A Weapons Conundrum at LAX

It may seem difficult to believe, but there was a time when the discovery of an arsenal the size of Kulp's might not have stood out as outrageous. Back in 1975, for example, nearly 400 people were arrested at LAX for trying to carry or pass weapons through airport security screens. By 1982, that figure had dropped to 140, according to airport statistics, even though that was a year marred by a drug-related shootout, a hijacking attempt and the separate planting of two explosive devices at LAX. Last year, just 89 people were arrested for firearms violations at the airport.

The bad news was what happened to Kulp--practically nothing. After considerable confusion at LAX, Kulp was allowed to board a flight to Minnesota, albeit without his cache of armaments.

Confusion still reigns among local and federal authorities over whether Kulp could have been arrested on the spot at LAX or at least held in custody. State law requires that police officers personally see a suspect in the act of placing bags containing weaponry on the conveyor belt before an arrest can be made. At least that was the on-the-spot interpretation, even though Kulp openly acknowledged that the bags were his.

A logical response from Minnesota authorities would have helped, but their take was even more ridiculous. Yes, Kulp was wanted there on an outstanding warrant for threatening police officers. No, they wouldn't come here to take custody of Kulp because they only extradite suspects caught within two states of Minnesota. So even though Kulp had been trying to go home armed for who knows what purpose, the forewarned Minnesota authorities didn't even meet him at the airport. He was eventually arrested, but what kind of response is this in a nation that has been repeatedly warned about the need for tighter airport security?

Small wonder, given all this, that John J. Driscoll, executive director of LAX, wants a straightforward solution: Amend the state's concealed weapons law to allow airport officers to make an arrest when they have reasonable cause to believe a passenger is carrying a weapon. There was certainly probable cause enough in this case. A carefully and thoroughly worded amendment is in order.

Ruth Galanter, chair of the City Council's Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has scheduled a second meeting for Oct. 21 on the airport incident to consider a change in the law and related matters. It would be nice to get this problem fixed before the next heavily armed fugitive shows up with a boarding pass.