Arrested, Un-arrested, and Trespassed from SeaTac Airport

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.

imported post

section 3-16 of their rules and regs. [size="-1"]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....

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.

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 answer is yes and preemption does "preempt and repeal" this rule.

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.

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?

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.

imported post

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



Edited for spelling

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

imported post

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

imported post

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

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?

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.

imported post

Go get 'em, Mainsail.

imported post

Good luck, bro.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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......."

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. :banghead:
There is like disarray at bag claim time. :banghead:
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.