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

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input nonetheless.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This common carrier thing is a red herring.

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.

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.

imported post

I got something from a posting made by Joe Waldron last month.


The prohibition of firearms on the Capitol Campus was based on a WAC. When challenged to produce the statutory justification for same, they backed down. The Department of General Administration back in the late 90s submitted an agency request bill to add a Capitol Campus restriction to RCW 9.41.300. It failed.
.....
I have never heard of any agency discussions to ban firearms on ferries (there were some speculative newspaper articles post 9/11). DOT's position has been consistent: the ferry system in WA is an extension of the highway system. If it's legal on the highway, it's legal on the ferry.

Joe Waldron doesn't post on here, but he does post on Packing.org.

He is correct in that the WAC, which presumably any such firearm ban must exist, must have some form of statutory justification to exist. This is due to other court rulings which do not deal with RCW 9.41.290 which limit the authority of state agencies to write whatever rules they want into the WAC. If the WSDOT or WSF were to try to ban firearms possession beyond the state law, it would face a tremendous amount of legal opposition. DOT won't go there, just like General Administration yanked the Capitol Ban when they realized they went too far.

As for Universities and the rest, well, someone has to challenge them too. The question is whether or not they'll run and cry to the Legislature to get a post-secondary gun ban approved. From a political perspective, it's would be a lot easier to pass a university gun ban through the Washington Legislature than it would be passing a Ferries gun ban.

Ferries are essentially roving state highways. They are NOT common carriers. If they were there would be some sort of contract of carriage involved. They are no more common carriers than our public transit buses here in the Puget Sound region, which all have backed down from their "no weapon or firearm" rules. You said call WSF. I did at least insofar as confirming if they're considered a "common carrier". Their answer was "No, we're a state public transport agency, common carriers are bus lines like Greyhound and like Amtrak".

I was incorrect insofar as RCW 9.41.290's application to state agencies (Oregon's preemption state doesn't have this issue). I will be asking for clarification on the WAC must have RCW justification from a few different sources, WITH case citations.

As for Federal Maritime law, are you trying to tell me that it's illegal for someone to possess a firearm on a boat? My understanding is that Maritime law at least as far as firearms are concerned follow the laws of the state where you're located.

I'd also like to ask what your legal citations are for gun bans on common carriers. Do NOT use airlines, either, because that is affected by a law that's not in 18 USC 922.

imported post

I found the contract carrier statute that apjonas is talking about:

(e) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce..., to persons other than licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors,.... any package or other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition is being transported or shipped; except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm.

Read the entire thing carefully.

If one is carrying on a common or contract carrier, a personally carried handgun, are they delivering it to someone other than themselves? The answer to this is no. "to persons other than license importers". It requires "any package or container". A holster is not a container or a package.

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

I found the contract carrier statute that apjonas is talking about:

(e) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce..., to persons other than licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors,.... any package or other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition is being transported or shipped; except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm.

Read the entire thing carefully.

If one is carrying on a common or contract carrier, a personally carried handgun, are they delivering it to someone other than themselves? The answer to this is no. "to persons other than license importers". It requires "any package or container". A holster is not a container or a package.

Click to expand...

Lonnie,

This says you may hand it over to the Captain, but does not say you must, and that is only for interstate or foreign commerce. So this law hasno control overa person who legally possesses a firearm and is travelling within the state. Is that how you read it?

except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter.

Click to expand...

LoveMyCountry

imported post

I talked to a co-worker of mine that is a retired LT CMDR from the Coast Guard and asked him about the Coast Guards responsibility of enforcing laws on state operated ferry systems. He said that the only thing they do is safety inspections the ensure the ferry system is in compliance. He told me that all law enforcement is up to the state agencies and does not fall under the scope of federal enforcement because it is an intra-state transport in Inland Waters.

So there we have it directly from the mouth of a retired LT CMDR of the USCG that used to work with state ferry systems on the east coast.

imported post

I do not understand the continued motiviation of all this chatter about common carriers and inter-state travel.

There is no federal law generally precluding interstate carriage of your loaded handguns on common carriers in interstate travel.

This forum works best when folks who proffer a rule of law, or discuss things as if there is some rule of law, cite to authority.

imported post

Mike wrote:

I do not understand the continued motiviation of all this chatter about common carriers and inter-state travel.

There is no federal law generally precluding interstate carriage of your loaded handguns on common carriers in interstate travel.

This forum works best when folks who proffer a rule of law, or discuss things as if there is some rule of law, cite to authority.

Click to expand...

Right you are Mike.

Apjonas brought up the point that feds have concurrent jurisdiction over WSF and for us to tell the first Coast Guardsmen that boards that he doesn't. I did basically what he asked except I "asked" a Retired Officer in the USCG that used to enforce in New York Harbour. His statement solidifies the point we were trying to get accross to apjonas, that WSP does the enforcement of laws. I also forgot to mention that my friend said that it is not against federal law to transport firearms intra-state on a state agency run transportation.

imported post

Right after 9-11 I was commuting daily on the WSF as a walk-on passenger. At that time the WSP had at least 2 officers watching people boarding, then riding back and forth on the boats. I askedone of the officers if there was a problem with carrying on the boats. I was concealed at the time as the weather was standard fall weather with rain. He said if I was legal to carry in the state, I was legal to carry on the boat. By extension if open carry is legal in the state, open carry would be legal on the boat too. FYI he asked if I was carrying and after I answered in the affirmative, he smiled and said have a nice day. He never hint he wanted to see my CPL or other ID. Oh yeah, I was alone and long hair with a beard.

Can some one explain to me why so many people have a phobia about guns? When I was a kid you could carry guns on air lines and into schools, some schools even had shooting teams. A gun is a tool, just like a hammer or baseball bat. It's how the toolis used by the owner that determines whether the out come is good or bad.

imported post

I ride that route a lot, the sign says basicallythat it's illegal to carry an illegal fire arm on Washington state ferries andYour's is not illegal.
[line]
Washington state ferries are part of the highway system thus, Washington state patrol. The captan,crew and boat are subject to U.S.C.G, the car deck is part of the highway system.

imported post

flagwaver wrote:

I ride that route a lot, the sign says basicallythat it's illegal to carry an illegal fire arm on Washington state ferries andYour's is not illegal.
[line]
Washington state ferries are part of the highway system thus, Washington state patrol. The captan,crew and boat are subject to U.S.C.G, the car deck is part of the highway system.

Click to expand...

So if the ferry is part of the highway system would you even need a cpl as a walk on passenger if you are open carrying?

imported post

Do you own a extremely late model sedan with bullet holes in it?

imported post

Sorry but that was my total knowledge of theWashington State Ferry's rules.The sign says no illegal weapons.

imported post

Just as you'd need a CPL to have a pistol in a car you were a passenger on, so you would need one if you're on the ferry. So if you're a walk on passenger, you better unload that round and clip before you board!

imported post

G27 wrote:

Just as you'd need a CPL to have a pistol in a car you were a passenger on, so you would need one if you're on the ferry. So if you're a walk on passenger, you better unload that round and clip before you board!

Click to expand...

Ummm needless to say if you have a CPL there is no issue. Also unsure if the deck portion of the boat qualifies as a vehicle or not under the law, as it is a part of the highway system. It could be the equivalent of walking down a sidewalk.

Also don't get me going on "clip" vs mag.... :banghead:

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

G27 wrote:

Just as you'd need a CPL to have a pistol in a car you were a passenger on, so you would need one if you're on the ferry. So if you're a walk on passenger, you better unload that round and clip before you board!

Click to expand...

Ummm needless to say if you have a CPL there is no issue. Also unsure if the deck portion of the boat qualifies as a vehicle or not under the law, as it is a part of the highway system. It could be the equivalent of walking down a sidewalk.

Also don't get me going on "clip" vs mag.... :banghead:

Click to expand...

With our gun culture having become the unwashed mass that it is, I am pretty sure clip and magazine have become so interchangeable to the point where to scold someone over such usage is unnecessary. I know the difference, but I see no reason why one can't call it what they want.

I'm pretty sure this has been extensively covered in the past that the ferry for all intent and purposes is a 'vehicle' on a 'road' and thus you do need a CPL to carry aboard.

imported post

The ferry is just another WA floating bridge, but it isn't anchored.



Bruce