Muskegon Michigan to Milwaukee Wisconsin Ferry

I recently took the ferry from Michigan to Wisconsin. Before boarding there is a large sign that says "No firearms allowed." The man checking vehicles in even asked if you have any firearms with you in your vehicle. Do they have any right to ban firearms, even if they're left in a case and locking in your vehicle while you are on board?

Federal law allows for the transport of firearms across state lines, as long as certain requirements are met.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/...46+0++() AND (USC w/10 (926a)):CITE

Does anyone have any info on this?

Is the ferry privately owned? If so, they morally (if not legally) have the right to bar firearms.

The federal law is designed to protect transporters of firearms from State laws when traveling from one location where possession is permitted to another such location. It does not supersede other federal laws or private property rights.

If the ferry is State- or local-government-owned and if there is no federal law barring carry on the ship or no federal law allowing for the regulation of carry on the ship, then carry should be protected by the federal law protecting transportation of firearms.

IANAL.

eye95 said:

Is the ferry privately owned? If so, they morally (if not legally) have the right to bar firearms.

The federal law is designed to protect transporters of firearms from State laws when traveling from one location where possession is permitted to another such location. It does not supersede other federal laws or private property rights.

If the ferry is State- or local-government-owned and if there is no federal law barring carry on the ship or no federal law allowing for the regulation of carry on the ship, then carry should be protected by the federal law protecting transportation of firearms.

IANAL.

Click to expand...

Ownership information: Lake Express, LLC was formed under the direction of Milwaukee-based investment firm Lubar & Co. Its headquarters is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Even though it is privately owned, so are airlines and they allow firearm transport.

Outdoorsman said:

Ownership information: Lake Express, LLC was formed under the direction of Milwaukee-based investment firm Lubar & Co. Its headquarters is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Even though it is privately owned, so are airlines and they allow firearm transport.

Click to expand...

"they allow" is different than "can't prohibit"

Outdoorsman said:

Ownership information: Lake Express, LLC was formed under the direction of Milwaukee-based investment firm Lubar & Co. Its headquarters is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Even though it is privately owned, so are airlines and they allow firearm transport.

Click to expand...

Yes, but we are talking about the federal law that protects firearms transport in your vehicle from State laws, not the TSA regulations regarding carry on an airplane. I know of no law that would bar an airline from disallowing firearms on their private property--nor one that would bar a private ferry company from having a similar rule.

It sounds like the ferry is private property. Again, they have the moral (if not legal) right to prohibit carry on their private property. I find such private companies repugnant and will not do business with them. However, we must respect their private property rights.

eye95 said:

Yes, but we are talking about the federal law that protects firearms transport in your vehicle from State laws, not the TSA regulations regarding carry on an airplane. I know of no law that would bar an airline from disallowing firearms on their private property--nor one that would bar a private ferry company from having a similar rule.

It sounds like the ferry is private property. Again, they have the moral (if not legal) right to prohibit carry on their private property. I find such private companies repugnant and will not do business with them. However, we must respect their private property rights.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they have the "moral" right to do so as I consider their act of not just disarming the people, but then preventing them from being able to defend theirselves at their final destination, to be immoral. I agree that they have the "legal" right to do so though.

"Moral" in the sense that we should respect the private property rights of others, even when the law does not, not in the sense that it is a good thing to do.

Folks have the "moral" right to support governmental forms that will rob us of Liberty, even if such is not the moral thing to do.

"Moral" does not always mean "good and right." It can be used to refer to another level of "law" that transcends explicit law.

eye95 said:

"Moral" in the sense that we should respect the private property rights of others, even when the law does not, not in the sense that it is a good thing to do.

Folks have the "moral" right to support governmental forms that will rob us of Liberty, even if such is not the moral thing to do.

"Moral" does not always mean "good and right." It can be used to refer to another level of "law" that transcends explicit law.

Click to expand...

Can you please cite where you are getting your definition of "moral" from. Before I posted I even made sure to look up the word online to make sure there wasn't a definition that I didn't know about and all of the definitions revolved around either right/wrong or psychological (as in moral support/victory).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

The closest thing I found would be the definition that says "moral" is in essence "maxim" but even that doesn't really work as that gets right back to a principle or rule of conduct (aka your morals that govern your actions).

It's not that I don't believe you, but well, until I can see something defining the word as how you're defining it, I don't believe you.

EDIT: Oh and you are right in that it can refer to a "law" that transcends explicit law. Only that it refers to the "law" of what's right/wrong (at least that is what I got when looking it up) as opposed to what's legal.

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

Click to expand...

As opposed to a legal structure of right and wrong.

I am not saying that the moral thing to do is to restrict carry. I am saying that, even if they have no legal right, they have the moral right, that to disrespect their right would be immoral on the part of the disrespecter.

Please note the placement of the adjective and what it modifies. As I have made amply clear, businesses that restrict carry are repugnant, exercising a moral right (not necessarily being moral in the exercise of that right), but still repugnant.

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=ethical&submit-result-SEARCHD=Search

Ethical still deals with morality or what is viewed as right or wrong. Laws dont tell you what is morally right or wrong, but rather what you legally can and cant do. Likewise morals dont tell you what your rights are, but rather what is good/bad, ethical/unethical, right/wrong, etc. What might seem "morally" right to one person could be completely wrong to another and both of those could be different from ones "legal" right. So it isnt that its their "moral" right to ban the guns, but rather their "legal" right.

eye95 said:

As opposed to a legal structure of right and wrong.

I am not saying that the moral thing to do is to restrict carry. I am saying that, even if they have no legal right, they have the moral right, that to disrespect their right would be immoral on the part of the disrespecter.

Please note the placement of the adjective and what it modifies. As I have made amply clear, businesses that restrict carry are repugnant, exercising a moral right (not necessarily being moral in the exercise of that right), but still repugnant.

Click to expand...

I agree with eye95.

It's their inherent right to decide what is allowed on their property and it would be morally wrong for you, I, or anyone else to violate that right. It is our right, not to give them business or go onto their property but not to tell them what to do with their property.

If a movie theater isn't playing a movie you like, it's your right to find another and patronize it but you may not force that movie theater to play the movie you want.

Brass Magnet said:

I agree with eye95.

It's their inherent right to decide what is allowed on their property and it would be morally wrong for you, I, or anyone else to violate that right. It is our right, not to give them business or go onto their property but not to tell them what to do with their property.

If a movie theater isn't playing a movie you like, it's your right to find another and patronize it but you may not force that movie theater to play the movie you want.

Click to expand...

I agree in that its their legal right, my thing is that it isn't a moral right as what is moral is different than what is legal (the two can coexist, but don't have to and one doesn't define the other).

Aknazer said:

I agree in that its their legal right, my thing is that it isn't a moral right as what is moral is different than what is legal (the two can coexist, but don't have to and one doesn't define the other).

Click to expand...

I didn't say legal right, but inherent right. Life, liberty, and the fruits of ones labor ie; property. Property rights are a foundation of all other rights and the legal system.

I agree that legal and moral can and many times are two different things.

Brass Magnet said:

I didn't say legal right, but inherent right. Life, liberty, and the fruits of ones labor ie; property. Property rights are a foundation of all other rights and the legal system.

I agree that legal and moral can and many times are two different things.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in that its an inherent right, but sadly unless its a legal right you can still get in trouble. For example look at the laws restricting smoking in privately owned businesses, or how we're fighting for RKBA even though its an inherent right. That is why I specified legal right.

Aknazer said:

I agree with you in that its an inherent right, but sadly unless its a legal right you can still get in trouble. For example look at the laws restricting smoking in privately owned businesses, or how we're fighting for RKBA even though its an inherent right. That is why I specified legal right.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree; I but weren't we discussing the moral issue and who's issue it is? That it's not immoral for a property owner to restrict carry, among other things, on his/her property.

Motor carrier laws?

I don't have the time to research MI or federal law, but are there federal or state motor carrier laws in place that may affect this? Typically federal law covers interstate carriers, but there may be some laws in there governing transport on a navigable waterway by a passenger carrier at either the federal or state level, even though this is an intrastate transit.

If not, publicize the heck out of this ferry operator's policy and make sure they know why.

Brass Magnet said:

Oh, I agree; I but weren't we discussing the moral issue and who's issue it is? That it's not immoral for a property owner to restrict carry, among other things, on his/her property.

Click to expand...

Whereas I would say that while it is his right, it is immoral for him to leave those other people defenseless. And this is why it isn't his "moral" right, but rather his inherent/legal right to do so. What is moral varies from person to person, but inherent/legal doesn't (well legal can, but generally speaking it doesn't).

And this started with eye saying that it is his moral right, me stating that it wasn't his moral right but rather his legal/inherent right, and me asking for a cite for the definition eye is using for moral (as he has swapped legal/inherent for moral). Now I might not have been clear enough in my original posts, but I'm doing this from my phone and to say "legal" was the easiest rather than saying legal/natural/inherent right every time. Besides it is what is legal that determines what you can and can't do without getting in trouble, not your natural/inherent rights or what you think is the morally right thing to do. And as the OP asked if the ferry can legally ban the transportation of weapons, it once again comes back to what one can legally do, not what one can morally do.

DCR said:

I don't have the time to research MI or federal law, but are there federal or state motor carrier laws in place that may affect this? Typically federal law covers interstate carriers, but there may be some laws in there governing transport on a navigable waterway by a passenger carrier at either the federal or state level, even though this is an intrastate transit.

If not, publicize the heck out of this ferry operator's policy and make sure they know why.

Click to expand...

The thing here is that the ferry is privately owned. So regardless of the state and federal law, they have the (property) right to ban weapons on their ferry. Well unless state or federal law prevents them, but then you run into an issue of state/federal law stepping on property rights.

eye95 said:

Is the ferry privately owned? If so, they morally (if not legally) have the right to bar firearms.

The federal law is designed to protect transporters of firearms from State laws when traveling from one location where possession is permitted to another such location. It does not supersede other federal laws or private property rights.

If the ferry is State- or local-government-owned and if there is no federal law barring carry on the ship or no federal law allowing for the regulation of carry on the ship, then carry should be protected by the federal law protecting transportation of firearms.

IANAL.

Click to expand...

The bolded part is what started it all, especially when combined with him stating that it isn't a moral action. That is the same as saying it is a moral right but not a moral action. Now take that sentence and switch both of the moral words with legal/natural/inherent and you will see that it doesn't make sense unless you use two different definitions for the same word. So I am asking for a cite of what makes it a "moral right" as he is clearly using a different definition for moral when compared to "moral action." I do not see how one can have "moral rights" in general as what is moral is an emotional state and changes from person to person.

And remember that he didn't say that the ferry owner did what was morally right, but that it was his moral right to ban weapons. That is a key difference and since when did our morals determine what our rights are? After all, the antis think its morally wrong for most people to have weapons...

Aknazer said:

I agree in that its their legal right, my thing is that it isn't a moral right as what is moral is different than what is legal (the two can coexist, but don't have to and one doesn't define the other).

Click to expand...

:banghead: Once again, "moral" as opposed to "legal," not as in "good or right."

I give up.

eye95 said:

:banghead: Once again, "moral" as opposed to "legal," not as in "good or right."

I give up.

Click to expand...

And once again I ask for a cite that defines moral in such a way. Every single definition that I found for the word moral deals with an emotional or psychological state; and most of those dealt with right and wrong. I saw nothing and you posted nothing to suggest that one could use the word "moral" in place of "legal." As such a "moral right" doesn't exist in the way you're talking about.

But I don't expect a cite for this definition of moral as I doubt it exists. So I'm not surprised that you're giving up.