Originally Posted by
PTravel
Well, sorry, but I believe you're reading it wrong (though it would take examination of the legislative history to prove it). "by assaulting a Federal, airport, or air carrier
employee who has security duties within the airport" is a subordinate clause that modifies "a person." Phrased another way, the plain meaning of the statute is: People who commit assault and (1) interfere with the
performance of the duties of the employee or, (2) lessens the ability of the
employee to perform those duties," are liable under the statute. It doesn't make any sense your way, i.e. If you commit assault AND interfere, or, if you lessen the ability of an employee to perform duties, you're liable.
I agree with your interpretation, and it's mine as well. However, for those who may or may not have become confused because the concept of "subordinated clause" is unfamiliar
, I'd offer the following explanation:
The statute applies to one who "interferes with the duties of the employee
or lessens the ability of the employee to perform those duties" and does so
by assaulting said employee. Hence, if you either lessen the ability of the employee to perform their duties or lessen their ability to do so by means other than assault, then the statute and penalties contained therein do not apply.
I should add that there is a common misconception that assault must involve physical contact, though the intention to commit some kind of physical battery is necessary (so you don't actually have to hit the employee for a prosecutor to invoke the statute).