ak56
Campaign Veteran
OCers have been carrying on transit buses without permits, correct?
Nope. With CPL.
OCers have been carrying on transit buses without permits, correct?
Is a boat considered a vehicle according to WA statutes?Nope. With CPL.
Is a boat considered a vechile according to WA statutes?
Joe,
Where in the e-mail (post #6) are they claiming to be a vehicle? I just don't see it. All they are saying is that RCW 9.41.050, which governs carrying firearms everywhere, not just in vehicles, applies on the ferry. They could just as easily mean that the same part of RCW 9.41.050 that applies to a person standing on the ferry pier (can't conceal without a CPL) also applies to a person standing onthe ferry (can't conceal without a CPL).
Joe,
Where in the e-mail (post #6) are they claiming to be a vehicle? I just don't see it. All they are saying is that RCW 9.41.050, which governs carrying firearms everywhere, not just in vehicles, applies on the ferry. They could just as easily mean that the same part of RCW 9.41.050 that applies to a person standing on the ferry pier (can't conceal without a CPL) also applies to a person standing onthe ferry (can't conceal without a CPL).
RCW 9.41.050 in it's entirety deals equally with the carrying of a firearm outside of a vehicle (on a highway) just as much as it does inside the vehicle. Since the WSF email did not limit their discussion to section 2 of the RCW, I don't see how it could be "referring implying" it is a vehicle. If they wanted to specifically imply that the ferry was a vehicle, then why not only address the vehicle portion of RCW 9.41.050?
The email EQUALLY implies that section 1 was applicable to the ferry as a highway - that a CPL is required to conceal a firearm.
Nowhere in the email do I see any indication that the author was implying any specific portion of RCW 9.41.050 was applicable to the ferry as a vehicle. RCW 9.41.050 is EQUALLY as applicable to the ferry as a highway as it is to the ferry as a vehicle.
If you got the exact same email from Wal Mart, and substitute the word store(s) for ferry(ies), would you assume that Wal Mart was telling you that you have to have a CPL in order to openly carry a loaded gun in their store?
Where in the email did they even imply that section 2 or 3 applied to the ferry?
Can it not be said that RCW 9.41.050 applies to a person standing on the ferry pier?
As usual it is impossible for you to limit the discussion to the topic that we are discussing, which is specifically the email. I don't see anything in the email to indicate that sections 2 or 3 apply any more to a person standing on the ferry than standing on the ferry pier.
BTW, Dave, the Captain of the ferry has no authority to determine what is LEGAL or ILLEGAL on the ferry.
Here's the deal. The email from WSF says that RCW 9.41.050 applies on the ferry. I absolutely agree. But where is this assumption that ONLY section 2 and 3 apply? How about this. Let's assume the email implies the Washington State Ferry is a highway. All three sections still apply. When you drive your car onto the ferry, sections 1-3 apply. Once you step out of your car and onto the ferry deck, only section 1 applies, because you are no longer in your vehicle, now you are standing on the highway.
The email from the WSF would still be completely valid as it is written if the ferry is a highway. RCW 9.41.050 sections 1-3 apply when you are in your vehicle on the ferry, and only section 1 applies when you step out of your vehicle. Just like if my vehicle was located on any other highway in this state. Is there ANYTHING in the WSF email to suggest that it is not valid to interpret the law this way?
I may not personally interpret the law this way, but show me in the email where it says this interpretation would be incorrect.
I'm not arguing that. Never have in this thread.
So what if said individual was on his way to or returning from a lawful outdoor activity, and the only way to get there was via ferry?
9.41.060
Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.
(6) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of target shooting, when those members are at or are going to or from their places of target practice;
(7) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of modern and antique firearm collecting, when those members are at or are going to or from their collector's gun shows and exhibits;
(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area
As usual it is impossible for you to limit the discussion to the topic that we are discussing, which is specifically the email. I don't see anything in the email to indicate that sections 2 or 3 apply any more to a person standing on the ferry than standing on the ferry pier.
BTW, Dave, the Captain of the ferry has no authority to determine what is LEGAL or ILLEGAL on the ferry.
.060 - is the exemption. So as long as you could prove the "lawful outdoor activity" or club activity" you would be good to go.
The Washington State Ferry operates as a public mass transportation system:
and as a common carrier:
As such, the authority of the Captain of a state ferry is limited by state law and by the obligations associated with being a common carrier. In other words, the Captain cannot toss whomever he desires into the brig. He does NOT make the rules on the ferry. State law and DOT make the rules on the ferry.
I am fully aware of BigDave's reputation, especially on this forum. I'll pack Ramen Noodles for lunch.
For example, a WSF Captain cannot perform marriages:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Ferries/infodesk/faq/specialOccasions/
A WSF Captain is not much more than a bus driver. Yes, they must qualify as maritime captains, but they are not hired as such.