• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arrested, Un-arrested, and Trespassed from SeaTac Airport

G

G20-IWB24/7

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
886
Location
Tacoma, WA, ,
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.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

jddssc121 wrote:
section 3-16 of their rules and regs. [size=-1]http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/Rulereg.doc[/size]

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....
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mainsail

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
imported post

Flanders007 wrote:
Anyone with a half a brain should be able to see that their policies directly conflict with the RCW.
Click to expand...
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?
 
D

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ghosthunter

ghosthunter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
283
Location
MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
imported post

I wish I could figure out how to provide a link, butI just read this today. Font Page of USA TODAY Newspaper. TSA is trying to ban firearms across the nation from any airport's property.

Some where back east they just got the right to pack on transit and folks started carrying at the airport back there.

Sorry no link but I am sure someone here can provide it.
:what:
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

ghosthunter wrote:
I wish I could figure out how to provide a link, butI just read this today. Font Page of USA TODAY Newspaper. TSA is trying to ban firearms across the nation from any airport's property.

Some where back east they just got the right to pack on transit and folks started carrying at the airport back there.

Sorry no link but I am sure someone here can provide it.
:what:
Click to expand...
Until they actually pass such a law, they have no authority to say crap about anywhere outside the secure areas at this time. I would like them to explain how this action would make anyone safer?
 
jbone

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

M1Gunr wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you remind them of this?
 
D

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

Did you remind them of this?
Click to expand...

That's all well-and-good, but not relevant. He's not being charged with a 9.41.300 violation, and 9.41.300 doesn't prohibit political subdivisions of the State proscribing guns in an administrative way. See my previous post this thread.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
Did you remind them of this?
Click to expand...

That's all well-and-good, but not relevant. He's not being charged with a 9.41.300 violation, and 9.41.300 doesn't prohibit political subdivisions of the State proscribing guns in an administrative way. See my previous post this thread.
Click to expand...
Then you are claiming that State preemption RCW 9.41.290 doesn't apply to RCW 9.41.300? Are you nuts? Nothing in RCW 9.41.300 says anyone can ignore RCW 9.41.290. Man, you sound like Mayor Knucklehead and I don't have to follow state law because I disagree with it. Your think absolutely amazes me!
rolleyes.gif
 
C

czth

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
17
Location
Duvall, Washington, USA
imported post

Krinkovliu wrote:
There was a posting a few weeks ago about someone who OC'ed at SeaTac without any problems. What changed?
Click to expand...
That was me (and ironically I was confident in doing it because Mainsail had posted about doing it). I guess we both were lucky in the past. I hope it all works out for you, Mainsail, with a minimum of inconvenience and a maximum of compensation.
 
Gene Beasley

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
Mainsail, this sucks in a major way.My hope is that the prosecutor does not file. Nobody wants to be a test case.

I agree with deanf; Estes, even though unpublished,left this as unsettled law. It was cited by the City of Federal Way in my ongoing discussion, believe it came up in the Everett Library discussion, and I'm sure influenced the decision for Nikels to put forth his EO on Seattle city property (though I think they only actually cited PNSPA v. City of Sequim).

Keep in mind that just like Heller, any legal action will be for Mainsail's best interest. This may not necessarily address administrative rule-making and whether that is a violation of 9.41.290/300. Yes, it would be nice to get that settled, but if the prosecutor decides to file charges, then Mainsail needs all the backing, individually and from our divergent state gun rights groups. Perhaps that will require us to apply some pressure to organizations to which we are members.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

czth wrote:
Krinkovliu wrote:
There was a posting a few weeks ago about someone who OC'ed at SeaTac without any problems. What changed?
Click to expand...
That was me (and ironically I was confident in doing it because Mainsail had posted about doing it). I guess we both were lucky in the past. I hope it all works out for you, Mainsail, with a minimum of inconvenience and a maximum of compensation.
Click to expand...
I heard from a little birdy that the cops screwed up big time on this one.
 
D

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

Are you nuts?
Click to expand...
Again, not relevant.

Bear, I will quote,as a courtesy, my previous post in this thread so you don't have to figure out how to read it again:

"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."
 
Gene Beasley

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
czth wrote:
Krinkovliu wrote:
There was a posting a few weeks ago about someone who OC'ed at SeaTac without any problems. What changed?
Click to expand...
That was me (and ironically I was confident in doing it because Mainsail had posted about doing it). I guess we both were lucky in the past. I hope it all works out for you, Mainsail, with a minimum of inconvenience and a maximum of compensation.
Click to expand...
I heard from a little birdy that the cops screwed up big time on this one.
Click to expand...
As in they should have made an arrest?
 
Bill Starks

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

There was a posting a few weeks ago about someone who OC'ed at SeaTac without any problems.
Click to expand...
July 15th I was there waiting on my kids to arrive. I was there at 3:30pm and due to issues in NY they did not arrive till midnight. Other than some wided eyed stares it was uneventful. I even passed thru security with my belt and holster (gun in truck) attached to my person.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

Gene Beasley wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
czth wrote:
Krinkovliu wrote:
There was a posting a few weeks ago about someone who OC'ed at SeaTac without any problems. What changed?
Click to expand...
That was me (and ironically I was confident in doing it because Mainsail had posted about doing it). I guess we both were lucky in the past. I hope it all works out for you, Mainsail, with a minimum of inconvenience and a maximum of compensation.
Click to expand...
I heard from a little birdy that the cops screwed up big time on this one.
Click to expand...
As in they should have made an arrest?
Click to expand...
Not hardly, the cops screwed the pooch big time.
 
Gene Beasley

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Sorry for the confusion, but when you quoted the other incident in which no one was arrested while carrying in the unsecured area, I thought that's what you were talking about. So you mean they screwed the pooch on Mainsail's arrest? Could it be that the forwarding of the information to the prosecutor is just an attempt to lend some legitimacy to their actions in Mainsail's event?
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

Gene Beasley wrote:
Sorry for the confusion, but when you quoted the other incident in which no one was arrested while carrying in the unsecured area, I thought that's what you were talking about. So you mean they screwed the pooch on Mainsail's arrest? Could it be that the forwarding of the information to the prosecutor is just an attempt to lend some legitimacy to their actions in Mainsail's event?
Click to expand...
The info I have is they have no case and violated the law. With the "unarrest" (that's a term I never heard of in my life)they demonstrated they we wrong and are just trying to cover their sorry butts. Astandard cop practice when they are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top