• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Metro to conduct Random Searches

F

fryfrye

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

Metro officials announced today that they will begin randomly inspecting backpacks, gym bags and any other containers that riders carry with them onto the bus and rail system, in an effort to deter possible terrorist attacks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy....html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008102700856&s_pos=

Wonder how this will effect Mrs. Fryfrye who takes the bus (in Virginia only) from time to time and carries her revolver in her purse.

Perhaps we now need a formal letter from Metro on this? Understanding has always been that local laws apply.
 
M

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

fryfrye wrote:
Metro officials announced today that they will begin randomly inspecting backpacks, gym bags and any other containers that riders carry with them onto the bus and rail system, in an effort to deter possible terrorist attacks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy....html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008102700856&s_pos=

Wonder how this will effect Mrs. Fryfrye who takes the bus (in Virginia only) from time to time and carries her revolver in her purse.

Perhaps we now need a formal letter from Metro on this? Understanding has always been that local laws apply.
Click to expand...

http://www.virginia1774.org/METROLetter.jpg

(Letter is from 2002)
The relevant text from that letter is:


"As to your question, there is no WMATA regulation or tariff which would preclude persons from carrying concealed firearms while aboard Metrorail or Metrobuses in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This does not mean that there are no other laws, rules or ordinances which apply, although our queries to police authorities have not indicated the existence of such restrictions.
I would like to clarify our view with regard to the application of Va. Code $15.2-915, which you quote in your letter. That law limits the ability of localities to adopt ordinances restricting the carrying and transport of firearms and ammunition. Please note that in our view, this provision does not apply to WMATA, since WMATA is not a locality as the term is defined in $15.2-102 of the Code."
 
F

fryfrye

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

I think this is the letter in some form or other that has always been my basis for carrying while on Metro in VA.

We should get an update... last line about reviewing "legal options" seems that they could have modified their view on this.
 
M

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

Here is some more info from the legal document creating the " Washington metropolitan area transit zone"

From:

http://ssl.csg.org/compactlaws/washingtonmetroauthority.html


"" (e) The Authority shall have the power to adopt rules and regulations for the safe, convenient and orderly use of the transit facilities, including the payment and the manner of the payment of fares or charges therefore, the protection of the transit facilities, the control of traffic and parking upon the transit facilities, and the safety and protection of the riding public. In the event that any such rules and regulations contravene the laws, ordinances or regulations or police operational rules of a signatory or any political subdivision thereof which are existing or subsequently enacted, these laws, ordinances or regulations of the signatory or the political subdivision shall apply and the conflicting rule or regulation, or portion thereof, of the Authority shall be void within the jurisdiction of that signatory or political subdivision. In all other respects, the rules and regulations of the Authority shall be uniform throughout the transit zone." "

The relevant portion is really just:

"these laws, ordinances or regulations of the signatory or the political subdivision shall apply and the conflicting rule or regulation, or portion thereof, of the Authority shall be void within the jurisdiction of that signatory or political subdivision."
 
N

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

If METRO is paid (either partially or fully) by tax dollars, they can't ban guns (nor conduct random searches).

I REFUSE to live in London, Jr.
 
M

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

nova wrote:
If METRO is paid (either partially or fully) by tax dollars, they can't ban guns (nor conduct random searches).

I REFUSE to live in London, Jr.
Click to expand...

Any commentary on why you feel that they can't ban gun? Specifically, when WMATA says " Please note that in our view, this provision does not apply to WMATA, since WMATA is not a locality as the term is defined in $15.2-102 of the Code."
Do you believe that statement is incorrect, and that WMATA is a locality? or preemption applies for some other reason?

I am not being argumentative, I haven't had time to do the research to determine if their argument makes sense. If you already have it would save me some time.
 
N

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

mkl wrote:
nova wrote:
If METRO is paid (either partially or fully) by tax dollars, they can't ban guns (nor conduct random searches).

I REFUSE to live in London, Jr.
Click to expand...

Any commentary on why you feel that they can't ban gun? Specifically, when WMATA says " Please note that in our view, this provision does not apply to WMATA, since WMATA is not a locality as the term is defined in $15.2-102 of the Code."
Do you believe that statement is incorrect, and that WMATA is a locality? or preemption applies for some other reason?

I am not being argumentative, I haven't had time to do the research to determine if their argument makes sense. If you already have it would save me some time.
Click to expand...


IMO it's no different than Waterside or any public university. None of these places should be able to ban guns. To take it one step further, METRO is considered public transportation. I don't see how preemption wouldn't apply. Of course, I'm being idealistic.
 
M

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

nova wrote:
mkl wrote:
nova wrote:
If METRO is paid (either partially or fully) by tax dollars, they can't ban guns (nor conduct random searches).

I REFUSE to live in London, Jr.
Click to expand...

Any commentary on why you feel that they can't ban gun? Specifically, when WMATA says " Please note that in our view, this provision does not apply to WMATA, since WMATA is not a locality as the term is defined in $15.2-102 of the Code."
Do you believe that statement is incorrect, and that WMATA is a locality? or preemption applies for some other reason?

I am not being argumentative, I haven't had time to do the research to determine if their argument makes sense. If you already have it would save me some time.
Click to expand...
 

IMO it's no different than Waterside or any public university. None of these places should be able to ban guns. To take it one step further, METRO is considered public transportation. I don't see how preemption wouldn't apply. Of course, I'm being idealistic.
Click to expand...

I agree, I am just trying to figure out "what the law says".
Preemption says " No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance"

A locality is defined as: ""Locality" or "local government" shall be construed to mean a county, city, or town as the context may require."

WMATA is not a county, city, or town...So does preemption actually apply to Metro? Or is this a case where WMATA is some sort of magical hybrid multi-state venture that exists outside of our normal definition?

I would love to have someone with some knowledge of the things involved to chime in here.
 
V

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
imported post

mkl wrote:
nova wrote:
mkl wrote:
nova wrote:
If METRO is paid (either partially or fully) by tax dollars, they can't ban guns (nor conduct random searches).

I REFUSE to live in London, Jr.
Click to expand...

Any commentary on why you feel that they can't ban gun? Specifically, when WMATA says " Please note that in our view, this provision does not apply to WMATA, since WMATA is not a locality as the term is defined in $15.2-102 of the Code."
Do you believe that statement is incorrect, and that WMATA is a locality? or preemption applies for some other reason?

I am not being argumentative, I haven't had time to do the research to determine if their argument makes sense. If you already have it would save me some time.
Click to expand...


IMO it's no different than Waterside or any public university. None of these places should be able to ban guns. To take it one step further, METRO is considered public transportation. I don't see how preemption wouldn't apply. Of course, I'm being idealistic.
Click to expand...

I agree, I am just trying to figure out "what the law says".
Preemption says " No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance"

A locality is defined as: ""Locality" or "local government" shall be construed to mean a county, city, or town as the context may require."

WMATA is not a county, city, or town...So does preemption actually apply to Metro? Or is this a case where WMATA is some sort of magical hybrid multi-state venture that exists outside of our normal definition?

I would love to have someone with some knowledge of the things involved to chime in here.
Click to expand...
If it is a state or local government entity (and authorities are), it needs the permission of the General Assembly to ban guns. VCDL does not know of any such legislative authority for WMATA.
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

www.wmata.com is WMATA's site. Click on "contact us"

I stopped riding Metro during the week some time ago, when they determined that since their parking attendants were embezzling money, ridership would pay for it by using smart cards only and eliminating attendants. (Was ANY money ever recovered? I think not.) I ride only on weekends, and don't pay for parking.

I just let them know I will no longer ride at all.

How can public "service" treat the public like this?
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

I had occasion to speak with a Metro transit police officer (soon to make Lt, according to him) this morning. When he said his civilian job was with Metro Transit Police, I asked him about the searches. His response "It's for your own safety." and he wasn't very pleased when I said "No, it's for some bureaucrat's peace of mind."

The situation wasn't appropriate for a long, in-depth discussion, as he was on duty in his Air Force Reserve role, but he had no qualms telling me a gun on Metro was considered a "dangerous item" and wasn't permitted.

I did get a response to my comments to Metro, but with the caveat:

THIS EMAIL MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE NAMED RECIPIENT, OR THE AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE NAMED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND NO PRIVILEGE IS WAIVED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE ABOVE NAMED INDIVIDUAL IMMEDIATELY.
Click to expand...
Dontcha love that from a public official?

I have written requesting permission to re-post his response. If I don't get permission, I'll have to paraphrase. Basically, the response was 4-5 paragraphs of "shut up and color; this is how it will work."
 
dbc3804

dbc3804

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
79
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
imported post

I love the way that companies and government agencies plaster those warnings on the bottom of every email. It is particularily fun when it has been replied to several times and the list of warnings is longer than the original messages. :banghead:

I consider email over the internet to be as private as skywriting and ignore those warnings.

Danny
 
T

Tosta Dojen

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
183
Location
Roanoke, Virginia, USA
imported post

Tess wrote:
I did get a response to my comments to Metro, but with the caveat:

THIS EMAIL MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE NAMED RECIPIENT, OR THE AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE NAMED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND NO PRIVILEGE IS WAIVED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE ABOVE NAMED INDIVIDUAL IMMEDIATELY.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Since you are the intended recipient of the message, its dissemination is not prohibited. Go ahead and post it here!
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Tess wrote:
I have written requesting permission to re-post his response. If I don't get permission, I'll have to paraphrase. Basically, the response was 4-5 paragraphs of "shut up and color; this is how it will work."
Click to expand...
Just for fun, you could FOIA the e-mail and then post the FOIA-response copy of the e-mail.
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Tess wrote:
I have written requesting permission to re-post his response. If I don't get permission, I'll have to paraphrase. Basically, the response was 4-5 paragraphs of "shut up and color; this is how it will work."
Click to expand...
Just for fun, you could FOIA the e-mail and then post the FOIA-response copy of the e-mail.
Click to expand...
Dude, you are my hero. That's brilliant.
 
A

Armed

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
418
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Tess wrote:
I have written requesting permission to re-post his response. If I don't get permission, I'll have to paraphrase. Basically, the response was 4-5 paragraphs of "shut up and color; this is how it will work."
Click to expand...
Just for fun, you could FOIA the e-mail and then post the FOIA-response copy of the e-mail.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Virginia Freedom of Information Act § 2.2-3700

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3700

I believe his original request for this information constitutes a FOIA request, and therefore, would not be subject to the cut and paste BS at the bottom of the e-mail anyway.
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

Tosta Dojen wrote:
Since you are the intended recipient of the message, its dissemination is not prohibited. Go ahead and post it here!
Click to expand...
Y'know, first I read this and thought I couldn't. Then I could. Then couldn't. It's not really clear. However, the more I read and think about this, the more I believe you to be right. Here goes.


Thank you for writing to Metro regarding our new Security Inspection Program. The program which will be random, unannounced and focused on explosive detection is aimed to deter terrorist attacks and increase the overall safety of the Metro system. Passengers can expect bag inspections at any Metro facility when circumstances warrant heightened vigilance. However, it should not be assumed that there is a specific threat to the Metro system when we are conducting random bag inspections.

Prior to launching the Security Inspection Program, Metro Transit Police met with officials at the Transportation Security Administration and transit agencies in New York, Boston and New Jersey where police regularly conduct inspections of passengers¿ belongings. Legal Authority to inspect packages brought into the Metro system has been established by the court system on similar types of inspections in mass transit properties, airports, military facilities and courthouses.

On Monday, October 27, Metro began posting large red and white signs at Metroail station entrances informing passengers about the inspections. Inspection points will be set up at Metro facilities and passengers will go through inspections before entering a rail station or boarding a bus and before paying a fare. The inspections are estimated to take only a few seconds and will be conducted by specially trained Metro Transit Police Officers and explosive-detection dogs.

Transit Police will randomly select a number, such as five. Then every fifth person will be asked to step aside and allow their carry on items to be inspected. Additionally, passengers displaying suspicious behavior may also be subject to having their bags searched. Individuals who refuse to have their bag or bags inspected will not be allowed to enter the Metro system with those carry-on items. They will be free to leave the system with their items.

The bag inspection program is an ongoing effort to protect Metro riders, employees and facilities. Passenger cooperation will help to ensure the program is fast, smooth and successful. For additional information about our new security initiative program, please go to our website, http://www.metroopensdoors.com. Also, http://www.wmata.com/faqs/preview.cfm?faqID=50 offers a list of Frequently Asked Questions about our Security Inspection Program. Thank you again for taking the time to share your comments with us. I hope this information helps to address your concerns.

To speak to a Blue-Orange Line Customer Service Representative for Comments, Complaints or Suggestions, please call 301-562-4606 weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. You can leave a message at all other times or e-mail us at http://www.wmata.com.

If you ever need to speak with a Customer Information Agent for assistance with general questions, please call 202-637-7000; 6 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. The Web site is also a valuable resource for customers to find out more details about trip planning, bus and rail fares, service disruptions and other information.

Sincerely,

Paul Bumbry
Rail Transportation Customer Service Manager
Click to expand...

It's definitely a "shut up and color" message. It seems almost a challenge: "Legal Authority to inspect packages brought into the Metro system has been established by the court system on similar types of inspections". Makes me want to OC and be denied entrance, to give me standing to sue, particularly as I am legal within the Commonwealth. However, that's a fantasy; I have other things I must do and therefore will not deliberately seek a suit. I can be more effective at more things if I choose wisely. (Not to say I wouldn't relish the suit, mind you.)

I'm not sure why he might think I'd only be concerned about blue/orange lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top