Good news from Intercity Transit!

imported post

I just recieved this memo from Mike Harbour at IT. This has gone out to all operators and supervisors...

December 4,2007 MEMO #07-58 To: All Operators & Supervisors From: Jim Merrill Subject: Firearms on Buses In response to a customer’s inquiry, the General Manager asked our attorney to research the extent Intercity Transit may control or ban the carrying of firearms by customers on its buses.I have summarized his finding below as to what is prohibited and what is allowed.
It is prohibited to:

1. Carry a firearm on a bus in a way that warrants alarm. This requires something more than mere open possession on a bus, such as menacing or unstable looks, utterances or other alarming behavior. (I would consider the un-holstering of a weapon alarming behavior)

1. Posses or carry firearms on school premises.

It is allowable to:

1. Carry a concealed pistol on a bus, with a valid concealed pistol permit.

1. Transport cased rifles, shotguns, pistols and ammunition

1. Ride with a holstered pistol in a manner that does not warrant alarm.

Please err on the side of caution.If a customer boards a bus carrying a firearm in a manner that causes you concern, do not hesitate to contact the Dispatcher and request a Supervisor’s assistance.




I also asked Mr. Harbour to post some sort of signage regarding lawful carry of arms, and suggested that RCW 9.91.025 would be good, or simply "No illegally carried weapons" he said that they will look into signage, but will not commit at this time. Fair enough.
This to me looks like a well written memo. I'm going to chat with a few operators, IT is my only way back and forth to work, so I have to make sure I'm not going to get kicked off for a period of time trying to resolve problems, but with the memo seems pretty good to me.
I expressed my thanks to Mr. Harbour. I suspect the work of the OPD has played some small role in this as well, what with the training directive and all.
I guess I should thank the nameless person who called the cops on me that day in the park for setting all this wonderful OC protective stuff in motion:celebrate

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

It is allowable to:

1. Carry a concealed pistol on a bus, with a valid concealed pistol permit.

1. Transport cased rifles, shotguns, pistols and ammunition

1. Ride with a holstered pistol in a manner that does not warrant alarm.

Please err on the side of caution.If a customer boards a bus carrying a firearm in a manner that causes you concern, do not hesitate to contact the Dispatcher and request a Supervisor’s assistance.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a great memo for those who which to "carry a concealed pistol", or "transport cased rifles, shotguns, pistols, ammunition". Those are the ONLY two things mentioned in the "allowable" section...

I don't see a single mention of what we are all about. OC'ing.

So, yet again they don't acknowledge the open carrying of a pistol. But for those who wish to hide their weapons, they are all set.

imported post

Item one does state that warrants alarm means something more then the mere open carrying of a firearm, so it does seem like they do acknowledge it to me.

imported post

The thing is, ANY loaded pistol carry needs a CPL under RCW 9.41.050.

imported post

A case is a holster. A case does not mean incased.

Transport cased rifles, shotguns, pistols and ammunition

imported post

Well done, s-vlib!!!

imported post

gregma wrote:

Yeah, it's a great memo for those who which to "carry a concealed pistol", or "transport cased rifles, shotguns, pistols, ammunition". Those are the ONLY two things mentioned in the "allowable" section...

I don't see a single mention of what we are all about. OC'ing.

So, yet again they don't acknowledge the open carrying of a pistol. But for those who wish to hide their weapons, they are all set.

Click to expand...

"Ride with a holstered pistol in a manner that does not warrant alarm"

This addresses open carry. The concealed part was already acknowledged in another part of the memo, the 'holstered' pistol is OC.

I made it very plain from the begining that OC was part of what they needed to acknowledge. This reply came back after I specifically asked about OC.

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

The thing is, ANY loaded pistol carry needs a CPL under RCW 9.41.050.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I mentioned that. I don't think an operator can ask if I have a CPL while OCing... At any rate I'm satisfied that it addresses OC.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

The thing is, ANY loaded pistol carry needs a CPL under RCW 9.41.050.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I mentioned that. I don't think an operator can ask if I have a CPL while OCing... At any rate I'm satisfied that it addresses OC.

Click to expand...

Actually they can demand your CPL. I quote from the back of mine RCW 9.41.050:

...and shall display upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Click to expand...

Even you or I could demand to see someone's CPL, and if they fail to produce it, I guess they would be guilty of a class 1 civil infraction.

imported post

But is a transit operator entitled to see a CPL? Now going off of my reasoning that a transit operator is like a ship's captain, I'll go ahead and produce if asked. It makes things happy, plus establishes that I am legal to board his/her vehicle.

So even if not bound by law, courtesy to me anyway would dictate that I show my CPL.

imported post

Since there were some mixed understandings about the meaning of this memo, I wanted to share the email I sent that initiated this...

[size=I trust some progress is being made in verifying the legality of openly carrying handguns in this state? As I said before, my biggest concern is that while carrying concealed, I may bend over, or my coat fall open and expose my weapon. For instance last week I took the 603 bus, and got up to lift up a seat for a passenger in a wheelchair. I am certain my weapon was visible to anyone who was looking. Had someone "freaked out" I have no idea how the operator would have responded. I feel for the safety of the passengers, and for those who exercise their right to bear arms, that it is important IT has a clear understanding of laws regarding transport and carrying of firearms. As I previously stated, and your legal people did not seem to understand, in order to carry a loaded handgun in any vehicle, a person must have a concealed weapons permit. This licenses does not oblige the holder to carry concealed, nor to keep the weapon concealed. I feel I do not have to reference the applicable RCW for your lawyers, as it so basic, that anyone familiar with the law should know it.

I would also like to see appropriate signs posted on IT buses, something that makes it plain that it is legal to carry firearms and ammo in certain, legal ways. Persons who lawfully own arms are generally educated on the legal means of doing so. Quoting RCW 9.91.025 should be sufficient. I know that Pierce Transit does so. Adding "no illegal weapons" should satisfy liability issues, if that is a problem.

Also, if I could, I would like to see whatever communications that have been sent out to operators and supervisors regarding the lawful transport of arms and ammo.

[size="2"]Now in this letter I addressed several points, and did not emphasize OC. In a prior letter, I sent another link to the OPD directive, and to the other training documents on OCDO, and reinforced the idea that OC is legal. I also spoke with him over the phone one time and talked about OC in general. The idea here was emphasize that CC and OC is legal on the bus.

I also draw attention to the first point... This is also reltated to some OC converstations I had with Mr. Harbour. I know this has been more or less hashed out in this thread, but I wanted to chime in now, what I didn't have time for this morning. I am satisfied that IT understands that OC is legal. I showed this memo to a neighbor of mine who is an IT operator, and he had not yet seen it... He told me that he would have no issues with OC on his bus though. I'm going to print this out and talk with a few other operators too.

][/size][/size] Template for Accountability Memo

1. [font="Arial, sans-serif"]Carry a firearm on a bus in a way that warrants alarm. This requires something more than mere open possession on a bus, such as menacing or unstable looks, utterances or other alarming behavior. (I would consider the un-holstering of a weapon alarming behavior) (my italics)[/font]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

But is a transit operator entitled to see a CPL?

Click to expand...

Only if you consider a transit operator a person.

So even if not bound by law, courtesy to me anyway would dictate that I show my CPL.

Click to expand...

You are bound by law (RCW 9.41.050) to show your cpl to "any other person" who demands it.

imported post

gregma wrote:

You are bound by law (RCW 9.41.050) to show your cpl to "any other person" who demands it.

Click to expand...

...shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

When and if required by law to do so. I cannot find where I am bound by law to show this to a transit operator. Presumably because this person would have the obligation to ensure I am legally boarding the bus, I would have to show it on demand, but I cannot find that. Common sense dictates I just show the dang thing upon request anyway.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

gregma wrote:

You are bound by law (RCW 9.41.050) to show your cpl to "any other person" who demands it.

Click to expand...

...shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

When and if required by law to do so. I cannot find where I am bound by law to show this to a transit operator.

Click to expand...

You mean you can't find anywhere you are bound by law to show it to "a police officer and ANY OTHER PERSON"? Well, I guess so then. I don't care if it's a transit operator, or some stranger walking down the street. According to 9.41.050 they are exactly equal to a "Police officer" as to having to show your CPL if demanded. But as you say "when required by law to do so.".

Again, the RCW states...

and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Click to expand...

A stranger on the street and a police officer are no different in the eyes of this law. It's just VERY ambiguous about the "required by law to do so". Must have been written by the same jokers who came up with the "warrants alarm" law.

My guess is that when you are required by law to have it, you are then required by law to show it "to a police officer or any other person" who demands to see it.

Of course "any other person" has no ability to issue a citation, and a police officer can not write a citation for a misdemeanor based solely on a citizens complaint, so there are actually no legal ramifications. Unless the police officer is present and a stranger asks to see your CPL and you refuse to show him.

But we're beating a dead horse. I can find no law stating a time "when and if required by law to do so", thus it's all pretty mute. Rather interesting though that technically you can even refuse to show a police officer. Unless he can find the law that requires you to do so...

imported post

gregma wrote:

My guess is that when you are required by law to have it, you are then required by law to show it "to a police officer or any other person" who demands to see it.

Click to expand...

This is what I understood the law to mean. You are required to display your CPL if same is demanded by any person at a time or place where you are required by law to have a CPL. It certainly could have been written more clearly, but it seems to me that this was the intent.

That is, there's no "additional" law that would require you to display your CPL - RCW 9.41.050 is the law that requires you to display it upon request whenever a CPL would be required under the circumstances.

imported post

Actually the CPL is NOT a PERMIT, it is a LICENSE.

A permit can be revoked by administrative action, a license requires judicial action.

imported post

I really don't think that you are required to show it to anyone upon demand. Imagine if the brady group started a new campaign with 200 people lined up, all to ask to see your permit. This could take hours to show each one while they each spend 5 minutes looking at it. That hardly seems logical; why should anyone be able to ask for your papers at any moment.

The logical answer would be that only a police officer, or other LE of some sort, can ask for it when they are awarethat you are carrying a gun. Required by law could mean if they have reasonable, articulable suspicion that you are carrying a gun (or of course, if they know you are for a fact).

I don't know where this explanation would be, but I imagine there is some reference in the WACS for police procedure on asking for weapons permits. I don't have time to search, but this is ridiculous that we have two threads going about whether any random Joe on the street (who could steal your permit!) is entitled to demand to see your permit. This doesn't pass the laugh test, the common sense test or any other simple test I can think of!

imported post

gregma wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

gregma wrote:

You are bound by law (RCW 9.41.050) to show your cpl to "any other person" who demands it.

Click to expand...

...shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Click to expand...

I don't care if it's a transit operator, or some stranger walking down the street. According to 9.41.050 they are exactly equal to a "Police officer" as to having to show your CPL if demanded. But as you say "when required by law to do so.".

Again, the RCW states...

and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Click to expand...

A stranger on the street and a police officer are no different in the eyes of this law. It's just VERY ambiguous about the "required by law to do so". Must have been written by the same jokers who came up with the "warrants alarm" law.

Click to expand...

Really depends on how you read the sentence. I would suggest that the "or" separates the two clauses.

1) to any police officer
2) to any other person when and if required by law to do so

Police can ask any time and you have to show it to them. Any other person only applies if there is a law requiring it.

If it was the way you are interpreting it then it should read "to any police officer, or to any other person, when and if required by law to do so".

I know this seems nit picky but if people are going to argue an intepretation of law based on the wording of a sentence in the law, then I think we have opened up the door to the discussion of whether their interpretation is the correct one.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

gregma wrote:

You are bound by law (RCW 9.41.050) to show your cpl to "any other person" who demands it.

Click to expand...

...shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Click to expand...

I don't care if it's a transit operator, or some stranger walking down the street. According to 9.41.050 they are exactly equal to a "Police officer" as to having to show your CPL if demanded. But as you say "when required by law to do so.".

Again, the RCW states...

and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think that the "any other person when and if required by law to do so." might be store owners, security (Not LEO) and Mall ninjas, etc. They probably wrote is as this so that they could cover all the people who are not LEO, but still would be liable if you illegally were CC thatthey knew and didn't ask. Otherwise, Joe Schmoe doesn't haveany reason tosee your CPL.

imported post

Nitrox314 wrote:

I think that the "any other person when and if required by law to do so." might be store owners, security (Not LEO) and Mall ninjas, etc. They probably wrote is as this so that they could cover all the people who are not LEO, but still would be liable if you illegally were CC thatthey knew and didn't ask. Otherwise, Joe Schmoe doesn't haveany reason tosee your CPL.

Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere in the law that it authorizes a private citizen to get in your business. It states "when and if authorized by law". Find a sentence that authorizes shopkeepers, mall security, etc anywhere in the RCW. It would have to be a specific authorization.