Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Response from Intercity Transit

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Gotta chew some on my reply


    I apologize for the incident. The security personnel involved was new and did not fully understand the rules and policies regarding open carry of firearms. We have provided instructions to this person and are reminding our supervisory and other personnel of the rules.
    I hope you will use discretion in openly carrying a gun. It is certainly your right to do so but I also hope you recognize it can cause alarm, particularly in a public gathering space. We will do our best to follow the law regarding this issue.

    Mike Harbour
    General Manager

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I'd advise him to use discretion when stepping on others' constitutional rights.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    lol yup

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    I'm working up a good reply

  5. #5
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    The guy in Vancouver that is going to court of warranting alarm probably wishes the washington supreme court rulings applied there too.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    The guy in Vancouver that is going to court of warranting alarm probably wishes the washington supreme court rulings applied there too.
    Ok, you just confused me. Why would a ruling by the WA State Supreme Court not apply in Vancouver, WA?

    Or are you thinking it is Vancouver, BC? In Canada, iirc, they can't carry, period.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    WCrawford wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    The guy in Vancouver that is going to court of warranting alarm probably wishes the washington supreme court rulings applied there too.
    Ok, you just confused me. Why would a ruling by the WA State Supreme Court not apply in Vancouver, WA?

    Or are you thinking it is Vancouver, BC? In Canada, iirc, they can't carry, period.
    No, the guy that got busted at Albertsons for open carry, the cops said someone said he warranted alarm. I was just commenting on the irony how he got busted by a Washington agency (police) and will now have to go to courtfor having a firearm in a holster when it has been established in a court that what he did is not illegal.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    WCrawford wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    The guy in Vancouver that is going to court of warranting alarm probably wishes the washington supreme court rulings applied there too.
    Ok, you just confused me. Why would a ruling by the WA State Supreme Court not apply in Vancouver, WA?

    Or are you thinking it is Vancouver, BC? In Canada, iirc, they can't carry, period.
    No, the guy that got busted at Albertsons for open carry, the cops said someone said he warranted alarm. I was just commenting on the irony how he got busted by a Washington agency (police) and will now have to go to courtfor having a firearm in a holster when it has been established in a court that what he did is not illegal.
    Not in a citable opinion though.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    WCrawford wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    The guy in Vancouver that is going to court of warranting alarm probably wishes the washington supreme court rulings applied there too.
    Ok, you just confused me. Why would a ruling by the WA State Supreme Court not apply in Vancouver, WA?

    Or are you thinking it is Vancouver, BC? In Canada, iirc, they can't carry, period.
    No, the guy that got busted at Albertsons for open carry, the cops said someone said he warranted alarm. I was just commenting on the irony how he got busted by a Washington agency (police) and will now have to go to courtfor having a firearm in a holster when it has been established in a court that what he did is not illegal.
    Not in a citable opinion though.
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/19970-26.html
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clark County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    I guess some people would say (not me) that two people of the same sex kissing in public could warrent alarm of familes, but I doubt he would tell them to use discretion. IMHO

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    glock23 wrote:
    I guess some people would say (not me) that two people of the same sex kissing in public could warrent alarm of familes, but I doubt he would tell them to use discretion. IMHO
    Perfect! My brain is foggy today,That's just the retort I was looking for. And it will play well in progressive Olympia

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours.* The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    Division 2 Appellate Court made the ruling.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Here is my reply

    Thank you for your reply.

    I'm sure you understand (or that your lawyers do) that someone feeling alarmed simply isn't legal cause to do anything. In this big world of ours, there are many things that make many people feel alarmed, but are perfectly legal. I have met bigots who would feel alarmed simply by seeing several black people on a bus, and sadly I've met bigoted people who fear the presence of an inanimate object as well.

    As we both know, the law is on my side, as much as it is for persons of color to freely ride the bus, for homosexual couples to hold hands or kiss on the bus, or for people in wheelchairs to get priority seating. Just as you would not tell an african american to use discretion as to where they sit on a bus, I expect you would not tell any other law abiding passenger to use discretion when engaging in lawful activities.

    As I mentioned, had my bus not been subject to delay due to mechanical difficulties, I would have been most annoyed. Instead I'm content with being somewhat annoyed as I was not inconvenienced beyond waiting for a bus I would have had to wait for anyway. In matters of civil rights, there is no trying to follow the law; there is simply following the law.

    I trust that in the future, IT will use better discretion in removing passengers from vehicles, and will consider the alarm and stress such unfortunate passengers may feel for being singled out for no legitimate reason. I would appreciate written assurances on IT letterhead regarding the training and steps taken to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

    Thank you again for your time.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Great reply, SV.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Jayd1981 wrote:
    I'd advise him to use discretion when stepping on others' constitutional rights.
    +1 Excellent and to the point!
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    Division 2 Appellate Court made the ruling.
    Not Casad? Cite plz?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    glock23 wrote:
    I guess some people would say (not me) that two people of the same sex kissing in public could warrent alarm of familes, but I doubt he would tell them to use discretion. IMHO
    +1

    Hey you stole my idea:P I've been keeping that one to use against some anti who gets on my case too (but they never seem to). Perfect parallel like SV said, I personally don't approve of such behavior, I'd rather they didn't do it, but I would not disrespect anyone's right to do so, and the only way social stigmas on such things have waned is because people exercised their right to do so.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Simply outstanding, sv_libertarian!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    Cite please. Where can I find this information? I know someone who was erroneously told by a Seattle LEO that if someone becomes alarmed by OC that the OCer can be detained, arrested, asked to cover it up, etc. I would like to print this out for this person and put an end to the argument. Thanks!
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    It's a simple matter of the wording of RCW 9.41.270

    "warrants alarm for the safety of other persons"

    Nowhere does it say "causes"
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    It's a simple matter of the wording of RCW 9.41.270

    "warrants alarm for the safety of other persons"

    Nowhere does it say "causes"
    Right. I think it was state vs. spencer (or was it cassad?), WA supreme court decision that merely carrying a holstered firearm in the open does not warrant alarm. Plenty of things cause alarm without warranting it (like spiders :what.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    I imagine that the liberty spikes hairstyle would cause alarm to elderly ladies. Heck, Westboro Baptist Church causes alarm to the general public.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    Heck, Westboro Baptist Church causes alarm to the general public.
    Alarm isn't the word I'd use. Disgust is more in the ballpark, I don't think there's an English word that fully describes the feeling. Oh and a desire to scream "Liars!" and "hypocrites!".
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    Please cite where this ruling is. I am familiar with the RCW, but you are saying that the Washington Supreme Court HAS RULED that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people. I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where I can find this ruling. Thanks.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Ruby wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    You can inform him that causing alarm is not illegal or any fault of yours. The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people, therefore, those that it causes alarm in, according to the Supreme Court are unreasonable.
    Please cite where this ruling is. I am familiar with the RCW, but you are saying that the Washington Supreme Court HAS RULED that carrying a firearm in a holster does not WARRANT alarm in reasonable people. I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where I can find this ruling. Thanks.
    Ruby,

    The cases 'Casad v Washington' and 'Spencer v Washington' are the two most common.

    The are kept here with several other usefull things.

    http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads
    Live Free or Die!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •