Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Everett Station & Spokane Amtrak Station

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Stevens
    Posts
    72

    Everett Station & Spokane Amtrak Station

    Rode the train and found some interesting signs:



    He first sign I found off to the side in Everett Station and the second I found on the back side of a pillar in Spokane... Easily noticeable if you're disembarking from the train, but not so much if you came in the front door. Neither location had no gun signs on the doors.

    Both of these signs seem to be lies, but perhaps I'm missing a federal law? I'm gonna be without a computer for a few days and so it's hard to look into it on my phone. Does anyone know?

    If it is wrong, who's the right person to contact here?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by jfslicer View Post
    Rode the train and found some interesting signs:



    He first sign I found off to the side in Everett Station and the second I found on the back side of a pillar in Spokane... Easily noticeable if you're disembarking from the train, but not so much if you came in the front door. Neither location had no gun signs on the doors.

    Both of these signs seem to be lies, but perhaps I'm missing a federal law? I'm gonna be without a computer for a few days and so it's hard to look into it on my phone. Does anyone know?

    If it is wrong, who's the right person to contact here?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I challenged them about that on Everett while OC. I was catching a metro bus. The lady said it was the company policy. I asked what law it was due to the wording on the sign.

    I guess you would have to contact their corporate lawyers.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    I find it interesting that the second sign actually says "All persons, their belongings, and packages, are subject to being searched at any time."

    If this has no legal backing, then there is no way they can do it. If there is some sort of law that allows this, then how does this not outright violate the constitution? It just boggles the mind.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    I find it interesting that the second sign actually says "All persons, their belongings, and packages, are subject to being searched at any time."

    If this has no legal backing, then there is no way they can do it. If there is some sort of law that allows this, then how does this not outright violate the constitution? It just boggles the mind.
    Greyhound is a private company they may set any rules they like, purchase a ticket and abode by their rules.
    One of the biggest problems I see currently in this country is people thinking private businesses are subject to Constitutional rules.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Greyhound is a private company they may set any rules they like, purchase a ticket and abode by their rules.
    One of the biggest problems I see currently in this country is people thinking private businesses are subject to Constitutional rules.
    What I was meaning is... They claim that "law" allows them to perform searches. But there is no law that allows such. If there was a "law", it would be invalid and ruled as a warrentless search. They can demand to search my person and my belongings all they want. I don't have to comply. All they can do is ask that I leave. If they get law enforcement involved to force a search, then law enforcement needs RAS, and refusing to comply with a search when no other legal reasoning for a search would then place the law enforcement at risk of a lawsuit.

    "We need to search your and your belongings sir." "Um... nope." "You have to comply, it's the law." "Um... nope."
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Greyhound is a private company they may set any rules they like, purchase a ticket and abode by their rules.
    One of the biggest problems I see currently in this country is people thinking private businesses are subject to Constitutional rules.
    While it's true that private businesses aren't generally subject to the Bill of Rights amendments, that's mostly because they lack the authority to compel anyone to do much of anything. A police officer has the authority to compel a search under certain circumstances, but is forbidden to do so under others. A private company that attempts to compel a search is, at a minimum, committing assault -- possibly also unlawful detention/kidnapping, robbery or coercion/extortion.

    A company may have a contractual agreement with you that you will permit searches, but if you refuse to allow a search they can't force you to comply, their remedy is to stop doing business with you. If you are on their property, they can kick you out (trespassing laws) but they can't hold you down and search you against your will.

    That's WHY the Bill of Rights amendments don't apply to private businesses very often -- they don't have to.

    It is worth noting, that if they DID claim the law gave them the right to compel a search and did so, they could be in violation of federal law -- Title 18, Section 242 criminalizes rights violations under color of law, not actual official authority.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    What I was meaning is... They claim that "law" allows them to perform searches. But there is no law that allows such. If there was a "law", it would be invalid and ruled as a warrentless search. They can demand to search my person and my belongings all they want. I don't have to comply. All they can do is ask that I leave. If they get law enforcement involved to force a search, then law enforcement needs RAS, and refusing to comply with a search when no other legal reasoning for a search would then place the law enforcement at risk of a lawsuit.

    "We need to search your and your belongings sir." "Um... nope." "You have to comply, it's the law." "Um... nope."
    Agreed.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    While it's true that private businesses aren't generally subject to the Bill of Rights amendments, that's mostly because they lack the authority to compel anyone to do much of anything. A police officer has the authority to compel a search under certain circumstances, but is forbidden to do so under others. A private company that attempts to compel a search is, at a minimum, committing assault -- possibly also unlawful detention/kidnapping, robbery or coercion/extortion.

    A company may have a contractual agreement with you that you will permit searches, but if you refuse to allow a search they can't force you to comply, their remedy is to stop doing business with you. If you are on their property, they can kick you out (trespassing laws) but they can't hold you down and search you against your will.

    That's WHY the Bill of Rights amendments don't apply to private businesses very often -- they don't have to.

    It is worth noting, that if they DID claim the law gave them the right to compel a search and did so, they could be in violation of federal law -- Title 18, Section 242 criminalizes rights violations under color of law, not actual official authority.
    Private businesses are never subject to the Constitution or BofRs.

    Title 18, Section 242 criminalizes rights violations under color of law, not actual official authority.[/QUOTE] You should study that a bit more, Greyhound searching you does not violate your constitutional rights in any way because you only have the right to be free from unreasonable government searches. You have rights in regards to the government not other people. Title 18 Section 241 would better suit your argument, at least it covers individual people, but they would have to be depriving you of the ability to exercise a right(s) regarding the government such as preventing you from voting.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    The problem I have is the terms of service is not revealed until after you purchase the ticket.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Private businesses are never subject to the Constitution or BofRs.

    Title 18, Section 242 criminalizes rights violations under color of law, not actual official authority.
    You should study that a bit more, Greyhound searching you does not violate your constitutional rights in any way because you only have the right to be free from unreasonable government searches. You have rights in regards to the government not other people. Title 18 Section 241 would better suit your argument, at least it covers individual people, but they would have to be depriving you of the ability to exercise a right(s) regarding the government such as preventing you from voting.
    If Greyhound wants to attempt to hold me down and search me, they will find that while I am not a particularly aggressive man, Aikido was made for multiple attackers and I am adequate in my skill in it. If they feel the need to commit assault and attempted robbery, I will feel compelled to hospitalize as many of them as is necessary. If I feel I am at risk of great bodily harm or death, well, like many people here on OCDO I carry a firearm and know how to use it.

    I don't need to reread 18 USC 242, but you may want to read it at least once -- since you obviously didn't read it at all. It criminalizes violations of constitutional, statutory, civil and traditional rights under color of law. Color of law violations occur when someone claims to be acting with the authority of the law backing them, but is in fact breaking that law and violating rights.

    If you didn't have the right to be free from assault and robbery, those things would not be illegal -- nor could you sue the criminal for committing them against you.

    You also have 241 and 242 backwards. Section 242 covers individuals, 241 is the conspiracy version of the statute.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    If Greyhound wants to attempt to hold me down and search me, they will find that while I am not a particularly aggressive man, Aikido was made for multiple attackers and I am adequate in my skill in it. If they feel the need to commit assault and attempted robbery, I will feel compelled to hospitalize as many of them as is necessary. If I feel I am at risk of great bodily harm or death, well, like many people here on OCDO I carry a firearm and know how to use it.

    I don't need to reread 18 USC 242, but you may want to read it at least once -- since you obviously didn't read it at all. It criminalizes violations of constitutional, statutory, civil and traditional rights under color of law. Color of law violations occur when someone claims to be acting with the authority of the law backing them, but is in fact breaking that law and violating rights.

    If you didn't have the right to be free from assault and robbery, those things would not be illegal -- nor could you sue the criminal for committing them against you.

    You also have 241 and 242 backwards. Section 242 covers individuals, 241 is the conspiracy version of the statute.
    First off making threats in a public forum is not advisable. Secondly I have read Title 18, Section 242 many times over the years, one not only has to read it one has to understand it.


    You need to understand what the phrase under color of law means, Greyhound nor its employees can act under color of law so the entire is meaningless in the context you are citing it.

    The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.
    Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Color+of+Law

    Greyhound and greyhound employees are not officers of the state, therefore Title 18, Section 242 does not and can not apply to Greyhound.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    First off making threats in a public forum is not advisable. Secondly I have read Title 18, Section 242 many times over the years, one not only has to read it one has to understand it.


    You need to understand what the phrase under color of law means, Greyhound nor its employees can act under color of law so the entire is meaningless in the context you are citing it.

    The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.
    Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Color+of+Law

    Greyhound and greyhound employees are not officers of the state, therefore Title 18, Section 242 does not and can not apply to Greyhound.
    Making threats in a public forum? What threats? Since when is stating that you will act in full accordance with the law a threat?

    If Greyhound and its employees are not state actors, then they lack the authority to compel a search, and doing so anyway falls under the laws prohibiting Assault, Unlawful Detention and/or Kidnapping and Robbery. If they do have the lawful authority to compel a search under certain circumstances and use it unlawfully, then they are subject to 18 USC 241 & 242.

    There is no such thing as a person exempt from all laws in a constitutional republic.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    First off making threats in a public forum is not advisable. Secondly I have read Title 18, Section 242 many times over the years, one not only has to read it one has to understand it.


    You need to understand what the phrase under color of law means, Greyhound nor its employees can act under color of law so the entire is meaningless in the context you are citing it.

    The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.
    Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Color+of+Law

    Greyhound and greyhound employees are not officers of the state, therefore Title 18, Section 242 does not and can not apply to Greyhound.
    The idiots who created the signs, said that the law required it. Thus acting under color of law.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    First off making threats in a public forum is not advisable. Secondly I have read Title 18, Section 242 many times over the years, one not only has to read it one has to understand it
    To hold someone down and search them would certainly be classed a assault and possibly at a stretch attempted robbery. Those crimes do indeed allow force to be used. In fact any unconstitutional search is classed as assault and warrants the defense of ones person.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Making threats in a public forum? What threats? Since when is stating that you will act in full accordance with the law a threat?

    If Greyhound and its employees are not state actors, then they lack the authority to compel a search, and doing so anyway falls under the laws prohibiting Assault, Unlawful Detention and/or Kidnapping and Robbery. If they do have the lawful authority to compel a search under certain circumstances and use it unlawfully, then they are subject to 18 USC 241 & 242.

    There is no such thing as a person exempt from all laws in a constitutional republic.

    I give up, do as you please, think what you want.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    To hold someone down and search them would certainly be classed a assault and possibly at a stretch attempted robbery. Those crimes do indeed allow force to be used. In fact any unconstitutional search is classed as assault and warrants the defense of ones person.
    If you think this "I will feel compelled to hospitalize as many of them as is necessary." will not be used against you in a court of law you are naive. How does he know he will have to escalate the use of force to the level of hospitalizing as many of them as necessary? A prosecutor will say his actions were premeditated and a jury will likely agree since he did.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The idiots who created the signs, said that the law required it. Thus acting under color of law.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    The idiots that created the signs are not government officials, they can not act under color of law.

    The conduct of a police officer, judge, or another person clothed with governmental authority that, although it superficially appears to be within the individual’s lawful power, is actually in contravention of the law. For example, a police officer who makes a false arrest while on duty, or while off duty but when they are wearing a uniform or badge, is acting under color of law. In some circumstances, the phrase also applies to the conduct of private individuals that is specifically authorized or approved by a statute. Depriving a person of his or her federal civil rights under color of law is, in and of itself, a federal crime and a ground for a cause of action. Also called under color of law. If the conduct violates a federal civil right or criminal law, it is also called state action.
    Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/color-...9PybfULqRR1.99

    Nothing the Grayhound people are doing is approved by statute, one example that is approved by statute that I can think of in Washington is detaining a shoplifter.
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 03-06-2016 at 12:57 AM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    certainly not. Taking as many people out as possible is revenge not self defence. One should only use what force is required to remove the threat to ones life or safety. To take as many people out as possible is no better than the maniacs who go on shooting sprees.

    Sent from my HTC Desire 626s using Tapatalk
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  19. #19
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I give up, do as you please, think what you want.
    I'll think what I want because your reading of the law is mistaken and mine is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    If you think this "I will feel compelled to hospitalize as many of them as is necessary." will not be used against you in a court of law you are naive. How does he know he will have to escalate the use of force to the level of hospitalizing as many of them as necessary? A prosecutor will say his actions were premeditated and a jury will likely agree since he did.
    Um, why are you even HERE? If you believe that using appropriate, proportionate force in self defense when the victim of a violent assault is not justified, there's little point in you ever carrying a weapon. If it is not necessary to hospitalize someone, then it would be an unlawful use of force to do so, just as it would be an unlawful use of force to shoot someone if the situation does not warrant it. By the standards of premeditation you are using, all open carriers should leave their guns at home because otherwise any use of their firearm would equal premeditation. Any training with the weapon would equal premeditation. Buying a weapon would equal premeditation. A police officer being armed in public would be premeditating violence. In fact, only someone who doesn't know what guns are and carries theirs simply because they think it is pretty wouldn't be guilty of premeditation under that bizarre interpretation of the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    The idiots that created the signs are not government officials, they can not act under color of law.

    The conduct of a police officer, judge, or another person clothed with governmental authority that, although it superficially appears to be within the individualís lawful power, is actually in contravention of the law. For example, a police officer who makes a false arrest while on duty, or while off duty but when they are wearing a uniform or badge, is acting under color of law. In some circumstances, the phrase also applies to the conduct of private individuals that is specifically authorized or approved by a statute. Depriving a person of his or her federal civil rights under color of law is, in and of itself, a federal crime and a ground for a cause of action. Also called under color of law. If the conduct violates a federal civil right or criminal law, it is also called state action.
    Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/color-...9PybfULqRR1.99

    Nothing the Grayhound people are doing is approved by statute, one example that is approved by statute that I can think of in Washington is detaining a shoplifter.
    While it is easiest for a public official to commit a color of law violation as compared to a private citizen, it's not exclusive to public officials. Anyone who claims to be applying the law as they violate rights has committed a color of law violation. Whether they actually have the authority they claim is irrelevant, since the nature of the violation is unlawful acts against rights.

    In order to detain a shoplifter, a store owner or employee must meet certain requirements. If they do meet all of them, they may detain someone in a slightly-enhanced form of citizen's arrest. But they can't search the person they detain to discover what the person stole or where the person is carrying it -- if they don't already KNOW both without searching, then they lack the authority to detain the person at all. If they fail to meet even one requirement, they've committed a crime rather than a lawful detention.

    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    certainly not. Taking as many people out as possible is revenge not self defence. One should only use what force is required to remove the threat to ones life or safety. To take as many people out as possible is no better than the maniacs who go on shooting sprees.
    If you truly believe that, then you should not carry a firearm in public. A gun is a tool of deadly force -- you do not draw one unless you need it, and having drawn it, you only use it if you continue to need it. But with the attitude you claim to have, that inflicting more than token harm to an attacker is revenge rather than self defense, you would never be able to justify using deadly force. If I were you, I'd stick to pepper spray.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    If you truly believe that, then you should not carry a firearm in public. A gun is a tool of deadly force -- you do not draw one unless you need it, and having drawn it, you only use it if you continue to need it. But with the attitude you claim to have, that inflicting more than token harm to an attacker is revenge rather than self defense, you would never be able to justify using deadly force. If I were you, I'd stick to pepper spray.
    I am well aware that a firearm is a deadly weapon and well aware when it should and should not be used. I have zero issue using one to defend against criminals whether they be civilian or government. In fact multiple times I've used state statutes to show that using one in defence of ones self during an illegal search or seizure or worse is perfectly legal, much to the horror of those who think submission is the best course of action and allowing themselves to be assaulted, kidnapped and then extorted for money for exercising their rights. You could not be more wrong about me. I'm a dangerous extremist who actually dares to believe the Constitution is supreme

    Sent from my HTC Desire 626s using Tapatalk
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •