Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 72

Thread: Incident on the M.V. Kittitas, Washington State Ferries

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    This is really a rough draft of what happened, I'm putting down as much as I can. It's a long read considering.

    WSP/WSF Incident, 4/29/2007, 1PM Ferry Crossing Clinton, Mukilteo:

    1:05PM, Ferry leaves dock at Clinton to Mukilteo, I decide to go upstairs to get a snack.

    1:10PM, I attempt to get a Snickers bar out of the vending machine. It did not give it to me, I decided to find another vending machine on the ship, and there was none.

    1:15, I notice that several WSF employees were walking around me, keeping within eyeshot. I decide to go back to my car to see if this was a fluke.

    1.18, I notice WSF ferry employee come by my car and then announce that there was a “man with a loaded weapon” over his com, apparently believing that I was not able to hear,. At this point, I asked my companion in the car to leave and go to the passenger disembarking area, as I felt like I was about to be surrounded by cops and to keep him out of the situation.

    1:20, I take the Federal Way and Bellevue training bulletins out of my envelope, and I got outside of my car. I ask the WSF employee who was taking pictures of my license plate: “Sir, are you looking for me”? He responds: “Yes I am”. I then proceed to tell him that what I was doing was legal and tried to show him the bulletins, and he stated “The state patrol is on their way, you may want to give it to them”.

    1:22PM, I decided that I was not going to go back into my car and have a situation escalate from a possible having a gun pointed at me from outside the car, I decided to stand in front of my car, to where they can see me entirely rather than in my car where they can't. I had Officer M.A. Walstad of the VATS/Homeland Security Division of the State Patrol stop me and ask what I was doing.

    He asked me for my ID and CPL. I gave him it due to the fact that A) I was operating my motor vehicle and B) I was riding in a “vehicle” per state law and therefor required to carry my CPL. He asked me to go into my car and wait for him. Approximately 3 minutes later, he knocked on my window and I rolled it down.

    This is one situation where I wish I had an A/V recorder. My memory of the situation has faded slightly, but here are some of the highlights of what I can remember:

    “Interpretation of this law doesn't mean that you didn't break any laws”
    “The situation with the Virginia Tech shooting has made everyone uneasy”
    “It wasn't a smart thing to carry your weapon openly, if someone feels threatened, I could shoot you first and ask questions later” <--- big WTF here
    “Also, I do believe that in areas of public transportation guns and other weapons are not allowed” <---- this is so not true, but I did not challenge him on this point.

    I did keep calm on the situation, and I did not smart off or talk back, other than tell him that the Ferry system did have an issue with this 10 years ago and then again after 9/11 5 years ago that firearms possession was legal on the ferry terminal despite statements by some Ferry officials. During this point my companion arrived back because he did not know where the passenger disembark area was (He's only done drive on ferry trips). I did notify the officer that he was a passenger.

    He then asked me to drive (he still had possession of my drivers license and CPL) to near the terminal as close to his patrol car as possible and to wait for him near the patrol car (they had to load on cars for passengers going out to Clinton from Mukilteo), so I did so. After seeing me there, he stated that he needed to call things in (My guess is that I was being checked for warrants and probably a supervisor) and asked me to wait in my car. I left for my car and waited with my companion.

    Approximately 10 minutes later he arrived back at my car and I rolled down my window. He explained to me that “As far as I can tell, you haven't broke any laws”. “You have to consider that in this day and age, people are going to be concerned and call the cops”, “I will be conferring with ferry officials because we seem to have some confusion as to what the rules are.”. Keep in mind I did not get into discussions much about the pros and cons of open carry, as it is irrelevant to the stop. I basically kept things simple, brought up the discussion from 10 years ago and 5 years ago, pointed out the signs, and pointed out the bulletins.

    He stated that he may contact me later if there's a rule that was missed and let me know what that rule was. I stated OK, and he stated I was free to go and handed off my ID and CPL.

    Left for a gathering in Bellevue (not open carry related), and I then went home.

    I decided to sleep for a bit, and I woke up to my companion waking me up and telling me that the State Patrol officer was at the door, I put on my clothes (with my carry rig) and walk out to there.

    He told me that he had forgotten to ask for my phone number, that he was profusely apologetic for showing up at my door.

    He stated that he had gotten the word from a supervisor in charge of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal (not the Captain of the M.V. Kittitas), and that he had stated that due to the nature of open carry being possibly alarming, Captain's permission is required to open carry due to rules. I asked for a copy of these rules, and I was told this: “Unfortunately, despite my best efforts I could not get him to hand me an actual copy of the rules stating that they could do that. I am trying to get a copy of the rules myself because I'm also rather frustrated that they could not provide it”.

    He stated also that he has to enforce the Captain's discretion, and that it is a crime to disobey the Captain's order to leave the vessel if one is discovered and told to leave.

    I told Officer Walstad that I would be addressing the issue with the Ferry System because they could not do that due to state preemption. He stated that at this point, it's out of his hands and more in the WSF's hands. I asked for a business card, gave my good byes, and he left.

    That being said, Officer Walstad did treat me better after appearing near his car, and waiting in the car near the terminal for the second time. At no time did he disarm me, though he made questionable statements.

    I do believe that there are two reasons why the WSF employees freaked out more so than the previous times I've open carried:

    1) I was alone. On the ferry crossing to Clinton on Saturday, I was with my partner and we were friendly with each other (though certainly not profane, mind you, more hand holding and hugging from the romantic nature of crossing the river). This time around, I was up getting a Snickers bar (I am a hopeless addict of this candy).

    2) Sunday may have had a lot more people in it.

    Just as an extra, I also have a theory as to why Walstad did not disarm me or otherwise give me a really hard time. Instead of sitting in the car, I decided to wait outside of my car, with papers in hand. Instead of hiding away, I had confidence that I was right and that he would see it that way legally. When he asked what I was doing, I stuck with the legal fact and the bulletins and did not go into any "It's my right".

    He did ask for my gun's serial number the second time he made contact, but I told him that I didn't remember it (and that's the truth). He did not take it for himself.

    I think a lot of this was the fault of the WSF more so than WSP. Though the WSP officer made questionable statements, if the WSF had not have a big deal over it, nothing would have happened.

    WSF Requiring Captains Permission to open carry is a problem that will be delt with administratively. I am readying a letter to the WSF.

    Hindsight is always 20/20, and I realize that I might have made a few mistakes. One of the chief among them was not going to the crew outright at the beginning and saying "Hey guys, I'm legal, here's the training advisories" instead of going back to my car. However, again, it doesn't excuse their unacceptable behavior.

  2. #2
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    ...and that he had stated that due to the nature of open carry being possibly alarming, Captain's permission is required to open carry due to rules.
    The captain of a state owned vessel does not have the authority to trump state laws IMHO.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    The only boat you can't take a gun onto is a riverboat casion, but I'm in Indiana.



    This sounds shifty to me, no smoking signs are everywhere now, people dont kill people by throwing their smokes at them, so why not a no firearms sign, I wouldn't go if they had the sign, but it would make things much easier.

    Although I assume the people who are easily frightened to begin with would be scared just seeing the sign.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Where to begin.....

    1. You have a CPL. Why weren't you carrying concealed?

    2. Preemption is of local governments (cities, counties). It does not impact the ability of the state or its agencies to exercise their authorities. Training materials for local PD are irrelevant.

    3. You might have been violating federal law. You were on a common carrier. Please don't argue that everything happened within Washington. Admiralty on navigable waters is a federal area (possibly in addition to state).

    4. Your comments about your behavior with your "partner" and the fact of open carrying indicate that you have a look-at-me attitude combined with a desire to flaunt your "rights" in people's faces - even if subconciously.

    I'm glad things worked out well but I think you ought to do a little reflecting (as we all should from time to time). Now tell me where I am in error.



  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    Where to begin.....

    1. You have a CPL. Why weren't you carrying concealed?

    2. Preemption is of local governments (cities, counties). It does not impact the ability of the state or its agencies to exercise their authorities. Training materials for local PD are irrelevant.

    3. You might have been violating federal law. You were on a common carrier. Please don't argue that everything happened within Washington. Admiralty on navigable waters is a federal area (possibly in addition to state).

    4. Your comments about your behavior with your "partner" and the fact of open carrying indicate that you have a look-at-me attitude combined with a desire to flaunt your "rights" in people's faces - even if subconciously.

    I'm glad things worked out well but I think you ought to do a little reflecting (as we all should from time to time). Now tell me where I am in error.

    My 2 cents on your questions/comments:

    1. Why should he need to hide it?

    2. Don't know.

    3. Don't know

    4. I didn't get that from the OP at all. At what point is being open and standing up for your rights considered "flaunting"? Fifty years ago would you have said he was getting "uppity"? Does he need to be "put in his place"? Since when is having a certain attitude a requirement to express your Constitutional rights?

    Reflecting works best when looking at your own reflection.

    LoveMyCountry

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    Where to begin.....

    1. You have a CPL. Why weren't you carrying concealed?

    2. Preemption is of local governments (cities, counties). It does not impact the ability of the state or its agencies to exercise their authorities. Training materials for local PD are irrelevant.

    3. You might have been violating federal law. You were on a common carrier. Please don't argue that everything happened within Washington. Admiralty on navigable waters is a federal area (possibly in addition to state).

    4. Your comments about your behavior with your "partner" and the fact of open carrying indicate that you have a look-at-me attitude combined with a desire to flaunt your "rights" in people's faces - even if subconciously.

    I'm glad things worked out well but I think you ought to do a little reflecting (as we all should from time to time). Now tell me where I am in error.

    1) The Concealed Pistol License acts as an open carry license in a vehicle here in Washington. Why are you asking this question on an open carry enthusiast's forum?

    2) That is not correct. The Department of General Administration had to repeal it's rules against firearms possession on the Capitol Grounds due to state preemption issues a few years ago. Not only that, about 10 years ago a WSF security manager attempted to put in a gun ban, but it was quickly quelled because of preemption.

    3) As far as I know, you don't live in Washington so you it is quite likely that you do not understand what the Washington State Ferries function as. The WSF acts as an extension of the state highway system. There was no violation of federal law here, because WSF is not a common carrier, but a state public transportation agency.

    4) The time that the WSF employees had called in the State Patrol, I was alone and not with my partner. I put in that information to contrast an issue: When you're alone, it may cause an issue. When you're with family or with someone else, it tends to get ignored. Now personally I think whether alone or with someone else, the WSF employees should have known better and not called the cops. apjonas, it sounds like you have a personal problem. I suppose if I were with a woman you wouldn't have had a problem.


  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    3. You might have been violating federal law. You were on a common carrier. Please don't argue that everything happened within Washington. Admiralty on navigable waters is a federal area (possibly in addition to state).
    Huh? No federal law bars gun carry on common carriers.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    As Lonnie said WSF is bound by all Washington State Laws. If it were a federal maritime law that was broken then the Coast Guard would have had to respond asit would have been outside of the jurisdiction of the WSP.



    Please RTFM before you respond in a asinine manner.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    As Lonnie said WSF is bound by all Washington State Laws. If it were a federal maritime law that was broken then the Coast Guard would have had to respond asit would have been outside of the jurisdiction of the WSP.



    Please RTFM before you respond in a asinine manner.
    I'll take your ten and raise you 20. Here's what I see:

    1) A person asking why I didn't conceal my openly carried pistol on an open carry enthusiast forum.
    2) A lack of understanding of Washington State Law and case law
    3) A lack of understanding of the Washington State Ferry System, and Claiming something is law without a citation of authority
    4) On top of all of that, a dash of personal homophobia. It's obvious to me that you didn't read the part about the incident occuring while I was alone. You focused in on the fact that my partner was with me in the passenger area on the trip TO Whidbey Island, and and the fact that my partner is male. I don't live in the closet, whether it be as a gay man or as a gun owner. What's the point? The fact is, me being a gun owner, an open carrier, and an openly gay man should be considered a plus as it shows the entire community is not made up of one particular culture.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    Where to begin.....

    1. You have a CPL. Why weren't you carrying concealed?

    ...
    I'm glad things worked out well but I think you ought to do a little reflecting (as we all should from time to time). Now tell me where I am in error.

    You signed up for the wrong bulletin board. This is opencarry.org, not iamstupid.org.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Where to begin.....

    1. You have a CPL. Why weren't you carrying concealed?

    2. Preemption is of local governments (cities, counties). It does not impact the ability of the state or its agencies to exercise their authorities. Training materials for local PD are irrelevant.

    3. You might have been violating federal law. You were on a common carrier. Please don't argue that everything happened within Washington. Admiralty on navigable waters is a federal area (possibly in addition to state).

    4. Your comments about your behavior with your "partner" and the fact of open carrying indicate that you have a look-at-me attitude combined with a desire to flaunt your "rights" in people's faces - even if subconciously.

    I'm glad things worked out well but I think you ought to do a little reflecting (as we all should from time to time). Now tell me where I am in error.
    Apjonas? You're a tool. Your error was in your brain.
    When you're alone, it may cause an issue. When you're with family or with someone else, it tends to get ignored.
    I can attest to that as well. With a girlfriend and child, I rarely get so much as a passing glance when armed. Alone, however, I immediately see an increase in the "looks" I get, and the only negative confrontations I've had were while I was alone.

    Oh, and just to reiterate, Apjonas is an absolute idiot.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    I can attest to that as well. With a girlfriend and child, I rarely get so much as a passing glance when armed. Alone, however, I immediately see an increase in the "looks" I get, and the only negative confrontations I've had were while I was alone.
    Right - that is a key observation - when the sheeple see a gun owners with others, especially non gun carrying family, anecdotal evidence indicates that "sheeple freakin'" rarely occurs. That is sort of what we want - people to see open carriers going about their business normally, and just happen to be carrying a gun.

    I'm not saying never OC while alone, or never meet up with other OCers, but the best results for immunizing others to normal gun carry is to look, normal - like you fit in.

    As a lone ferry passenger, lonnie tried to look normal, getting some food, walking about, but not running to hide in his car when he knew he was under surveillance - he kept up the appearence of what he was - a lawful passenger who happened to be carrying a gun.

  13. #13
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    That is sort of what we want - people to see open carriers going about their business normally, and just happen to be carrying a gun.
    For me, this is a key insight and, really, theoverallobjective. The overall objective is not to carry a gun in a certain manner. It is to live a full and safe life, doing your normal activities for the normal reasons, while acceptably carrying a gun in a certain manner of your choosing.

    A gun-centric philosophyturns into ideology pretty quickly.

    BTW, I think that kudos should go to LW. I think you did very well indeed. Cool, calm, cooperative and confident under difficult circumstances. I very much respect that.

    Good luck with your follow-ups.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    4) On top of all of that, a dash of personal homophobia. It's obvious to me that you didn't read the part about the incident occuring while I was alone. You focused in on the fact that my partner was with me in the passenger area on the trip TO Whidbey Island, and and the fact that my partner is male. I don't live in the closet, whether it be as a gay man or as a gun owner. What's the point? The fact is, me being a gun owner, an open carrier, and an openly gay man should be considered a plus as it shows the entire community is not made up of one particular culture.
    haha, I read the whole thread and didn't even pick up on your homosexuality until you mentioned it. I guess I'm dense...or maybe I had target fixation on the actual open carry part of the story, I didn't think about why you'd say compagnion instead of girlfriend/boyfriend, fiance, wife/husband...whatever. I just figured they were a friend...oh, well. Doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the story, imo.


    I would be interested to see what you come up with out of the WSF administration.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote
    haha, I read the whole thread and didn't even pick up on your homosexuality until you mentioned it. I guess I'm dense...or maybe I had target fixation on the actual open carry part of the story, I didn't think about why you'd say compagnion instead of girlfriend/boyfriend, fiance, wife/husband...whatever. I just figured they were a friend...oh, well. Doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the story, imo.


    I would be interested to see what you come up with out of the WSF administration.
    apjonas picked up on though, and made an issue out of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    Keep up the good work, Lonnie.

    Interesting story.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    I am working on a more detailed response to be posted after everybody stops foaming at the mouth and jumping to conclusions. If you (or anybody) could give me citations for the Washington statutes/regulations that pertain to these subjects it would be helpful. If there was a misquote please say so. I can't find a law if it doesn't exist. Thanks.

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:


    2) That is not correct. The Department of General Administration had to repeal it's rules against firearms possession on the Capitol Grounds due to state preemption issues a few years ago. Not only that, about 10 years ago a WSF security manager attempted to put in a gun ban, but it was quickly quelled because of preemption.

    Documentation? Just pointing to a newspaper article or press release will do.

    3) As far as I know, you don't live in Washington so you it is quite likely that you do not understand what the Washington State Ferries function as. The WSF acts as an extension of the state highway system. There was no violation of federal law here, because WSF is not a common carrier, but a state public transportation agency.

    I don't live in WA. What is the basis for your claims (highlighted in red)?

    4) The time that the WSF employees had called in the State Patrol, I was alone and not with my partner. I put in that information to contrast an issue: When you're alone, it may cause an issue. When you're with family or with someone else, it tends to get ignored. Now personally I think whether alone or with someone else, the WSF employees should have known better and not called the cops. apjonas, it sounds like you have a personal problem. I suppose if I were with a woman you wouldn't have had a problem.

    I will address this paragraph later. You are missing my point.....



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    I think that kudos should go to LW
    Sure, but not just for this particular incident, but also for his overall, significant efforts in holding LE agencies' feet to the fire regarding actually obeying state laws regarding carry. And not just here in WA, either...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I think this will work for the ferry rules and regs part of what you are looking for.

    This should work for the statelaw part.

    This is right off the History section of the WSF site.

    The Toll Bridge Authority set fares and controlled the system’s finance, including long-term indebtedness, while the operation of the ferry system was controlled by the Highway Commission. In 1977, the two agencies were combined under the existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
    As you can see from the above quote it is a State Dept and if you read the history of the ferry system it was designed and is operated as an extension of, although they don't use that term, the public highway system in Wa.

    Here you can read the legal definition of a ferry and how it is regulated. It states that the State the system resides in hasintrinsic authority to regulate and control ferries that operate within its borders. It may exercise such power by law or by contract with the operator. The state may regulate the transportation of dangerous articles, the nature and frequency of service, and the location of terminals.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    I think this will work for the ferry rules and regs part of what you are looking for.

    This should work for the statelaw part.

    This is right off the History section of the WSF site.
    The Toll Bridge Authority set fares and controlled the system’s finance, including long-term indebtedness, while the operation of the ferry system was controlled by the Highway Commission. In 1977, the two agencies were combined under the existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).

    As you can see from the above quote it is a State Dept and if you read the history of the ferry system it was designed and is operated as an extension of, although they don't use that term, the public highway system in Wa.

    Here you can read the legal definition of a ferry and how it is regulated. It states that the State the system resides in hasintrinsic authority to regulate and control ferries that operate within its borders. It may exercise such power by law or by contract with the operator. The state may regulate the transportation of dangerous articles, the nature and frequency of service, and the location of terminals.
    You've got to be kidding. "Answers.com" as an authoritative source for a legal definition? In any event, the definition of a ferry is not in question. None of the references dispute my contention that we are dealing with a common carrier. The ferry/ferry system may be other things as well but that point is not relevant to discussion. I haven't disputed that we are dealing with a state entity. I will stipulate that it is used as an extention of the highway system even though, as you point out, WSF doesn't state so. To be fair, I will let you know that I have found other WSF documents refer to the system as a common carrier. This simply means that to the limit of their resources, they take on passengers from the general public for some fee under some contract of carriage. Perhaps a local person can simply call and ask? Not going to try the question on preemption?
    Thanks for the input nonetheless.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    WSF is not a common carrier, but a state public transportation agency.

    I don't live in WA. What is the basis for your claims (highlighted in red)?
    Who cares if the ferry is a common carrier?

    No federal law makes it a crime to open or conceal carry on a common carrier, in interstate commerce or not, be it AMTRAK, Greyhound, or a ferry.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    I think this will work for the ferry rules and regs part of what you are looking for.

    This should work for the statelaw part.

    This is right off the History section of the WSF site.
    The Toll Bridge Authority set fares and controlled the system’s finance, including long-term indebtedness, while the operation of the ferry system was controlled by the Highway Commission. In 1977, the two agencies were combined under the existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).

    As you can see from the above quote it is a State Dept and if you read the history of the ferry system it was designed and is operated as an extension of, although they don't use that term, the public highway system in Wa.

    Here you can read the legal definition of a ferry and how it is regulated. It states that the State the system resides in hasintrinsic authority to regulate and control ferries that operate within its borders. It may exercise such power by law or by contract with the operator. The state may regulate the transportation of dangerous articles, the nature and frequency of service, and the location of terminals.
    You've got to be kidding. "Answers.com" as an authoritative source for a legal definition? In any event, the definition of a ferry is not in question. None of the references dispute my contention that we are dealing with a common carrier. The ferry/ferry system may be other things as well but that point is not relevant to discussion. I haven't disputed that we are dealing with a state entity. I will stipulate that it is used as an extention of the highway system even though, as you point out, WSF doesn't state so. To be fair, I will let you know that I have found other WSF documents refer to the system as a common carrier. This simply means that to the limit of their resources, they take on passengers from the general public for some fee under some contract of carriage. Perhaps a local person can simply call and ask? Not going to try the question on preemption?
    Thanks for the input nonetheless.
    If you learn to read you will see that the link to answers.com cites West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Apparently you can't admit when you are wrong so the point is moot.

    You keep saying stuff but not showing your cite but yet you insist we show you our cites.

    Show us your documentation that says WSF is a common carrier and that it is illegal to possess a firearm on it. Until then I believe we are done.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Show us your documentation that says WSF is a common carrier and that it is illegal to possess a firearm on it. Until then I believe we are done.
    Exactly. This common carrier thing is a red herring.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:

    If you learn to read you will see that the link to answers.com cites West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Apparently you can't admit when you are wrong so the point is moot.

    I was sincere and polite with you so there is no need to be nasty. If you are getting frustrated then perhaps you should take a break from the discussion. There are multiple sources at the link. You did not indicate to which one you were referring. Please substitute "West's Encyclopedia of American Law" for "Answers.com" - my response would be essential the same (the only difference if WEAL took its definition from a Washington Supreme Court decision). I freely admit when I am wrong. What am I wrong about? As I said before, the definition (no matter how authoritative) is not the issue. And please look up what "moot" means.

    You keep saying stuff but not showing your cite but yet you insist we show you our cites.

    I didn't make the first claim. I used (what I thought) was a well understood term. Nobody has shown a "cite" to prove that the ferry in question actually exists. I simply accepted the original statement. I made the statement that preemption applies to local government not the state government. Want a cite? Ok, see RCW 9.41.290. Now the ball's in your court. Can you find a statute that expands preemption to a state agency? WSF says if follows RCW 9.41. So far, so good. You cannot ignore the federal level. If you think the feds don't have (concurrent) jurisdiction over WSF, tell that to the first Coast Guardsman that boards. The mere fact that a local law enforcement agency responded indicates (probably) that the focus was on the RCW. Despite Mike's demurrer, 18 USC 922 has something to say on the matter. See the other thread for more.

    Show us your documentation that says WSF is a common carrier and that it is illegal to possess a firearm on it. Until then I believe we are done.

    For part one, I suggested a local contact WSF. I can point you to the document but you would find a reason to discount it. It didn't say "WSF IS A COMMON CARRIER"!!!! Rather it said something like, "WSF, as a common carrier, is....." Let's see if someone can call WSF. If not, I will dig up the URL. For part two, I said "might be violating" - it depends on the interpretation of the situation. It seems that WSF is only concerned about compliance with RCW 9.41. Perhaps the fed don't know or care (since Washington is ok with the practice) or becausethe route for this ferry is short and totally intrastate. I can't read minds. I can read the statute. (Compare: it is unlawful for Grandma to import prescription medicines from Canada, however the feds have relaxed enforcement as a policy matter in certain cases. In the (legal in state law) medical marijuana issue, the feds were very hardnosed). Read 18 USC 922 AND the case law to understand the common carrier situation.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Ok, Mike. Either somebody is impersonating you or you are having a bad week. I am not going to engage on this issue. "Virginia Royalty" was enough. If you open carry on American Airlines or Greyhound or AMTRAK, you're quite the guy.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •