samaloney2006
Regular Member
imported post
This is the latest letter from the exeutive director of Island Transit. I won't put all of it here as it does not pertain to the topic, it's just dialogue between her and I. Quotation marks are hers.
Here is the letter.
You are also correct that I left out the word "firearm" but I can assure you, that was not intentional what so ever. It was truly a goof on my part.
I believe that perhaps I have also somewhat "missed" the boat as well by not simply stating that people do,indeed, have a right to carry a firearm, etc. etc. on transit properties.And, as I know you understand more clearly than I that RCW 9.1.270 limits a person from exhibiting a firearm in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
As well, you're also correct that we did use the words "is not otherwise authorized by law". I have scratched my head perplexed ever since you pointed that out to me. We are not the only transit system that has used those words in our documents, as several agencies developed consistent bus conduct policies and we each used our attorney's to develope the language. I have contacted several of them and have pointed out our error. We have already corrected our documents, and have already contacted several of the other systems to alert them of this error or flop or whatever it might be called. I heartily thank you for alerting us to this problem!!
:celebrateThe way I read her letter it looks as though we won another one. I'm probably in trouble with those attorneys since I corrected them, however I would bet my last dollar they knew exactly what they were saying.
:lol:Have a nice day to all.
This is the latest letter from the exeutive director of Island Transit. I won't put all of it here as it does not pertain to the topic, it's just dialogue between her and I. Quotation marks are hers.
Here is the letter.
You are also correct that I left out the word "firearm" but I can assure you, that was not intentional what so ever. It was truly a goof on my part.
I believe that perhaps I have also somewhat "missed" the boat as well by not simply stating that people do,indeed, have a right to carry a firearm, etc. etc. on transit properties.And, as I know you understand more clearly than I that RCW 9.1.270 limits a person from exhibiting a firearm in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
As well, you're also correct that we did use the words "is not otherwise authorized by law". I have scratched my head perplexed ever since you pointed that out to me. We are not the only transit system that has used those words in our documents, as several agencies developed consistent bus conduct policies and we each used our attorney's to develope the language. I have contacted several of them and have pointed out our error. We have already corrected our documents, and have already contacted several of the other systems to alert them of this error or flop or whatever it might be called. I heartily thank you for alerting us to this problem!!
:celebrateThe way I read her letter it looks as though we won another one. I'm probably in trouble with those attorneys since I corrected them, however I would bet my last dollar they knew exactly what they were saying.
:lol:Have a nice day to all.