Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Asked to leave SeaTac Airport

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    I was picking up my grandparents at the airport around 5:00PM today and was asked to the side by plainclothes security. They summoned PoS PD, TSA and an Air Marshal. We had a nice chat, they asked for my ID. (Because my mother was with me, i decided to play nice) They then asked me to leave the premises, because 'some international passenger' was 'alarmed' that a man with a gun was not in uniform! Rather than make an already large scene larger, and embarrass my mother further. Two officers escorted me to my car. I repeatedly asked for an incident number and badge numbers but wasn't given them They knew the law and said they were recently briefed that OC was perfectly legal but that when someone was 'alarmed' they would have to escort the offender off premise. I wish I could have fought it harder on scene but it frustrates me to no end to have to put up with stupidity about the law

    I just felt like venting and letting you all know.

  2. #2
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    But you got it all on your recorder right?
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    But you got it all on your recorder right?
    I wish, it was at home

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    Sounds like you did a great job, maybe there is a little to be learned from your encounter we all could use a vision of Mom on our shoulder from time to time.

    I would follow up with contacting with their supervisors, may not do any good but still on record of objecting to your right to Bear Arms.

    The issue of scary carry is going to be with us for sometime until the legislature addresses the issue.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    Yep, you (in your own country) should have to leave the airport while legally carrying a firearmbecause someone from another country isn't used to that??????WTF! The security personnel should have told the "alarmed" foreigner that this is legal in Washington State (as well as most others) and don't worry about it.

    Why should we have our rights infringed upon because of the feelings of a foreigner???
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    The LEOs were the ones "alarmed," I bet. The foreigner was just an excuse.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    The LEOs were the ones "alarmed," I bet. The foreigner was just an excuse.
    +1. I am assuming you never removed it from your holster, or were menacing or threating any one else? There is no such thing as "scarry carry". You were either breaking the law or you weren't. I am assuming you were not.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    Nebulis01 wrote:
    I was picking up my grandparents at the airport around 5:00PM today and was asked to the side by plainclothes security. They summoned PoS PD, TSA and an Air Marshal. We had a nice chat, they asked for my ID. (Because my mother was with me, i decided to play nice) They then asked me to leave the premises, because 'some international passenger' was 'alarmed' that a man with a gun was not in uniform! Rather than make an already large scene larger, and embarrass my mother further. Two officers escorted me to my car. I repeatedly asked for an incident number and badge numbers but wasn't given them They knew the law and said they were recently briefed that OC was perfectly legal but that when someone was 'alarmed' they would have to escort the offender off premise. I wish I could have fought it harder on scene but it frustrates me to no end to have to put up with stupidity about the law

    I just felt like venting and letting you all know.
    What business does TSA and an Air Marshal have getting involved in the non secure area of an airport??? I would be filing some complaints.

    If you want more history on the airport, and their lawyer's views, send me a PM

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    That sucks. They don't "have" to do something if someone is uncomfortable. They admit to knowing the law, and acknowledged you broke no laws, and yet still violated your rights. Complaints, as unlikely as they are to do anything it seems are in order.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    olypendrew wrote:
    The LEOs were the ones "alarmed," I bet. The foreigner was just an excuse.
    +1. I am assuming you never removed it from your holster, or were menacing or threating any one else? There is no such thing as "scarry carry". You were either breaking the law or you weren't. I am assuming you were not.
    Just wandering around the concourse looking for the alaska airlines oversize baggage counter so we could pick up the dog.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    The Port's rule about guns in the airport is legally identical to Seattle's invalidated park rule.

    Is this the rule they used to ask you to leave?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    funny timing. just got this from the Port this AM

    Thank you for your patience. The Port has carefully considered the briefing and order in the case referenced in the article you forwarded. While the Port continues to believe its rule is important to ensure the comfort and safety of all persons visiting the Airport and to mitigate against terrorist threats, we have nonetheless elected to revise the rule.



    While I expect that it will be several more days before the Airport Rules & Regulations are formally revised, Section III, Rule 16.a. will be amended to prohibit the carriage of firearms except as allowed by federal and state law. To the extent that federal and state law permit a person to carry a firearm outside the secured areas of the Airport, the Port of Seattle will respect that.



    If you have any questions, please let me know.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    jddssc121 wrote:
    funny timing. just got this from the Port this AM

    Thank you for your patience. The Port has carefully considered the briefing and order in the case referenced in the article you forwarded. While the Port continues to believe its rule is important to ensure the comfort and safety of all persons visiting the Airport and to mitigate against terrorist threats, we have nonetheless elected to revise the rule.



    While I expect that it will be several more days before the Airport Rules & Regulations are formally revised, Section III, Rule 16.a. will be amended to prohibit the carriage of firearms except as allowed by federal and state law. To the extent that federal and state law permit a person to carry a firearm outside the secured areas of the Airport, the Port of Seattle will respect that.



    If you have any questions, please let me know.
    Hoorah!


    Live Free or Die!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Well that sounds promising.

  16. #16
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866

    Post imported post

    OC meet at the coffee cart in Baggage Claim? lol
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  17. #17
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    jddssc121 wrote:
    funny timing. just got this from the Port this AM

    Thank you for your patience. The Port has carefully considered the briefing and order in the case referenced in the article you forwarded. While the Port continues to believe its rule is important to ensure the comfort and safety of all persons visiting the Airport and to mitigate against terrorist threats, we have nonetheless elected to revise the rule.



    While I expect that it will be several more days before the Airport Rules & Regulations are formally revised, Section III, Rule 16.a. will be amended to prohibit the carriage of firearms except as allowed by federal and state law. To the extent that federal and state law permit a person to carry a firearm outside the secured areas of the Airport, the Port of Seattle will respect that.



    If you have any questions, please let me know.
    Great Job! :celebrate
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705

    Post imported post

    jddssc121, was that an email or was it hard copy? Who was it from? If hard copy, could you scan it (redacted if needed) and post it?

    It looks like they have gotten the message pretty well, now we just hope they act fairly quickly.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Well I'm glad the Port has finally come to their senses.

    Expect a big lobbying effort to change the preemption statute. All these municipal corporations who have been defanged by Chan will be very cross over this issue and will be out to change the law.

    (I understand that Chan is not the final say on this, but at least one powerhouse muni-corp with skin in the game has decided to abide by it for now.)

  20. #20
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    jddssc121 wrote:
    funny timing. just got this from the Port this AM

    Thank you for your patience. The Port has carefully considered the briefing and order in the case referenced in the article you forwarded. While the Port continues to believe its rule is important to ensure the comfort and safety of all persons visiting the Airport and to mitigate against terrorist threats, we have nonetheless elected to revise the rule.



    While I expect that it will be several more days before the Airport Rules & Regulations are formally revised, Section III, Rule 16.a. will be amended to prohibit the carriage of firearms except as allowed by federal and state law. To the extent that federal and state law permit a person to carry a firearm outside the secured areas of the Airport, the Port of Seattle will respect that.



    If you have any questions, please let me know.
    Sweet !!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Well I'm glad the Port has finally come to their senses.

    Expect a big lobbying effort to change the preemption statute. All these municipal corporations who have been defanged by Chan will be very cross over this issue and will be out to change the law.

    (I understand that Chan is not the final say on this, but at least one powerhouse muni-corp with skin in the game has decided to abide by it for now.)
    Fortunately, we are past cut-off and it is too late to drop policy bills. Hopefully, next year we will see a more balanced legislative body.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    Tomas wrote:
    jddssc121, was that an email or was it hard copy? Who was it from? If hard copy, could you scan it (redacted if needed) and post it?

    It looks like they have gotten the message pretty well, now we just hope they act fairly quickly.
    It was a (very long) email thread i had with the Port Counsel (w/ the Poilce Chief CC'd) that finally cumulated in what I posted above. (the first email in the thread was dated Sept 2008)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    PS - i've also asked for a copy of any training memo used to inform officers.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    hmmmm.... very interesting...

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    hmmmm.... very interesting...
    Mainsail,

    Looking at your thread and experience with the Port/Airport I didn't see the outcome/resolve?

    What was the final deal?
    Live Free or Die!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •