Alaska: Update "Places off limits" - Anchorage Inter. Airport and Fairbanks Inter. off lim

[david.ross]

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/aac/query=%5Bjump!3A!2717+aac+42!2E065!27%5D/doc/%7B@68960%7D?

I've provided a link above regarding the Alaska Administrative Code. Those which carry a weapon in to a department-operated terminal will result in a misdemeanor charge. Most times they do not charge the person since many officers which know about the code realize most people do not realize the Alaska Administrative Code can result in legal actions.

[mrjam2jab]

what is meant by "department-operated"?

[david.ross]

I sent off an email to Captain McGinnis after I posted, I've yet to hear a reply. I knew someone was going to ask what 'department-operated' meant.

[mrjam2jab]

I think i got it...

Dept of Transportation & Public Facilities

[david.ross]

Affirmative. The department of transportation is what the answer was when I asked the very knowledgeable Deputy Chief McGinnis. I did not understand how the section read when I first went over the text.

[scottr]

This is probably not a great way to introduce myself, but... This is my first post here, although I have read off and on for a year or so.

I got back here (opencarry) today via the Washington state forum, where they are talking about Seattle Mayor Nickels' Parks and Rec department city law that is nearly universally regarded as contrary to (and prohibited by) Washington state law. I don't want to violate Alaska Statute or Administrative Code, but am wondering how the code can have restrictions that the law does not seem to allow for.

I'm not likely to want to carry in an airport and so can't see this directly affecting me, but this seems like an administrative end-run around state law.

I followed the link provided, and included was (I bolded what I think are the relevant parts):

17 AAC 42.065. Firearms and prohibited weapons

(a) A person may not carry a firearm or prohibited weapon in a department-operated terminal building or restricted area except in compliance with any other applicable law and


(1) as authorized by this section;


(2) as necessary to fulfill a legal requirement; or


(3) as specifically permitted by law.

I understand the "restricted area" is off-limits (behind TSA security, non-public areas/'badged' access, etc.).

The non-secure area of an airport does not seem to be prohibited according to Alaska Statute. Is it by Federal?

According to AS 18.65.755 and the DPS ACHP info at http://www.dps.alaska.gov/Statewide/...p/ACHPRegs.pdf (specifically the Misconduct Involving Weapons 1st through 5th, Sec. 11.61.190-220) airport terminals are not listed.

And the ACHP would seem to be "as specifically permitted by law". What am I missing? Is this one of those 'I may be right, but it will cost money to take it to court, and I may still lose' situations?

Further, since Alaska statute allows non-ACHP concealed carry, would that not come under "as specifically permitted by law"?

When was this AAC published, and has anyone been cited? What type of misdemeanor is it?

Thanks for clarifying information.

[david.ross]

17 AAC 42.065. Firearms and prohibited weapons

(a) A person may not carry a firearm or prohibited weapon in a department-operated terminal building or restricted area except in compliance with any other applicable law and


(1) as authorized by this section;


(2) as necessary to fulfill a legal requirement; or


(3) as specifically permitted by law.

One could argue, "Where does the law anywhere specifically grant the carry of a firearm at the airport?"

This would be an issue for the courts, yes. If anyone would want to challenge such a code, they could take it to court without being charged.

Last note, I should mention this covers the two international airports. The administration code for rural airports states firearms must be unloaded and contained before boarding and aircraft. There are no apparent restrictions from carrying a firearm at a rural airport.

Also, permitted by law might be construed as a position like a law enforcement officer being granted permission to carry. How the law reads, an officer not permitted to carry on airport property would also be breaking the law, unless there is a section stating an officer must carry everywhere(broad explanation) in Alaska.

[mrjam2jab]

insane.kangaroo wrote:

17 AAC 42.065. Firearms and prohibited weapons

(a) A person may not carry a firearm or prohibited weapon in a department-operated terminal building or restricted area except in compliance with any other applicable law and


(1) as authorized by this section;


(2) as necessary to fulfill a legal requirement; or


(3) as specifically permitted by law.

One could argue, "Where does the law anywhere specifically grant the carry of a firearm at the airport?"

This would be an issue for the courts, yes. If anyone would want to challenge such a code, they could take it to court without being charged.

Last note, I should mention this covers the two international airports. The administration code for rural airports states firearms must be unloaded and contained before boarding and aircraft. There are no apparent restrictions from carrying a firearm at a rural airport.

Also, permitted by law might be construed as a position like a law enforcement officer being granted permission to carry. How the law reads, an officer not permitted to carry on airport property would also be breaking the law, unless there is a section stating an officer must carry everywhere(broad explanation) in Alaska.

Laws are by nature designed not to tell you what you can do, but what you cant do. So if there is no law forbidding an action then that action is allowed.

#3 above sounds very similar to a law in PA, saying guns are not permitted on school grounds with exception of a, b and c...where (c) reads

(c) Defense.--It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.

The carry community claim that having a carry license is considered other lawful purpose...but we cant get anybody...AG office, etc...to give an official opinion on that wording.

[david.ross]

mrjam2jab wrote:

Laws are by nature designed not to tell you what you can do, but what you cant do. So if there is no law forbidding an action then that action is allowed.

#3 above sounds very similar to a law in PA, saying guns are not permitted on school grounds with exception of a, b and c...where (c) reads

There in itself is the prohibition. They deny firearms inside the airport terminals unless specific permission by law is granted. The act is illegal by law, with permissions granted.