• 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.

Island Transit latest update

samaloney2006

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
63
Location
, ,
imported post

:DThis 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.

:pYou 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.

:cool: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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Huh? They write "is not otherwise authorized by law" when they meant "is not otherwise prohibited by law"? Wow, somebody was really lacking in lawyer-foo that day!
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
imported post

Maybe so, but be prepared that if you get on a bus with the wrong driver he's probably gonna call in and make a stink. I might suggest staying on IT's case and making sure they disseminate this decision down to their drivers & dispatch staff.

I got Community Transit's "official" policy somewhat clarified on the subject. Like most things it's at the discretion of the driver but we're "supposed" to call in an "unusual" event like that. Doesn't always happen tho :quirky
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

I'm still waiting back on a reply from Island Transit where they specifically tell me they understand OC is legal. It's the only way. Have a letter from their director stating that. Then you can wave it around to supervisors and operators. I have one from Intercity Transit.
 
Top