, shall carry firearms on the Airport. Other persons authorized by municipal, state, or federal government carrying firearms on the Airport in performance of their official duties shall have prior approval from the Port of Seattle Chief of Police.

    So they question is...is the port of seattle public property? if so, state preemption invalidates this rule....
    The port is a government, taxing agency (like Metro)and as such has to follow state law. So they were totally out of line and have no right to tresspass anyone for a gun, much less detain, arrest, unarrest, etc. Why don't these morons loose their jobs over this stuff? Is no one accountale for their actions when working for the government?The next guy hired would here why he has tthe job and not screw up.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    Flanders007 wrote:
    Anyone with a half a brain should be able to see that their policies directly conflict with the RCW.
    You said it and you didn’t even realize it. For all their ranting and lecturing about how my carry in the airport was illegal under POS laws or regulations, they’re not sending it to the prosecutor that way but as a violation of RCW 941.270. Duplicitous, no?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    For all their ranting and lecturing about how my carry in the airport was illegal under POS laws or regulations, they’re not sending it to the prosecutor that way but as a violation of RCW 941.270.
    The P. of S. is not a municipality or county. They can't make criminal code. If they can't make criminal code, they certainly can't prosecute under code they can't make.

    If we were in Virginia, I think we would see the state level gun rights organization go to court immediately to stop this. Why don't we do that here? Are our organizations not mature enough yet? Are they impotent when it comes to civil litigation? Do we have a different court system that makes the law suit approach impractical? What is it?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    Flanders007 wrote:
    Anyone with a half a brain should be able to see that their policies directly conflict with the RCW.
    You said it and you didn’t even realize it. For all their ranting and lecturing about how my carry in the airport was illegal under POS laws or regulations, they’re not sending it to the prosecutor that way but as a violation of RCW 941.270. Duplicitous, no?
    That won't fly either and they are morons to try. Judge "What happened?" Idiot cop " Well this guy was walking thru the airport with his gun in a holster and we busted his ass." Judge"Wasjust walking, not threating anyone or anything like that?" Idiot cop "NO." Judge "Cased dismissed." That is if your attorney let it go that far. which I doubt. I'm sure you will have a nice check from the port when the dust settles.

    This charge you with something other than they originally nailed you for, just means they screwed the pooch big time and are trying to harrass you into rolling over for them and not taking them to the cleaners in civil court.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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