Senate passes measure to allow gun transport on Amtrak

Source: CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate voted Wednesday to prohibit federal funding to Amtrak unless it allows licensed gun owners to transport their weapons on the passenger trains by next year.

The measure, an amendment to the Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill, passed 68-30.

The House passed its version of that appropriations bill in July. It did not include a provision to allow guns on Amtrak.

The Senate measure says Amtrak would lose federal subsidies if it prohibits passengers from bringing their guns on board under restrictions similar to those imposed on airlines.

"Under current practices, all of the American domestic airlines permit firearms in their checked luggage. Other American passenger railroads also allow checked firearms," Wicker said on the Senate floor.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/amtrak.guns/index.html

---

This country is truly nuts. Guess I'll be using Canada's VIA instead.

that's what seeing this headline gave me.

Guns are a right and are people. There's nothing in the Constitution about any limits.

Congress MUST act Now for FULL FREEDOM for this consumer item!

It hurts me so much, but I`m starting to truely feel that he would be better off.

The good ones tend to have tight immigration laws.

It was my impression that it was "set aside...laid upon the table" to die??? I couldn't figure out why so many dems voted for it!! IT DOESN"T MAKE SENSE!! Could be CNN got it wrong??

Please explain why this would require fleeing the country.

I simply meant that I had always thought that this was the greatest country to live in. But, now that I am an older and (perhaps) wiser I feel that other countries are worth a second look. He is my only child and next year he will have electrical enginering degree. I`ve just encouraged him to think outside the box. He has worked so freaking hard for this degree that I hope he can USE it, I most assuradly don`t want to see him working "in the service" industry.

Unless Amtrak can show that passengers absolutely cannot access their checked luggage, I just won't be taking the train anymore.

on their trains. A woman on my last Amtrak returned from the bathroom and told her seatmate: "Just piss your pants -- at least it will be your OWN urine."

This makes sense. WTF is the problem?

UNloaded in Checked baggage. Where no passenger can get to it in flight.

I swear. Did no one else read the article??

Know where "checked" luggage is? Usually by the steps. Inside the actual car.
So, anybody could go get their gun if it met their fancy. To qualify this, I've taken Amtrak between NYC and DC several times, and between OKC and Dallas.

Nothing in the rulking says that they have to allow a checked gun to be stored in the same car as the passengers. It merely has to be like an airline where you can have the gun shipped with you to the destination.

Remember this is a Dem controlled Senate that supported this. So it's not really some open carry thing. The person both dropping off and retreiving the weapon will also be required to Legally be able to posses it. Which for a MA to DC run should add considerable hurdles.

Why all the paranoia? We have stringent rules about guns in airplanes being locked up because there's the threat of hijacking. You can't exactly take an Amtrak train to a non extradition treaty country.

Criminals (should any use Amtrak) already carry on Amtrak

I swear. I don't even know how to fire a gun (I mean, pull the trigger probably, but I've never tested that theory), and I don't see any problem with people transporting their firearms in the baggage compartment, locked up safe.

How else are they supposed to get them where they're going? Say I want to ride the train to Wyoming and go hunting, do I mail it ahead? Can you even mail a rifle?

Sometimes DU is disappointing in its inability to read beyond headlines. :(

Then ,by definition, they're not law abiding

NRA fans seem to want to divide the population into "criminal" and "law-abiding" as though they're immutable characteristics, rather than descriptions of what one is up to at any given time.

full access to baggage. I've been on a few long distance trains.

:banghead:

...Even you? Did no one read the article?

Translation for the slow readers: you can already take a gun on an airline under these EXACT SAME RULES, and you always have been able to do so.

Think about it for a nanosecond.

Every airplane has access from the passenger compartment to cargo, and generally most trains have a seperate compartment for baggage.

And still nobody has explained what, exactly, the harm is. It's not like somebody is going to hijack an Amtrak route and take it to Cuba, nor is it like you can't get a gun on there now if you wanted.

In the vast majority of the country (also known as Free America") no "license" is required to purchase, own, or carry a firearm. So what's all this crap about "Licensed" gun owners?

Now we need to get Amtrak to let CHP holders carry on the train (providing their CHP is valid in that state)

Where does it end?

So seriously, put away the silly stereotypes.

Nationwide, something like 2% of the population (on average) is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. That varies pretty heavily: here in New York, I suspect it's much lower, while the highest rate in the country is Oregon, where 6% of the population has a concealed carry license.

As a whole, people with concealed carry permits commit violent crimes at a rate one third less than that of the police themselves, and two thirds less than that of the general population.

Of course none of this counts Vermont and Alaska, the only two states in the US where you can carry a concealed pistol without a license of any kind.

Nationwide, something like 2% of the population (on average) is licensed to carry a concealed handgun
Does this mean that non permit holders will be unable to transport a firearm on Amtrak? What about Vermont or Alaska residents? No permit is required for concealed carry in those states. (OT but.. And they don't seem to have piles of dead bodies in the street)

I dislike the term "licensed gun owner" because I see it as a Grabber tactic to make people assume that one must posses a license to own a firearm. That's why i tend to call it out when I see it

EDIT HTML mistake no text changed

"Does this mean that non permit holders will be unable to transport a firearm on Amtrak?"

The article doesn't specify. Possibility A is that you won't be allowed to transport non-concealable guns. Possibility B is that whatever laws a given state has in relation to transportation of firearms would apply.

"What about Vermont or Alaska residents?"

I would assume that if we're talking Possibility A, then within Vermont, you could check a firearm. Amtrak doesn't serve Alaska, of course.

Guns in checked baggage, just like airlines do now.

You think you are safer with a gun, I think I am in more danger when you have a gun.

You can't change that. That's how I feel, that's how you feel, we don't have to agree.

Just voicing my opinion.


OK?

Is how you feel based on any objective reality? if I really am safer carrying a gun shouldn't that trump your subjective feeling that you not safer if I'm armed?

Unless you live in Illinois odds are you're around armed citizens every day and just don't know it

Just waiting for the first guy to take his gun out and shoot at me in my car because I did move fast enough for him.

The odds that it will be a CHP holder or legal gun owner (in some states no permit is required to conceal a weapon in your vehicle) are almost nil, you do know that right?

I was not aware of the present restriction. It seems pretty ridiculous considering that you can transport them in checked baggage on airplanes.

Come on folks, read the article. They'll only be allowed to carry a firearm in their checked luggage, not on their person.

I can't see how this is harmful.

Which is a good thing.

I've never seen a separate, inaccessible-to-the-public train car for storing luggage.

Not all of them have real checked baggage, but some do. I'm just guessing this only applies to the ones who do.

Personally I think there should be a lock on the gun, then stored in the locked hard container but that's just my double/triple precautionary instinct.

"Bring it on," Frank and Jesse!!!

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, was opposed to the measure.

"In order to receive any federal funding under this amendment, Amtrak would have six months to build a process for checking and tracking firearms," she said.

"It would have to find the manpower necessary to screen and guard firearms, and it would have to purchase the equipment necessary. Now, there is nothing in the underlying appropriations to pay for any of that. So this amendment is going to put a severe burden on them, and if they do not comply, Amtrak will shut down."

This is a gift to oil companies. It will force more people to use less efficient ways to get to their destinations.

The same system used right now at airports could be used. Very easy to do.

that the new regulation is supposed to be similar to the airline ones. Heck, you can bring all kinds (well almost) of weapons on a plane as long as they are checked. You can even check metal throwing stars.

My question is: is the luggage on Amtrak trains really checked, or does it simply sit at one end of the car? I know its like that in Europe. Because if it is right where someone can have at it, well that pretty much defeats the whole purpose doesn't it?

"The Senate measure says Amtrak would lose federal subsidies if it prohibits passengers from bringing their guns on board"

Blackmail !!

I hope the Democrats can find another way of getting the money to Amtrak, even if its a friggin grant.

drinking age 21.

If they want to pass legalisation where it's possible to bring hand guns on to Amtrak, it should be done on its own accord or in another form, and not to blackmail Amtrak through federal funding.

and secondly, i don't want guns on trains, planes or any other form of public transport. It aids the nutjobs and the terrorists, and serves no public purpose.

And Federal funds have been used to force changes all over the place, such as the threat to cut off federal highway funds for states that did not raise the drinking age to 21.

But to state it only "aids the nutjobs and terrorists" is as ignorant as you can get. Thousands of people check their guns in baggage everyday, without indecent. Are these the nutjobs and terrorists you speak of?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How does allowing guns in checked baggage aid terrorists? What terrorists have been aided by this policy? You speak from your ass, friend, and your breath smells like shit.

As I see that you consider anyone that owns a gun to be a nutjob or a terrorist, I dont see how this conversation can go anywhere but downhill, so I bid you a good day.

I hope you see the light some day and come to realize that everyone is a lot more safe the less guns there are lying around.

I am against guns lying around too! They should be properly stored and secured when not in use.

And while I guess you can consider me to be "gun toting" I am as far from redneck as one can be. But I know that when its habitual to talk out of your ass, its hard to stop. I support you, though, and will be here to point out when you have done it again. Have a nice day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Because he can't his argument up with facts.

going to concede that more guns does not equal more crime. Statistically the number of guns in private hands have been proven to have absolutely nothing to do with violent crime stats..if anything they reduce violent crime since US violent crime has been declining for 20 years bringing us to 40 year lows, same goes for accidental shootings. I guess it is much easier to make false proclamations based on thin air than to actually research the issue, huh?

OMG, I gotta transport my guns! = Vital issue of national concern.
I feel sick, but I can't afford to go to the doctor = Just die already.

the priorities of many states revolves around some of their largest industries, in the case of my state one of those industries would be tourism...hunting tourism to be exact. In 2003 Kansas sold 60k non resident hunting licenses. Those licenses infuse nearly half a million dollars into our state parks and wildlife management system, our only state government agency which is 100% self supporting using no tax dollars. Not to mention the peripheral tourism money infused into the state. Most of this money goes into the poorest towns as they tend to be in the most remote areas of this vast state and offer some of the best upland bird hunting on the planet.

on an airplane the passenger has no access to checked baggage. On a train they get to keep it with them the whole trip if they are in a sleeper. They may even have access in a regular seat. I'm not sure. I've only traveled long distance in a sleeper car.

I thought that?

carrying a gun on my train ride.

to the ridiculous usually indicates the absence of substantive argument.

That would make the following statement incorrect, "I don't want ANYONE carrying a gun on my train ride."

:rofl:

The gun will be locked in checked baggage.

stays with the passenger on long distance rides in a sleeper car. I think they are parked by the door for seated passengers.

So let's pick something that might have a shot at working.

Do we know each other that well? No, I didn't think so. I do know you and I will never see eye to eye on the gun issue. You're a frickin gun lover. I wouldn't step foot in your home or allow my children on your street. Sorry. Just the way it is.

Do you think there's not a home W/ guns there? One of three homes in America has at least one you know. All of my guns (W/ one exception) are locked in a safe and for the privilege of carrying the exception I submitted to a CBI background check proving that I had no prior HX of violent crimes. I'm probably the safest person you could have a round you W/ a gun. Can you say that about the thugs that carry guns around you every day?

some gun loving asshole across the street threatened to shoot my son when his unattended 3 yo ran her tricycle into his friend and fell over. She ran in to daddy crying and daddy came threatening to kill my son. So yeah, I know about assholes who feel the need to have guns.

And the last person I would trust with a gun is the one who brags about being the "safest" guy in town. Your cocky attitude and lack of healthy fear/respect for a deadly weapon just scares the shit out of me.

In terms of thoroughly vetted by TPTB before being issued a permit. Although I am absolutely anal about firearms safety having been shot by some one who wasn’t several decades ago. There are 100 + MILLION legal gun owners in this country and the overwhelming majority of them have never broken a firearms related law (unless you want to stretch the definition to cover speeding W/ a gun in the car). Your homeboy down the street would have been guilty of felony menacing and brandishing a weapon (whether he actually presented or not) in Colorado so he doesn’t sound like a legal or responsible gun owner anyway.

According to the 2006 CDC stats, there were 16,883 suicides and 12,791 homicides with firearms. Meanwhile, 46,664 people died in traffic accidents and 56,326 died of the flu and pneumonia.

We need to stop breathing and driving. They're not necessities, after all. But hold onto those guns.

Ridiculous argument.

Merely pointing out that you do thing that are FAR more dangerous that associating W/ "Frickin' Gun Lovers" everyday.

A gun is an inanimate object, it can do absolutely nothing W/ out human intervention. Functional, reliable firearms have only been around for the last 400(or so) years. Prior to the that the strong ruled by virtue of their strength, most people never got more than 8 miles from the place they were born and women were property. Is that what you want to go back to? Firearms are used roughly 2 MILLION times every year to prevent crimes (often w/out firing a shot). But you want to throw all that away based on your emotional assessment that you don't like guns and MY argument is ridiculous?

Another reason you probably shouldn't own a gun. I've said this once already. I'll say it again. You and I will never see eye to eye on this. So quite trying to convince me with silly arguments like women will go back to being property if everyone isn't running around with a firearm.

I just wanted to point out that your illogical point of view was based purely on emotion not reason

Think how much differnt Annie Le's story might have been if she had a CHP.

who carried guns, then I suppose you might have a point. And a safer world it would probably be.

Criminals are far less likely to attack a victim (regardless of gender) who they know is armed. If thats true Annie would have been safer W/ a gun.

Again, I go back to the gun is an object, W/ out criminal intent it's nothing. I believe in punishing the CRIMINAL to the full extent of the law, Your son should have called the police and filed a complaint.

I also believe that every firearm should be secured ( I count under direct personal control as "secured") at all times if not in use.

I bet that up to this point we agree almost 100%

I am throughly convinced that criminals will obtain firearms irrespective of any gun control law.

I bet we even agree on that.

The difference is that I believe the simplest solution to that problem is to quit punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of thugs.

Final statistical fact

States ( such as Vermont in which no permit is required for concealed carry) W/ less restrictive gun laws have lower crime rates. Based on this I believe that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing.

That's what we disagree on

You're wasting time. I can agree to disagree. Can you?

Nothing in the world requires you to respond to my post

What is truly nuts are those of you with an irrational fear of guns.

That's my concern.

There may be rules about not accessing them, but they are physically accessible, unlike an airplane.

Nearly all passenger aircraft, except those smaller, regional planes, have access to the cargo hold from the passenger deck. You have seen too many movies where access to baggage cars is unregulated.

Even on checked luggage.

Thanks for the heads up!

that I dont know about. I refer you back to my "irrational fear" statement.

Things change.

Question. Are people also allowed to pack ammunition in their carry-ons? That could change the way I think about this.

And box cutters have been banned (but you can put them in your checked baggage). Not happy about the liquids ban, its completely bunk.

The ammunition must be in the original box or a similar container that protects the ammunition from rough handling, and the quantity is limited (no more than a few boxes is allowed, IIRC).

Small arms ammunition is *not* explosive (contrary to the movies), and unchambered ammunition does not go shooting off; even if there were a fire, the case just splits and vents, like a can of shaving cream or hair spray.

Guns allowed in checked baggage just like airlines do now. Nowhere does it state that passengers will be carrying loaded weapons ON THEIR PERSON while riding the train.

Are you people stupid or willfully ignoring the facts?

The USA is in Time Warp.........
Richard Boone says it was a TV show
not something that a thirds world nation needs.
Neevermind.



usa ..........?????

The wild wild west......so civilized

According to an email I received from the National Association of Railway Passengers

Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper has written a letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation warning that Amtrak does not have the infrastructure, nor the systems in place, to meet this request in such a short time frame across its entire network.

Now, did anyone think that this GOP sponsored amendment provided any funds for Amtrak to upgrade the baggage handling?

According to the NARP alert, one source claims this would shut down the railroad because Amtrak does not currently have "the infrastructure needed to properly secure baggage at this time."

Also,

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) apparently is considering a hostile amendment that would eliminate unspent Amtrak funds from the current (FY 2009) appropriations law and the Recovery Act. This would threaten millions of dollars used to provide train service throughout the country. "Unspent" simply reflects timing issues; Amtrak still needs the funds.


--
For sponsor Sen. Wicker (R-MS) it's a GOP 2-fer. Panders to gun owners AND may result in a shut down of Amtrak.

The checked baggage goes in the baggage car.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1080080553878&ssid=43

Actually, I've not observed any security that would prevent you from carrying a substantial infernal machine on board.

There are occasional roving patrols with dogs, but you would have to be pretty unlucky to encounter one.

I think they are relying on the fact that it is hard to fly a train into a large building.

As for someone carrying a 9 mm on board and shooting up people, well that can happen in any crowded place anywhere. It has happened on trains, but it has happened in malls as well.

Kinda deflates all the hand wringing.

1. Amtrak does not have the infrastructure or funds to meet this mandate (see letter from Amtrak Chairman and NARP)
2. The amendment provides zero funding for Amtrak to meet this mandate
3. If Amtrak does not meet this mandate by next March, All of their funding is lost

When comparing Amtrak's ability to that of airlines, you should keep in mind that the airlines probably receive more federal subsidies for airport baggage security every year than the entire Amtrak appropriation.

That said, I have NO problem with Amtrak allowing guns in checked baggage, but this bill threatens to ELIMINATE ALL FUNDING if they do not comply, and does NOTHING to make that possible. If the amendment's author was at all interested in providing safe transportation of personal firearms, he would have included a provision for implementation.

Nope, it is just another lame attempt to kill passenger rail travel.

aboard a train as long as it's in a piece of luggage. No laundry baskets or rubbermaid "tubs" allowed though.

It was an amazingly tiring and stupid day at work, and it is well past my bedtime, but I gotta chime in.

Just how many shootings occured on Amtrak in the first place? Really. I'd like to know. Then compare it to the number of guns on the train that didn't shoot anyone.

This might come as a complete shock, but there are other reasons a person might bring a firearm on the train with them other than murder and mayhem. I have witnessed it with mine own eyes.

Eight years ago, my wife and I took a train trip from Madison, Wisconsin (technically Columbus, WI, since some genius decided there was no reason to have the Empire Builder go through the freakin' state capital) for a cousin's wedding. 'Twas October, which means waterfowl season in the Upper Midwest. Let me tell you - that train was packed, cheek to jowl, with guys in GoreTex and camo, up from Chicago and Milwaukee and Madison, bound for the flyways of North Dakota. The baggage compartment was so full of shotguns that we had our bags in our laps the whole way there.

Get this - not one of those guns got up and shot anyone. Really - scouts honor. Not one hunter got drunk and belligerant and trigger happy. Not one. Cripes, I'd be more scared of one college kid with a sword than an entire train of heavily armed goose hunters. Yet, here is an entire thread of wailing and rending of cloth over how our trains will be awash in blood.

Please - get a grip. If it sounds like I'm cranky, I am. I've got another cousin's wedding in October. I love taking the train to Devil's Lake, it is better than driving 11 hours to get there. Sure would be nice to take an afternoon and chase some ducks out of the potholes, but I won't be able to this time, since my Evil Ol' Shotgun is going to be left at home.

Also, I'm going to bed now, so don't expect me to reply to any posts. For the record, I could probably spend a good hour discussing the morality and ethics of hunting a non-hunter, if it were in person, face to face. Not online, as the inter-tubes are probably the poorest form of meaningful discourse to come along since Samuel F.B. Morse tried to have a telegraph round-table discussion. As it is late, and I am cranky, I will let the magic of the inter-tubes continue this fear-mongering without me.

It's the same rules as planes.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

And they don't realize that this was allowed by Amtrak up until 2004. And, despite giving lip service to 'hunters and sportsmen', they have an irrational fear of guns and gun owners.

If they have any access to it all, it should not be allowed.

They are truly cowards. Who would think a Democratic senate would bow to the yahoos?

Your right to bear arms doesn't mean any arms, any place, any time. And it doesn't outweigh others' rights to travel safely.

and think before you post.

if the Senate could fund a functioning national rail system first, and only then worry about details like what you can bring in your luggage.

The responses here do not give me much hope for the Dems. I don't know what drives me more nuts.....

1. That so many here have not bothered to read the article.

2. That so few people realize that you could do this up until 2004.

3. The fact that so few of you regularly ride Amtrak and dont realize that many trains have separate, non-passenger accessible baggage cars (this will probably only apply to those trains).

4. That so many Dems who give lip service to supporting "hunters and sportsmen" can't even get behind this sensible rule change.

5. That Dems like Schumer, Fienstien, etc. have suddenly become "fiscal conservatives" and claim "it would be too expensive"

6. That so many of you oppose this with a knee jerk reaction but cannot name one scenario where it would be dangerous.

7. That you are so afraid of an inanimate object.

8. That you are throwing a hissy fit even tho the Brady Campaigns says they have no problem with it.


If anybody wonders why gun control is such poison to the Democrats, just read the responses in this thread.

This is outrageous. It will certainly make terrorist attacks easier. This is all that has to happen.

1. Terrorist buys a gun.

2. Terrorist puts gun in locked box and declares it at check in.

3. Cased locked gun is taken by Amtrak and placed in separate, non-accessible baggage car.

Now the terrorist has some options here.

4a. During his trip, he can overpower the crew, and use an acetylene torch to break through the metal, locked door to gain access to the baggage cart.

4b. He can hold one of the crew hostage (I dunno, with a steak knife?) demand the keys, and gain access.

4c. He can jump off at one stop, run over to the baggage car. Get his gun case, unlock it and retrieve the gun, and jump back on the train.

5. Mayhem ensues.

Do you people see how stupid your opposition is to this?

Why the fuck would someone need to carry a gun on a train? :wtf:

Duck hunter traveling to and from

CHP holder traveling to and from

Completive shooter traveling to and from

DV victim W/ no other practical means of self defense traveling to and from

Person who just wants to traveling to and from

JPFO member yada yada

Pink Pistols member yada yada

and so on

This isn't about carrying a gun on a train.

That is not always true on Amtrack.

What a shame -- I like to take the train. Now I'll avoid it.