state ferry encounter(s)

[ak56]

OCers have been carrying on transit buses without permits, correct?

Nope. With CPL.

 

[DCKilla]

Nope. With CPL.

Is a boat considered a vehicle according to WA statutes?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Is a boat considered a vechile according to WA statutes?

Yes a boat is, but the ferry is also an "extension" of the highway system.
If you didn't drive on, I'm with Gogo on this one you shouldn't need a cpl, of course we know how the "state" interprets things when it suits them.

 

[DCKilla]

Interesting find...

As stated before, the state ferry system is part of the state highway.

RCW 47.17.080
State route No. 20.

A state highway to be known as state route number 20 is established as follows:

Beginning at a junction with state route number 101 in the vicinity of Discovery Bay, thence northeasterly via the most feasible route to Port Townsend; also

From the state ferry terminal at Port Townsend via the state ferry system northeasterly to the state ferry terminal at Keystone; also

From the Keystone ferry dock on Whidbey Island, thence northeasterly by the most feasible route by way of Deception Pass, Burlington, Sedro Woolley, Concrete, Newhalem, Winthrop, Twisp, Okanogan, Tonasket, Republic, Kettle Falls, Colville, and Tiger; thence southerly and southeasterly to a junction with state route number 2 at Newport.

Also,

RCW 9.91.025
Unlawful transit conduct.

(b) "Transit vehicle" means any motor vehicle, street car, train, trolley vehicle, ferry boat, or any other device, vessel, or vehicle that is owned or operated by a transit authority or an entity providing service on behalf of a transit authority that is used for the purpose of carrying passengers on a regular schedule.

RCW 46.04.670
Vehicle

WA's definition of vehicle >>> http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.04.670

 

[Sparky508]

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

 

[BigDave]

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).

It is in their response and using RCW 9.41.050 referring implying it is a vehicle and is as it is transporting you and its cargo.

I am sure they will have no trouble in establishing the Ferry is a Vehicle be it walk on or drive on, it does not change the structure.
This is like calling a bathroom a pisser or a crapper it depend upon what you are doing, when it comes to the ferry, you are riding in it!

This is more about being required to have a CPL to carry a loaded firearm on the Ferry and the go sterile group with out wanting to unload their firearms to be with in the law.

 

[joeroket]

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).

As Dave said I am taking their response as an implication that they are considering the Ferry a vehicle for the sake of this argument at hand. They didn't actually say it was a vehicle but rather implied it with their quotes of the RCW.

 

[BigDave]

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.

Well hop that same Ferry and contact that Captain and push the issue, I am interested in your position when it is all said and done.
If you win, that is great!

My suggestion to those who read this and want to go that route, just be prepared to pay the price.

 

[joeroket]

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?

I did not say it did imply it. I said I took it as an implication for the sake of the argument. Two totally different things.

 

[Vitaeus]

Not a good analogy to use NavyLT, Wal-mart is a private business and they could require you to have a CPL to bring a firearm into their store. Their recourse is to ask you to leave on pain of being trespassed. A better analogy would be to consider the ferry a public transit bus. This would mean having a CPL to carry it concealed or loaded.

 

[BigDave]

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.

Limit the discussion to the topic, hmm defined by who? It is right on topic but not to your liking, oh well. What is this Walmart comparison are you saying it is a water going vessel and travels about? LOL

All the Captain has to do is make a phone call to law enforcement along with administration backing, the Ferry System may just get someone cited, do you want to be that test bunny?

As I stated before I believe they can make the argument that the Ferry System is a vehicle and is a part of the highway system and as said before this is more about having a license to carry so one can be within the RCW's as to having our weapon loaded.

Must be a slow day on the forum :lol:

 

[joeroket]

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.

You are absolutely correct. I hope I did not come across sounding like I thought you were wrong because that was not my intent at all.

 

[BigDave]

RCW 46.04.670 Vehicle.

How about that there is an RCW defining the Ferry System as Public Mass Transportation and oh wait a minute and a vehicle as the Ferry System is a part of the Washington Highway System.

RCW 47.60.017
State ferry system a public mass transportation system.

The legislature finds and declares that the state ferry system is a public mass transportation system.
[1974 ex.s. c 105 § 1.]
​

RCW 46.04.670
Vehicle. (Effective until July 1, 2011.)

"Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. The term does not include power wheelchairs or devices other than bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. Mopeds shall not be considered vehicles or motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.70 RCW. Bicycles shall not be considered vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16, or 46.70 RCW. Electric personal assistive mobility devices are not considered vehicles or motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16, 46.29, 46.37, or 46.70 RCW. A golf cart is not considered a vehicle, except for the purposes of chapter 46.61 RCW.


​

 

[BigDave]

I'm not arguing that. Never have in this thread.
​

But it throws the concepts of walking or driving on the ferry, it is public transportation as a bus or train blah blah blah, if you open/concealed carry a loaded firearm onto Ferry you need to have a CPL if not unload it.

If you are going to claim;

RCW 9.41.060
(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;

Be prepared if required in court to prove such claims.

 

[Bill Starks]

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

.060 - is the exemption. So as long as you could prove the "lawful outdoor activity" or club activity" you would be good to go.

 

[DCKilla]

I find that a ferry fits this definition quite well.

RCW 46.04.197
Highway.

Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

 

[Varmiter]

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.

NavyLT,

I’m really surprised at your comment about the Captain’s authority. Especially considering your user name here.

The Captain can, and will, determine what is legal “aboard HIS vessel”. He has absolute and complete authority under federal law. He could easily throw you into the brig for any reason he saw fit while the vessel is under way. He could then release you from the brig and send you on your way once the vessel is docked. You might try to push the issue [after docking] but you would not fare well if at all.

Now, in exactly the same scenario of being put into the brig, and you resisted, then you are “interfering with the crew in the performance of their duties” which is a federal crime, and very easy to prove.

So, please, be my guest and push the Captains button’s. Just let us know what federal prison you are in so we can send care packages.

I’ve known Dave for years now. If you want to argue the WA statues with him, may I suggest you bring a lunch.

Chris

 

[Sparky508]

.060 - is the exemption. So as long as you could prove the "lawful outdoor activity" or club activity" you would be good to go.

Providing proof might be well beyond this threads limits.

It is however a huge expection, one that I am surprised doesn't get more play.

 

[Varmiter]

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.

Although the Captain may well be operating a state enterprise, his licence is FEDERAL. As such, he can perform a marriage. However, most likely, the company, and/or the state may prohibit it. But marriages are not what we are talking about here. It’s the authority of the Captain. The Captains ultimate authority comes under Federal law.

You are right, the ferry is subject to state law. But the licence for command [the Captain’s] of the ferry comes under federal law as well as state law. Resisting the command of the Captain brings Federal as well as state rewards.

As I said, feel free to push the Captain’s buttons. Since you consider the Captain as not much more then a bus driver speaks volumes as to your understanding of Federal law.

And since this IS a gun forum I have a simple gun related question for you.

Is the existence of the ATF Constitutional???

As for Dave. Oh well....”Your awareness of his reputation on this forum.....” Bravely spoken.

Chris

 

[Jeff Hayes]

I dont believe my State or Federal Constutional rights are suspended on a Washington State Vessel opporated within the State of Washington. As a matter of fact I would bet the Captain is responsable for seeing that the laws of the State are followed on his ship.