GOP senator wants guns allowed on Amtrak

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Thursday, April 2, 2009 14:30 EDT
GOP senator wants guns allowed on Amtrak


Over the last ten years, there are few major political issues that haven’t cut both ways at some point. Democrats went down to defeat over the Iraq war in 2002, for example, but rode it to success in 2006. But in one debate, the Democrats have staged a long strategic retreat, backing further and further away from gun control.

As Alex wrote two years ago, many Democrats chalked up Al Gore’s narrow losses in 2000 in West Virginia, Ohio, and Tennessee to his support for gun control. Then, gun control opponents like Howard Dean and then Jim Webb became darlings of party activists. Still, for the most part, the turnaround hasn't been complete -- it's not like congressional liberals have started opposing the assault weapons ban. It's just that the party has chosen not to emphasize gun control as an issue lately, or to fight for it.

There's a side effect to this. Republicans can put Democrats -- who would really rather ignore talk about guns entirely -- in an uncomfortable spot by bringing gun bills to a vote. That’s what the GOP was doing when it recently used the bill to give Washington, D.C. a vote in the House as a way to weigh in on the capital’s gun control laws. And, Politico’s Glenn Thrush notes today, that appears to be what Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., is up to with a new proposal to permit the transport of firearms on Amtrak.

It’s hard to imagine a better symbol of how much ground the Democrats have yielded on guns. Guns on Amtrak, the chosen transportation method of Vice President Biden? What's next, crossbows on the El?

Says Wicker, in a release, “Under current Amtrak policy, a lawful citizen who wants to take the train for a hunting trip could not because they are prohibited from storing a gun in any checked luggage.”

But will passengers be allowed to shoot buffalo from moving trains?
― Gabriel Winant

[gratuitous]

1. Why don't these knuckleheads ever want to arm the gallery in Congress?

After all, where are you more likely to get robbed: On a train or during a session of Congress?

[NightWatcher]

2. to protect from hyjackers?

turn this thing around...

[Blue_Tires]

19. Butch and Sundance are waiting to ambush just around the bend....

[damntexdem]

49. Ooh, now there's a point.

We don't want our passenger trains being diverted to Cuba, now do we?

[hasidic acid]

3. Wants to permit them in checked baggage. Not what you have implied.

...

[babylonsister]

6. I didn't 'imply' anything, that's what the writer of this piece wrote.

Interesting, though, that you're defending the repuke.

And when was the last time you checked baggage on a train?

[hasidic acid]

15. I have never checked baggage on a train. I haven't even been on a train at all.

What is a repuke? I'm not familiar with that word.

[KamaAina]

20. A repuke is a member of the repukelican party.

Also see: repig, rethug, republicker, etc.

[hasidic acid]

23. Ah. I see, a kindergarten insult. Thank you!

:D

[Sequoia]

41. "This train don't carry no Repukes, this train....

This train don't carry no Repukes
Don't carry no Bush or Cheney jokers
This train....

An old Gospel favorite updated.

Don't worry about it. Hey, we get called Demon Rats or worse.

[damntexdem]

50. I don't think it's a kindergarten insult -- I'm not sure most Repukes made it out of kindergarten.

And one does not check baggage on Amtrack, one leaves it in a baggage area -- and can access it.

Now, if they want to pay extra to SHIP the firearms by railroad and collect them when they arrive, that would be different.

[hasidic acid]

61. Well now I am confused. The Amtrak website discusses how to check baggage

and gives a whole set of rules about the process.
:shrug:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=am2Copy&pagename=Amtrak%2Fam2Copy%2FTitle_Image_Copy_Page&cid=1080080553878

[Deep13]

54. I think that one would have required...

...at least a 2nd grade education. Personally, I prefer the term "Rethuglicans." It is reasonably accurate and would require at least a 6th grade education to invent it.

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

35. wait, you never took acid on a train?

maybe we need to go over this again.

[XemaSab]

39. I took acid on a train once

It was a fun trip. :D

[Deep13]

55. I will not take acid on a train, I will not do it on a plane...

...I do not like acid trips, said Sam, I am.

[guitar man]

47. you should go for a train ride sometime

they even serve pizza on some of them. :D

[damntexdem]

51. Until they run out.

Then all they have left are peanuts from west Texas.

[hasidic acid]

63. I might some day, just never had the occasion or inclination to do it.

:-)

[Terry in Austin]

69. Trains rule

Even poor, hobbled Amtrak is a great way to travel.

I've made several cross-country trips on Amtrak in recent years, and if it went more places, I'd never subject myself to air travel again. "Once you go 'trak, you'll never go back!"

Great food, too, btw.

[KitchenWitch]

56. I have my eyes on am expecting great things!

:popcorn:

[tanyev]

4. So do they bring an empty suitcase for their kill, or do they have to buy an extra seat?

[babylonsister]

8. Bwhaha! Good point! Maybe two seats if they're out for bear.

:hide:

[damntexdem]

53. Not a suitcase, a violin case.

After all, those who travel by train are very traditional.

[ThomWV]

5. Why would a licensed gun carrier not be allowed on Amtrak or any other public convenience?

What's wrong with a person who is legally armed being armed?

The last question in the post is childish and contributes nothing to the conversation.

[L0oniX]

64. There is no law forbiding a person with a CWP to travel within Florida on Amtrack.

Amtrack may not like it but there's nothing they can do about it. The law is on the side of the CWP holder and if anything the CWP holder is most likely a safer person than others because they have passed a background check.

[Terry in Austin]

66. What's wrong!?

He's packing heat, fer cryin out loud, that's what's wrong. On a train, no less. What -- "legal" makes it better?

It's a killing tool. You pick it up, you come to terms with the idea of your own blessed self becoming a killer. You don't pick it up unless you mean to use it for what it's meant to be used for.

Sheesh.

[Caliman73]

92. That is a naive statement

We know that guns are weapons, but just because you pick one up does not mean you intend to kill. That is one of many things that can happen, but it is just irrational to believe that a person who respects the law and other people would use his/her firearm to kill others unless they were under imminent threat of harm.

Sheesh

[Terry in Austin]

97. Oops - I didn't intend to kill him!

Does that really make a difference?

If you carry, that means you're admitting there is a possibility you'll need to use it. It means you can be in a situation, intended or not, where you use your killing tool for killing.

Even if you were under imminent threat of harm, the outcome was that you killed somebody. Maybe the circumstances justified it, maybe the law excused you, but the outcome is the same.

If you're not mentally prepared for that outcome, you're pulling something really foolish on yourself. Furthermore, from a gun-savvy point of view, you are not giving the weapon the respect that it demands.

[Caliman73]

98. wow you have a one track mind going don't you?

If I have a concealed firearm and I never pull my weapon out, tell me...how is that killing anyone? If I have my firearm and I see you being beaten to death by two assailants, I pull it out, maybe fire a warning shot and send the attackers running...how is that killing anyone? And...would you be upset with me for saving your life by using my firearm? Also, sorry to burst your idea of a Hello Kitty world, but yes if someone wants to harm me or my loved ones, I will defend myself and them up to the point of killing someone. If you choose for yourself and your loved ones to be victimized, that is certainly your prerogative. I certainly respect the firearms I own which is why I have never shot anyone even when in extremely dangerous situations.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the bullets that come out of a firearm have the potential to kill and that firearms were designed to kill. The 300 million firearms in this country have not been used by the 80 million private owners in this country to kill have they? If they had we'd be hearing a great deal more about it. Sounds like a great many firearms that are not meeting their design huh?

I acknowledge that firearms have been misused and even used legally and justifiably as you say, and have caused death. You however seem to be unable to acknowledge that firearms have also been used successfully to deter criminals without causing death.

[Terry in Austin]

99. Okay, you're packing

It's a small chance, but one of these criminals gets after you, the warning shot doesn't cut it, and you really have to use the gun.

You blow the guy away.

Honestly, are you ready for that? Maybe you are -- fair enough. "Yes" is an acceptable answer. I can respect that. But only you know whether your answer is true.

Saying that packing doesn't amount to killing may be literally true, but it suggests that you've put off confronting the possibility. Obviously, there are plenty of times when the gun has served as a nonlethal deterrent. The thing is, though, it's foolish to count on it happening that way every time. Your number can come up.

You don't need to make assumptions about me to have a serious discussion about this. I was raised around guns, and have talked to -- been schooled by, actually -- very gun-savvy people who make this a central issue. Accepting oneself as a potential killer is part of military training, and it's part of police training. Civilians may or may not get it.

This is the antidote to all the cowboy-hero-cops'n'robbers kind of storytelling we get from early kidhood on. I'm not saying you're one of them, but too many people get caught up in the romance of toting a gun and get off on the figure they imagine they cut, only to wind up in a situation they hadn't bargained for -- they pulled the trigger and somebody actually died.

Please note that this is not a suggestion that 80 million private gun owners be deprived of their weapons, so you can relax about that. Rather, it's that each of those individuals should understand the full implications of what it means to be armed. You're one of those individuals, and I'm just raising the hope here that you've truly confronted yourself about the possibility of killing somebody, however small the possibility might be.

[Caliman73]

100. Ok...truce then.

I understand where you are coming from. I think about how ANY of my actions can cause someone harm whether intended or not. I do realize and respect the weapon that I possess although no one truly knows how they will react in a life and death situation, training or not. I believe as you do that too much of our American culture treats life as a commodity and or an opportunity to sell objects and ideas. Many of us walk around thinking that life is like a sitcom where everything is resolved neatly and quickly. Rest assured that I was not raised that way. Though I may want things neatly encapsulated, my life and learning has taught me otherwise.

That is why I always advocate education and serious discussion of the very real reasons people resort to violence to settle perceived grievances. What I dislike and object to is when scared people want to ban objects just because they are misused by a very few people.

[Terry in Austin]

101. Sounds good to me, bro

Plenty of food for thought. May your wisdom keep you safe, and you share it with others!

:toast:

[quiller4]

89. You can carry concealed on Amtrak with proper permits

What you can no longer do is check shotguns or rifles in checked baggage. It used to be quite common for people to do so when taking the train to hunting lodges.

People didn't carry their game home with them. Most lodges have arrangements with firms than butcher, cut, wrap, freeze and ship game for successful hunters.

[sound byte]

7. Does the bill want people to be able to

"Carry" guns on the train or simply transport them (in luggage)?

I think there's a debatable difference. I believe people should have every right to check guns in with luggage. no different than airports or taxicabs, imo. If the bill is suggestive of allowing the carry of guns on Amtrak, then more debate is needed - although I am in support for that measure with commonsense restrictions in place.

“Under current Amtrak policy, a lawful citizen who wants to take the train for a hunting trip could not because they are prohibited from storing a gun in any checked luggage.”

But will passengers be allowed to shoot buffalo from moving trains?

Also, why the statement about shooting buffalo from moving trains? That comment makes the author, editor, and publication look asinine. It shows personal bias of the author (poor journalism) and offers nothing to the article.

[sharp_stick]

13. I think the shooting buffalo line

was meant as a joke. Going back to the start of the rail days and especially in old westerns it seemed like a common site to see folks firing out the windows at massive herds of buffalo through the newly discovered west. I never did figure out how they picked up their kill after riding through the countryside.

on edit: Welcome to DU, it's been kind of nuts around here recently, have fun. :hi:

[damntexdem]

59. There is no debatable difference in luggage on trains.

The luggage is accessible.

And the shooting of buffalo from trains WAS a practice in the 19th Century -- that was before we shuffled off most of the buffalo. After that, passenger trains were used to shuffle off to Buffalo.

[Initech]

9. Guns dont kill people. Armed lunatics with guns kill people.

To quote the late great George Carlin - "We're all fucked. It helps to remember that."

[sound byte]

12. Luckily there's laws in place

to keep guns out of the known-lunatics' hands.
I think we just need to focus on using laws/tools we already have to reduce gun crime.

[Caliman73]

93. careful soundbyte

them's fightin words! You can't expect that enforcing the laws we have in place will satisfy many in GD. Many seem to want more and more laws because criminals just need "one more law" before they understand that they should treat people with respect.

[sharp_stick]

10. Just what I need

the next time I take the train. A drunk redneck getting cut off by the bar on the Acela getting all pissy and pulling out his gun.

On the other hand it could just as easily be a drunk NFL player with an illegal piece these days.

[fascisthunter]

11. So how Much do you Suppose the Gun Lobby Gave to Him?

fucking sick bastard... Why not cut taxes so we'll have to be our own law enforcement too. Who gives a shit about those innocent people getting shot.

[hasidic acid]

16. How does one go about shooting someone with a gun that's down in the baggage compartment?

:eyes:

[KansDem]

24. Well, if you have an argument and that person has a gun in his luggage...

...in the baggage compartment, he could simply go down and pull it out. The "baggage compartment" is accessible at all times, if I remember from my Amtrak-riding days...

[hasidic acid]

31. Okay, I know little about trains. In the old movies they had a baggage car,

is that still the way they do it? Like I said, I have never ridden on a train. (By the way, why the heck do we say "on" the train, "on" the plane but -never- say "on" the car.???)
:shrug:

[uppityperson]

45. No, that is not how they do that. Luggage is accessible.

[hasidic acid]

65. Even checked baggage? Aren't there separate bins down underneath?

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=am2Copy&pagename=Amtrak%2Fam2Copy%2FTitle_Image_Copy_Page&cid=1080080553878

[uppityperson]

77. Not all trains and stations offer checked baggage services.

Amtrak offers checked baggage service at many stations and on many trains and Amtrak Thruway motorcoaches throughout the country. Not all trains and stations offer checked baggage services.

[sound byte]

34. That's the same argument that anti-ccw hysteria cried about when states allowed concealed carry...

And it's every bit as false as history has shown the anti-ccw predictions of "blood in the streets" to be.

Tell me, do you think people carrying firearms with malicious intent care about Amtrak/TSA regulations?
Do you think people exercising their 2nd amendment rights should be inconvienced because of a regulation that offers no real benefits?
What about people travelling by Amtrak to shooting competitions or other outdoor events? Not all shooters are hunters.

[KansDem]

36. I was merely pointing out that a gun is immediately accessible to an Amtrak rider...

...and not stored in an inaccessible "baggage car."

Immediately accessible by an potentially angry passenger.

[benEzra]

26. How many people have been shot on U.S. airliners recently?

Because this would change the Amtrak rules to be the same as airliners. Unloaded guns allowed in locked checked baggage secured in the baggage compartment, not in the cabin.

[RamboLiberal]

14. Would some of you knee-jerkers read!

“Under current Amtrak policy, a lawful citizen who wants to take the train for a hunting trip could not because they are prohibited from storing a gun in any checked luggage.”

You can check a gun in as checked baggage on airlines. Why not allow someone to do so on an Amtrak train? If they have no access to the gun what the hell is the danger? We do have Amtrak trains that run through some great hunting country. What if someone wants to combine a scenic train trip with a hunting vacation?

[glinda]

17. Amtrak is carry on for the most part. It would be stupid to allow a gun on the passenger

side although if a way to take the guns and check them into a locked and guarded portion of the train say for hunting trips, etc...then it might be ok. I just do not want guns available to anyone who so desires to carry one around on public transit. When I have taken Amtrak, a huge selling point is the safety aspect. The Republicans just want to ruin Amtrak or make everyone in the majority give up their rights for a minority. If on a hunting trip surely they could not bring their dead moose home with them on a train could they? This is a smokescreen and total BS.

[sound byte]

22. That seems a little contradictory

The Republicans just want to ruin Amtrak or make everyone in the majority give up their rights for a minority.

Technically, Amtrak disallowing lawfully permitted citizens to carry their firearms is forcing the loss of rights... as it the right of people to keep and bear arms. It would appear this legislation offers more rights... not less. Obviously, if firearm carry is locally prohibited then Amtrak should be expected to abide by the locale's status quo for firearm laws.

Also, keep in mind that it is often the right of the unpopular opinion and MINORITY that needs legal protection, as the wants/opinion of the majority are generally accepted. Do you think the 1st amendment is so powerful because it protects love-speech? No... it's so useful because it protects speech in contrast to popular opinion. (mini-rant off) :)

[hasidic acid]

25. Some people think the Bill of Rights ends after the 1st Amendment.

...

[fascisthunter]

32. and some people like to rewrite the Constitution

for their own agendas....

"Well regulated militia"

The need for guns isn't about rights... if it were, you give damn about all the other rights we have already lost.

It's about a hobby...

[hasidic acid]

33. I rest my case.

...

[CreekDog]

42. I rest my case too!

so there! :D

[sound byte]

40. Why are you so pretentious as to assume

what rights I give a damn about having lost? We've lost many and must continue to fight for them.
I support many rights held by Americans, some of which I will never exercise within my lifetime.

FYI: Take a gander at this excerpt from the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." I'm fairly certain in 1776 Virginians knew the original intent of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights... which they so graciously translate and spoon feed for retards who need the 2A spelled out to them. The 2nd Amendment is about people having the right to own/bear firearms. Period.

[glinda]

79. I didn't say no but I think they should be checked in. I doubt they can bring a dead

animal back on Amtrak. It is a bunch of hooey. I grew up upnorth and around hunting. I have nothing against responsible gun owners. I just don't want the arms lugged around on the train being accessible. I have rights. Oh...that's right....I guess I don't.

[krispos42]

80. If a person has a concealed-carry permit

Then I have no problem with him or her being in a public place, such as a train, subway, bus, park, etc. It's not people with CCW permits that are out committing crimes.

If a person that simply wants to transport a firearm wants to check it into the baggage... well, I'm surprise it wasn't allowed already. After all, airlines check firearms all the times into the baggage compartment.


Trains are also a lot more resistant to gunfire than airplanes. And unlike on an airplane, if something goes down on a train the passengers have the option to simply jump off.

Finally, trains follow a known course and are completely able to be intercepted and boarded by law enforcement at virtually any point along it's path.



And if a hunter went on a hunting trip on a train and shot something, he'd have it processed locally and shipped back to his home, packed in dry ice and styrofoam.

[X_Digger]

81. Wait, you can't go all logical and shit..

"T'aint funny, McGee!!"

:)

(for the uninitiated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibber_McGee_&_Molly )

[Renew Deal]

57. And it's probably easier to carry a gun on a train anyway.

I've been on Amtrak before. You just walk on and walk off. If people want to scream about guns on trains, that's the place to start.

[damntexdem]

67. The baggage is NOT in an inaccessible compartment on Amtrack.

If you want the equivalent of a firearm in checked luggage on an airliner, then think about shipping the firearm via railroad.

[hasidic acid]

74. If that is the case, why do they differentiate between carry-on and checked baggage?

Wouldn't that be completely pointless?
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=am2Copy&pagename=Amtrak%2Fam2Copy%2FTitle_Image_Copy_Page&cid=1080080553878

[GA_ArmyVet]

91. Seems like a simple fix then

A compromise if you will. Let them check the bags with weapons, then lock the damn door to secure the luggage. Seems like a security/liablity issue to me anyway to not secure checked baggage. How do they safeguard your property in their possession from theft?

[a la izquierda]

76. I checked my bags on Amtrak

They went to a little section in the middle of the train, where anyone can grab them. No security, they're not underneath the train.

[aikoaiko]

18. Misleading Headline Award Winner! Ensure Legal Gun Owners To Securely Transport Guns on Amtrak...

...would have been better. He won't people to be able to check unloaded firearms in locked cases.

but hey, here is the actual press release from Wicker.

http://wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6701a0ae-a248-33b2-20ab-17398ef4aaf7">Wicker Measure Would End Gun Owners’ Restrictions During Train Travel
Amendment Would Allow Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms

Thursday, April 2, 2009

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., today said he has offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution that would help ensure law-abiding gun owners are able to securely transport firearms on Amtrak trains. Amtrak currently allows three pieces of checked luggage, but unlike the airline industry, prohibits secure transport of firearms in checked bags.

“Gun owners should not be penalized for seeking alternative means of travel,” Sen. Wicker said. “Under current Amtrak policy, a lawful citizen who wants to take the train for a hunting trip could not because they are prohibited from storing a gun in any checked luggage. Our nation’s airlines allow gun owners to check guns in their luggage. Our federally-subsidized rail line should be no different.”

“Gun Owners of America strongly supports Sen. Roger Wicker’s amendment to the Budget, an amendment that will protect the rights of travelers who use Amtrak,” said John Velleco, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America. “Americans should not be denied their Second Amendment rights when they travel by train. Furthermore, a transportation entity that receives federal funds should not be allowed to prevent Americans from hunting or defending themselves when they travel on vacation or personal business.”

If Sen. Wicker’s amendment is adopted, it would prohibit Amtrak from accessing some transportation funds included in the budget unless the company changes its gun transportation ban.

eta: But maybe we should just wait for the actual text of the bill before getting all bent out of shape.

[gratuitous]

27. Bwahahahaha!

Hunters taking trains! Bwahahahahaha!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Boy, time weighs heavy on the hands of the back-benchers in the minority party, doesn't it?

[aikoaiko]

46. It really doesn't even matter why they wish to transport the firearm....

...as long as there is no evidence of illegal activity.

[benEzra]

21. This would change the rules to the same as AIRLINERS.

Summing up the thread so far:

OMG!!! OH NOES!!! AMTRAK MIGHT ADOPT AIRLINE STYLE RULES ON CHECKED BAGGAGE!!! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!! TERRAH!!

Is reading comprehension that bad in this country?

I'll use bold type a little bit here, for the reading impaired upthread.

When flying across the country on an airliner, you can lock an unloaded gun in your checked baggage, declare it at the counter, the airline person inspects it, you close the suitcase, and it goes in the cargo hold of the airplane, inaccessible to you. That way, you can travel by air if you want to have a firearm at your destination, instead of having to drive a car across the country.

It appears that the goal is to make Amtrak work the same as the airlines with regard to checked baggage. How scary.

:eyes:

[gratuitous]

75. Apparently reading comprehension is taking a beating in this country

The quote from Sen. Wicker: "Under current Amtrak policy, a lawful citizen who wants to take the train for a hunting trip could not because they are prohibited from storing a gun in any checked luggage."

Which led to uproarious laughter from me, to think of big he-man hunters forsaking their manly pick up trucks for a federally-subsidized choo-choo train to go into the wilderness (where Amtrak, admittedly, has beaucoup stops) in order to enjoy their bang-bangs. I repeat:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[benEzra]

84. Most hunters I know are ordinary people, not "big he-man" types.

I dare say that most people who travel with firearms are nonhunters, though (given the proportion of hunters vs. nonhunting gun owners in the general population), and that the most common type of firearm checked through to one's destination would be a handgun. I've done it myself, on AirTran (it was a trigger locked Smith & Wesson 9mm with the slide locked back in a hard case per FAA regs, I was wearing a dockers shirt and khakis, fairly short haircut, and glasses, and the TSA officer asked me if I was FBI; made my day).

[TWiley]

28. Oh for Fuck's sake. Why do we let paranoid people write laws?

Carry a gun to church
carry it on the airplane
carry it on the train
carry it to work
carry it the grocery store
carry it to your mothers house
Never, absolutely never leave home without it.

Never sleep without it either, there are boogie men under the bed and their friends live in the closet !

[sound byte]

30. Ironically, your little little list can be summed up...

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[TWiley]

38. so, a better world through carrying guns everywhere then?

[sound byte]

44. Nice straw man... let me help you.

so, a better world through carrying guns everywhere then?

A freer People to have the choice of carrying arms everywhere.

If you don't like the idea of carrying firearms, then don't.
If you don't like just ANYBODY carrying firearms, support laws prohibiting felons/convicts from doing so.

[AlinPA]

62. I think a lot of people might be a bit concerned the first time they see some guy

walking down the aisle of the train holding a shot gun. It will take some time getting used to that.

[sound byte]

68. True, but when you transport a long gun (rifle/shotgun) it should be in a case.

Not toted around in your hands. I wouldn't advocate for that anywhere. I think that might actually be considered brandishing which is against the law in many ordinances.

I actually think the law will be to allow for the safe transport of a friearm. Most likely it will call for a locked/secured case for the friearm. I don't think the potential access of the owner to his friearm is a legitamate concern on any level as long as acess is restricted from other passengers.

[AlinPA]

78. I'm totally OK with having hunting equipment checked as baggage or

carried in the trunk of your car on vacation. It's like fishing rods, you might not need them for all parts of your vacation or fishing/hunting trip.

But walking around with a shotgun or a rifle on a train or even holding a pistol in a public place is not a good idea to me. Yes, we have a right to bears arms but that kind of carrying is not smart to my thinking. It will definitely shake up some people even if the person toting the gun is just excercising their 2nd amendment rights.

[TWiley]

90. naawww, there is something wrong with YOU, and not the paranoid freak carrying the gun

The gun nut has a difficult time getting used to all those peaceful people out there

[hasidic acid]

95. Do you hate criminal Republicans as much as you hate law-abiding Democrat gun owners?

Just wondering.

[TWiley]

96. well, I dont hate anyone that I can think of.

Nothing wrong with law-abiding gun owners, the only problem is that so many are only one squeeze of the trigger away from being a first-time criminal

[KitchenWitch]

60. There is a lot to watch in this thread

:popcorn:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

71. Share please?

KW! :hug: :loveya:

[benEzra]

85. Ummm, you do know this would change the rules to be the same as airliners, yes?

This is not about "carrying guns on the train," if the article is correct; it is about allowing the checking through to your destination of unloaded, locked firearms in checked baggage on trains, just like you always have been able to do on airplanes.

[TheCowsCameHome]

29. Black Bart and the gang gonna hold up the Acela @ 150mph?

Where do these ideas come from?

[malaise]

37. Bet that SOB has never taken

Amtrak. Fuck off!

[RamboLiberal]

43. Curisous - does Amtrak have metal detectors or any kind of

TSA type security? I'm asking cause I've never taken an Amtrak train.

If not, amazing how you all think that someone who would want to shoot up a train would obey the no-guns law in the first place.

[benEzra]

87. The TSA wants it (more manpower and budget), but they don't have it yet AFAIK. (n/t)

[damntexdem]

48. Ah, guns won't do much good on those trains.

How about bazookas instead? Or howitzers -- think of what one could hit with an howitzer from a moving train.

[Deep13]

58. The trick is to jump from your horse and onto the trian.

That's hard to do and invariably, you have to walk miles afterward to find your horse. The Pat Garret or Wyatt Erp might be on you by then.

[Deep13]

52. Yell, a passanger can check a cased and locked firearm on an airplane.

I guess what is different here is that the gun stays with the passanger. If the train had a limited check-in for items requiring special attention, it might work.

[old mark]

70. Pretty pointless, if the gun is checked in the baggage car no one

has access to it till the baggage is removed.
As far as carrying on a train, I always conceal my carried handguns very well. No one would notice.

mark

[Jack Sprat]

72. Can't you picture Eli Wallach and George Peppard

firing at one another as they jump from one passenger car to the next? It's how the west was won.

[sound byte]

73. Why is everyone cocerned with access to a firearm?

The person who brings an unloaded firearm in a locked case also had personal access to that firearm at the terminal, in public, and everywhere else they went in public. Why is it such an issue once you're on the train? Heck, a majority of states in the US allow concealed carry of LOADED HANDGUNS in public and private places... and people are throwing a fit over a locked gun case in an overhead compartment?!? :crazy:

The important issue is that it is UNLOADED and LOCKED to prevent access/use by unauthorized persons (people who aren't the owner). Citizens taking the time to properly lock/store a firearm for transport are not a point for concern - you should worry about the ones not following the rules and illegally carrying pistols... because they do not care for the rules nor you.

[ejbrush]

82. Hmmph. Must be an East Coast thing...

Because the last time my wife and I took the Amtrak to North Dakota, there were hunters all over the station and the car (departing Madison). It was a October wedding we were going to, at the height of waterfowl season. Baggage compartment? Full of cased shotguns. Passenger compartment? Lotsa fellas in hunting gear. Conductor? Un-Concerned. Other passengers? Un-Concerned. Me? Envious, because I hadn't even thought to grab my gear and tromp around the potholes on the in-laws homestead...

FWIW, every winter the train up to Devils Lake is packed, packed with people heading up for the ice-fishing.

Ya know, I'm glad Ed Shultz is getting a show on MSNBC - maybe some folks will begin to realize that there is a big ol' country out there beyond their own noses.

[benEzra]

86. I *think* the no-firearms-in-checked-baggage rule was instituted by Bush II

Prior to that it was allowed, AFAIK. TSA paranoia, IMO; inspected, locked guns in checked baggage are allowed in the cargo holds of airplanes and always have been.

[-..__...]

83. I don't hunt (never have, never had a desire to)...

have never taken AMTRACK or any other commuter rail system (city subway system doesn't count), and I wholly support this bill.

Partially because it reinforces my RKBA/2nd amendment beliefs, but mostly because it gets the anti-gun sob sisters and drama queens in
a bug-eyed lather.

I can't wait for the forthcoming, frothing at the mouth screed from the Brady Campaign parasites condemning this proposal... it should be a hoot!

[davidpdx]

88. I believe there is a baggage car at the end of the train

or somewhere within the train that isn't accessable. I have checked a bag when I had more then one piece of luggage and couldn't lug all of it on myself (yeah I know stupid huh?). The solution would be to make gun owners put their guns in locked boxes and stow them in this car and have the car secured. The problem would be that baggage service would have to be available at all stops (it sounds like at some stops it's not).

[shadowknows69]

94. We should ban all weapons except swords

If you really want to kill someone you better make sure you have greater skill than your opponent.