Self defense and the RR

DutchRailnut wrote:Mr Malley with your proposal of railroaders breaking rules , you are no better than the criminals you portrait to hate.
Lets take this discussion back to railroading, as it stands now it is nothing more that a right wing nut gun rally.

I thought we were reflecting on the issue with its moral and legal implications; guess I was mistaken. Hope it hasn't been too much of a shock to learn that not everyone sees things your way.
Since it appears we're down to name-calling,
Malley out

DutchRailnut wrote:Mr Malley with your proposal of railroaders breaking rules

Uhhhhhhh, could we stick to the facts, please? I think he's proposing (as am I) that railroad companies are not serving their employees well by disarming them. Should that surprise anyone?

If we go back to the original post, I think that's pretty much what was asked. The OP said (my words, his concept) "it's against the rules to carry but do you do it anyway".

100 years ago, with the old stem-winder brakes, the train crew always had a brake club in hand or nearby. Many a hobo learned not to take THAT lightly. I'm afraid a brake club would not do as well against a 9mm.

Okay guys, let's calm down a tad and get back to the discussion......and let's do it civilly please, or I'll have to lock it for awhile.

Thanks everyone!

Charlie

This discussion reminds me of a scene from the Broadway Play and later movie, A Man for All Seasons, about the geat lawyer and Humanist, Thomas More. In this scene a boatman who ferries travelers along the Thames tells More that he can get him home very quickly if More will pay extra fare. More says, NO, as the tariff rates are fixed by Parliament. The boatman replies, "Yes, but those who make the rules don't row the boats". I think that what applies here to this discussion is that the suits in the offices who make the rules are not out in the yards at 3:00 AM. It is very easy, and safe, for management to issues ukases that make their lives easier ( less liability, fewer hassles) but I wonder if THEY were forced to work outside in dangerous areas in the wee hours if they would be so cavalier about dismissing the very real and legitimate concerns of their employees. Perhaps they should "row the boats" every once in a while.

The basic thing is, their property, their rules, if you dont agree with those rules quit.
If you get caught with a weapon they fire you.
Nobody forces you to be out there in their yard at that time, yet nobody quits. only people leaving do not do so voluntairily.
If you get hurt on their property there is FELA, if you had a weapon the FELA award will be severly reduced.

kevikens wrote:This discussion reminds me of a scene from the Broadway Play and later movie, A Man for All Seasons, about the geat lawyer and Humanist, Thomas More. In this scene a boatman who ferries travelers along the Thames tells More that he can get him home very quickly if More will pay extra fare. More says, NO, as the tariff rates are fixed by Parliament. The boatman replies, "Yes, but those who make the rules don't row the boats". I think that what applies here to this discussion is that the suits in the offices who make the rules are not out in the yards at 3:00 AM. It is very easy, and safe, for management to issues ukases that make their lives easier ( less liability, fewer hassles) but I wonder if THEY were forced to work outside in dangerous areas in the wee hours if they would be so cavalier about dismissing the very real and legitimate concerns of their employees. Perhaps they should "row the boats" every once in a while.

Well said. The NYC motorman I cited previously did the math and figured he'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Whether it's the government or an employer, everyone considering carrying a firearm has to do the same calculus, and deciding if something is immoral or simply illegal is rarely an easy choice. Most states now issue carry permits, and least simplifying part of the question.

BTW, there was reputedly a very remote tower in West Virginia; the towerman worked a week on/week off. The company supplied the towerman with food, fuel, and a shotgun. Sounds like someone in management had indeed 'rowed the boats' a time or two, but of course times have changed.
Malley

Them whut makes the rules ought to have to walk those yards themselves!~ If they DID, it ought to put a different perspective on the subject! Many railroad properties are frightening places, indeed! I KNOW; I was THERE!!!!!

Gadfly+

I don't want to beat this to death but in response to the admonition to quit your job if you cannot abide by management's rules but I am reminde of what recent happened in Atlantic City when , when in response to Casinos' management fears of declining revenue, the city backed off a smoking ban. The casino workers would be again forced to work their shifts inhaling second hand smoke, a proven carcinogen. I suppose following the afore mentioned logic the workers should just quit, but if you ask me that is NOT the proper solution. Please note that I am not saying that every rail worker should be packing heat but I am certain that management- the suits not rowing the boats- have an obligation to provide adequate railroad police protection in high crime areas. Right now there are fewer than ever police patrolling these yards especially at night (they all seem to be out in daylight hassling rail fans). They need to be there and if this is a matter of finances let me suggest that they obtain the funds by reducing the salaries of management.

One reason weapons are not allowed, is the railroads property is under federal control, but just past propery line is state controlled or city, and railworkers would need carry permits for way to much property.
someting that would never fly with law enforcment.

DutchRailnut wrote:One reason weapons are not allowed, is the railroads property is under federal control, but just past propery line is state controlled or city, and railworkers would need carry permits for way to much property.
someting that would never fly with law enforcment.

State weapons laws apply to railroad property exactly the same as outside the property, and if state law prohibits carrying on private property that would apply to railroad property as well. For that matter, railroad police (except maybe Amtrak, I'm not sure about them) are governed by state law, are certified by the states, are they not? Railroad police have police powers to the extent the state grants such powers, the states set the minimum training, etc. Federal control over railroads is train operations and terms and conditions of service. The rest is under state law.

When certain work locations are dangerous from a crime standpoint, the employer should provide increased security personnel. I would think that the bargaining units would include security in collective bargaining negotiations to extent it is a concern.

Thats why railroad police is regulated in Code of federal regulations, railway workers are not regulated and do not get licences to carry on federal controlled property.
even local police does not have unlimited powers on railroads, infact their power is severly limited.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 07_06.html

Railroad property is NOT under Federal control. Under federal regulations, yes, but not under federal control.

And the decision to prohibit firearms on duty has nothing to do with "railworkers would need carry permits for way to (sic) much property".

DutchRailnut wrote:Thats why railroad police is regulated in Code of federal regulations, railway workers are not regulated and do not get licences to carry on federal controlled property.
even local police does not have unlimited powers on railroads, infact their power is severly limited.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 07_06.html

Dutch - We've hammered this out just a few days ago on Gilbert's "Law Enforcement...and the Michigan Corridor" post.
http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=57790 (Page 2)

Local police have the same powers on railroads that they do anywhere else within their respective jurisdiction.

Local police don't enforce motor vehicle laws with trains only because trains, in most states, are not considered motor vehicles. (Neither are rapid transit cars, trolleys, and trackless trolleys operated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts MBTA.)
Can you tell me one way in which "their power is severely limited" on RR property versus city or local property ?

The Pennsylvania State Police respond to criminal activity on railroad property; I've heard them summoned on the scanner. In this particular case, local goblins were stealing/attempting to steal new rr ties; they were reported by the crew of an eastbound.
With no disrespect to the Staties, it did take 'em awhile to get there, and then they went to the wrong place...back to the remote nature of much railroad property. Oh, yeah, the PSP came with backup. I suspect those boys have rowed a boat or two.
Malley