# Senate passes measure to allow gun transport on Amtrak



## AAARGH! (Sep 16, 2009)

Story here.



> 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.


Just what we need. :angry:


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 16, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> Story here.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Well, its the crazy season again in Washington! If airlines allow guns in checked luggage, guess trains and busses are next!Im from a a very pro-gun nut state (the gov wanted to let school kids carry guns to school!thankfully it failed in the leg!) but in all honesty since no-one can access the baggage cars except Amtrak staff, guess its not impossible to do! I hope the House/Conference Comittee doesnt agree, maybe the Prez will Veto it! This has nothing to do with politics, its wing nuts catering to the NRA and Timothy McVey crowd! sigh!( and what "other" American railroads allow guns?OTHER???


----------



## wayman (Sep 16, 2009)

What baffled me the most was this:



> "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.


What other American passenger railroads have checked baggage?


----------



## MattW (Sep 16, 2009)

"Other American passenger railroads also allow checked firearms," Do they mean Alaska Railroad? Perhaps VIA since they sit on the American Continent?

Other than a slip up in the wording, I'm all for this! Only real place they'll get a hiccup is on non-checked-baggage trains like Cardinal, Regionals, Corridor trains etc. But this is great news IMHO! It means 2nd amendment-respecting Americans don't have to throw their other rights away by having to fly!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 16, 2009)

MattW said:


> "Other American passenger railroads also allow checked firearms," Do they mean Alaska Railroad? Perhaps VIA since they sit on the American Continent?Other than a slip up in the wording, I'm all for this! Only real place they'll get a hiccup is on non-checked-baggage trains like Cardinal, Regionals, Corridor trains etc. But this is great news IMHO! It means 2nd amendment-respecting Americans don't have to throw their other rights away by having to fly!


No disrespect Matt but you dont have to shoot supper while on the train and Jesse James and the other train robbers are dead, why on earth would you need a gun on a train unless you were guarding a payroll or a law enforcement official transporting a crriminal?? :unsure:


----------



## MattW (Sep 16, 2009)

Or you're traveling to a gun show, or you're moving and you own a gun, or it's written in the Constitution and that's the end of it. And if you had paid attention, you'd know that the guns will be in checked baggage away from everyone (except conductors baggage handler etc.)! (which I why I mention the non-checked baggage trains as being possible hiccups).

Oh, and I looked it up, Alaska Railroad at least allows firearms to be checked on *ALL* trains.


----------



## wayman (Sep 16, 2009)

MattW said:


> "Other American passenger railroads also allow checked firearms," Do they mean Alaska Railroad? Perhaps VIA since they sit on the American Continent?Other than a slip up in the wording, I'm all for this! Only real place they'll get a hiccup is on non-checked-baggage trains like Cardinal, Regionals, Corridor trains etc. But this is great news IMHO! It means 2nd amendment-respecting Americans don't have to throw their other rights away by having to fly!


There's no hiccup on non-checked-baggage trains, unless you mean for the gun-owners: the only way firearms can travel is as checked baggage, so a train without checked baggage cannot carry firearms; and firearms can only be carried between stations with checked-baggage service. Extremely clear and simple.

Of course, that doesn't actually provide a very satisfying solution to anybody. But I doubt the Senator who proposed this amendment actually understands how Amtrak checked-baggage works, and I suspect the amendment didn't see much debate because everyone else knows it wasn't in the House bill and is likely to be removed in committee.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Sep 16, 2009)

MattW said:


> Or you're traveling to a gun show, or you're moving and you own a gun, or it's written in the Constitution and that's the end of it.


Or you're a demented wacko or terrorist looking to shoot up a crowded train station and checked baggage is the most convenient way to get your weapons into the building so you can pick them up at baggage claim and start laying waste to everybody in sight.

I'd be interested to know exactly what section of our Constitution guarantees firearms in checked baggage.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Sep 16, 2009)

Fine. Amtrak lets guns on trains, I understand, federal funds.

So if the airlines don't allow carry-on guns for Domestic flights no more federal funding!


----------



## Trainmans daughter (Sep 16, 2009)

I have checked my guns many times on airplanes. They are required to be unoaded, in a locked container, and no ammo can be stowed with the gun. They are inspected when baggage is checked to be sure they meet these requirements. The bags containing firearms are clearly marked on the outside, placed in the baggage compartment of the plane, and not seen again until the destination is reached. Nothing dangerous or "gun nutty" about that! (Thank you, MattW)


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 16, 2009)

I understand the concerns expressed here about someone using a firearm, in the station/on the train, but reread these guidelines

"The measure lays out the following guidelines:

• Before checking the bag or boarding the train, the passenger must declare that the firearm or pistol is in his or her bag and is unloaded.

• The firearm or pistol must be carried in a hard-sided container.

• The hard-sided container must be locked, and only the passenger has the combination or key."

Notice is it is supposed to be empty & checked.

I see both sides of the argument, including the concerns about 'crazies'.

I do think, however, if properly secured ( & no bullets) then there should not be a problem with the gun being in *CHECKED BAGGAGE ONLY.*

Just my personal opinion, though.


----------



## mucomix (Sep 16, 2009)

About time.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Sep 16, 2009)

Amtrak used to check guns pre-911, I read. Don't see a big controversy here.


----------



## Ispolkom (Sep 16, 2009)

What difference would this measure make if passed? If I packed a pistol in my suitcase and checked it at MSP tonight, who would know? What's the point of a rule against firearms in checked luggage if it's unenforced?


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 16, 2009)

I'm not pro gun *OR* anti gun, but where are they retrieved? :huh: Do they drive to your home to give them back to you, or do you get them back at the airport or train station? :huh: I'm not saying every gun owner is like this, but what is to stop a crazy person from getting his/her gun (that was legally empty and transported) back while at the airport or train station, load it with the ammo (that was legally transported) - and start shooting while still at the airport or train station? :huh:


----------



## acelafan (Sep 16, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> What difference would this measure make if passed? If I packed a pistol in my suitcase and checked it at MSP tonight, who would know? What's the point of a rule against firearms in checked luggage if it's unenforced?


Regardless of the merits of this proposal (and I doubt it will actually become law) - how would Amtrak deal with this change and what would be the price to enforce it? Surely there is some cost to this measure...and Amtrak has many other higher priorities than keeping track of guns in checked baggage, I am sure. It's not like this is an ADA measure that has needed implementation for years now.


----------



## MattW (Sep 16, 2009)

Well, theoretically they could search your bag as that's in Amtrak's guidelines...but still...

As for "crazies" what's to stop them walking in the front door? Amtrak stations don't have the ****-level tsa crap at the front door and checked baggage runs the risk of being searched randomly whereas the front doors...not so much.

As to "Where in the Constitution does it..." It's the 2nd amendment:



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It doesn't "...to keep and bear arms, but only in your own house" or "only if you're not traveling" or "only if you're a 'special' person"

And actually ammunition will be allowed to be carried: (since it's the government, I assume the full text can be posted)



> SA 2366. Mr. WICKER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3288, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
> At the appropriate place, insert the following:
> 
> Sec. __. (a) Funding Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, amounts made available in this Act for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) shall immediately cease to be available if Amtrak prohibits the secure transportation of firearms on passenger trains.
> ...


----------



## Ryan (Sep 16, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> what is to stop a crazy person from getting his/her gun (that was legally empty and transported) back while at the airport or train station, load it with the ammo (that was legally transported) - and start shooting while still at the airport or train station?


Absolutely nothing. If someone has such little disregard for the law that they're wanting to start shooting the joint up, then the rules about transporting that weapon are going to be completely worthless.

Partick, to answer your question about where in the Constitution, it's right there in the second amendment. it doesn't say "right to bear arms if you have a good enough reason", the onus is on those who would restrict my rights to have a good reason to do so, not on me to prove why I should be permitted to transport a firearm.

Edit: It was Jim that asked why one would want to do this - I kind of combined those two posts in my head as I was replying above.


----------



## profwebs (Sep 16, 2009)

Yeah, I'm amazed by the anti gun nuts.... I grew up in the inner city and was able to buy pistols at the age of 14... they weren't coming from law abiding citizens... I see threads like this here and get so streamed.. If I want to shoot up the train, the gun will be tucked in my waistband under my shirt, loaded with 1 in the chamber.. not in my luggage where I can't get to it...


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Sep 16, 2009)

profwebs said:


> I see threads like this here and _get so streamed_..


Yikes! Don't let me get in the way!


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 16, 2009)

MattW said:


> As to "Where in the Constitution does it..." It's the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 
> > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ...


So, you're a "well-regulated militia" then, eh?


----------



## Ryan (Sep 16, 2009)

rmadisonwi said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > As to "Where in the Constitution does it..." It's the 2nd amendment:
> ...


The "well-regulated militia" provides and explanation from the founders, not a requirement. That's been shown in case after case after case. Nowhere is there a law that limits gun ownership to militia members.


----------



## RTOlson (Sep 16, 2009)

The individual's right to bear arms was recently upheld in the Supreme Court. It was an important case because it reaffirmed this right at the highest level for the first time in about 70 years.

On regulating the use of firearms, I concur that the government has the burden to show an essential need and the reason must be able to withstand the highest scrutiny in the courts. In that regard, the Second Amendment should be treated just like every other amendment to the Constitution.

It's an interesting issue.


----------



## transit54 (Sep 16, 2009)

Here's my two cents: I worked in the airlines for two years and very regularly checked firearms for passengers. There was a very set procedure, and every customer I can think of was transporting their weapon for a hunting trip or competition.

While there's some argument that it's easier to force your way into the baggage car of a train versus the underside of a plane, the fact of the matter is that if someone wanted to bring a concealed gun on Amtrak now, there's not much stopping them.

I really don't see the argument that this decreases security, as it was standard policy pre-9/11 and to my knowledge, there were no incidents. I don't think this is a matter of gun nuts wanting to transport their arsenal all over for protection, I think this is more a matter of hunters and sportsmen wanting to transport their firearms for recreational purposes. At least that was my experience working for the airlines.

Honestly, if it gives these individuals the option to take the train versus fly or drive, I'm all for it.

As for the politics of gun ownership and transport, I'm staying well clear of that issue!


----------



## profwebs (Sep 16, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> profwebs said:
> 
> 
> > I see threads like this here and _get so streamed_..
> ...


Lol, better now


----------



## Steve4031 (Sep 16, 2009)

Guns in checked luggage is not that big of a concession. The people transporting guns in this manner are responsible, and handle their guns in a safe manner. There is no danger to anybody here.

I know that there have been a few incidents where people have had guns on trains. There was one out in California where somebody got shot on the CS, but nobody could determine where the bullet went or came from, or something like that. It was a weird case. Sometime in the last few years, there was a some police activity involving a passenger with a gun in Chicago Union Station. I don't remember the details The point is, with no metal detectors in the stations, there is now way to really enforce this provision anyway. It is the people who don't follow this procedure who are the risk. So I do not see any sense in beating up the gun owners who are following the rules. Since there guns are locked up, there is no way they can endanger passengers, or protect them for that matter.

If you think the drug runners are not using Amtrak, you are naive. We have all seen or heard stories about the drug dogs in El Paso and Albuquerque. And if one of these guys is traveling with a large amount of drugs for sale at their destination, you can bet they have a gun with them in there carry on luggage. Of course, their best disguise is to dress conservatively, buy a sleeping car room, and keep their luggage with drugs and gun in their room. If they are quiet and discrete, nobody knows. And these guys really are not a risk to the other passengers unless somebody is messing with their drugs.

So, the only risk then is the nut who wants to go on a shooting rampage at the station or on a train. Nothing in place now can really stop this except the vigilance of others. I have read books by an FBI pro-filer, and this stuff does not happen in a vacuum. There are warning signs. If something or someone seems strange, let the crew know, and if you are really wigged out, move away.

I do watch my surroundings. In London, years ago, I did see a package, and pointed it out to a police officer. At that moment, somebody came and picked it up. Was I embarrassed. Yes. The cop was nice about it because he understood I was trying to be helpful. The IRA had been phoning in false bomb threats to the tube system, and I had been caught in the delays caused by this.

I once saw a strange post on here. I told the moderators, but it still bothered me, and I actually called Amtrak police. They took down my info,and they looked at the post. I don't know what they did. But they appreciated my efforts.

I know I rambled some here, but my point is that arguing about guns in a political manner isn't helping anything. The right to have them is in the constitution, and this checked baggage thing really does not change that much. But if everyone keeps an eye out, things will be as safe as they can be. While not perfect, it is what we got.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Sep 16, 2009)

Thanks Steve4031, that was well put.


----------



## Steve4031 (Sep 16, 2009)

Thanks. I am not too excited about guns personally. I work in an urban school, and one of my students was shot (he survived) and another was shot at. Yes, one was involved in a drug deal, and the other had probably engaged in gang activity, but you still become attatched to them, and it is upsetting that they have easy access to guns. I am not sure that there is an easy solution to this problem, and since this is rail forum, I'll leave it alone.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 16, 2009)

Just for the record, part of the reason that Amtrak stopped transporting guns was the simple fact that they didn't want to be liable for something that valuable. A dishonest employee is far more likely to steal a gun, than someone's dirty laundry.

Yes, it also sounded good, especially right after 9/11 and they probably earned a few brownie points at that time by doing it. But the liability issue was a much bigger factor in the decision.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 16, 2009)

Well, after reading the posts, and upon reflection, leaving out the politics of the whole issue I have to say that the only part that disturbs me is the ammunition for the gun being transported with the gun, an unloaded gun never kills anyone except lots of time it does! Responsible, licensed gunowners probably do need to transport their personal weapon when moving or other legitimate reason! If its allowed on airlines, and no-one would have access to where they were stored and transported (this would include OBS staff as Alan pointed out theft is a possibility), I see no problem with that!

Based on my personal experience here in Texas, people become very emotional about guns and tend to forget the words "well regulated", thats pretty plain! When idiots like our governor want guns carried to school and zwalots are carrying machine guns to political rallys Im sure responsible gun owners would agree that this is extremism and craziness and needs to be controlled! There are probably more guns in my state than the resat of the US put together,

I am a military veteran, I was brought up in a hunting family, I understand the Constitution pretty well, and honor decisions of the courts even if I might not agree!

I f the bill was to pass, and I dont bnelieve it will,I hope that very strict provisions are placed on it including the fact that the owners should have to pay for any additional cost involved and should be held liable themselves if any accidents or thefts occur because of the gun and ammuniton being a potential for disaster in a station or on a train!

Hope that makes sense, this country is based on compromise, good will and accepting whats the common good!Lets ride a train ASAP!!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 17, 2009)

First of all, pro-gun people, anti-gun people. The Constitution is a legal document, a law. Like most laws it is vaguely laid out to allow for interpretation. It specifies a well regulated militia. Whether that is a requirement for bearing arms is, and will always be, up to the present seated Supreme Court.

I personally think that transporting, or owning, handguns is about the stupidest thing in the world. Collecting them is equally silly, but more sensible. I personally own a hand gun, an ancient Russian item that someone gave me once. Other then it being an item in my huge collection of soviet memorabilia, I place no value on it. I can't think of a use for it.

A rife or a shot gun are useful weapons for the pursuit of killing animals to eat them. I do that. I prefer a bow-and-arrow myself. I find guns unsporting. But that's me.

A handgun, though, that's a whole different thing. The only purpose of a hand gun is to kill people. Even a powerful magnum .45 doesn't have the stopping power to kill, say, a bear. Smaller pistols even less so. And really, if you shoot a bear and don't kill it the first time, I'd say you aren't going to get a second chance to do so, or do anything else ever again.

A gun might be an item of self defense, but so is a can of pepper spray. So is being personally trained in self-defense. It is incredibly easy to disable anyone who isn't a professional, they rely on fear. A professional? A gun wouldn't help you.

That being said, presently the interpretation is that you are, indeed, allowed to carry guns. Given that allowance, there is no reason Amtrak should specifically not allow transport of them as unloaded checked baggage, etc. If I want to go someplace and shoot people up, I'll do so. Laws or no laws.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Sep 17, 2009)

I understand the whole argument about what the Second Amendment says. Personally, as an "anti-gun nut", I'm eagerly awaiting the day when the Second Amendment is abolished altogether, which will pretty much end the gun debate. This will happen when Americans finally realize that most other CIVILIZED countries have banned guns without their democracies collapsing, & that having a well educated citizenry is far more important than a well armed citizenry.

I know that rant had nothing to do with trains. I just think it's interesting that many rail advocates look to Japan and Europe as examples of better rail systems. I doubt Japan or most European countries allow guns in checked baggage, considering how few of those countries allow guns at all.


----------



## Spokker (Sep 17, 2009)

The majority of people riding Amtrak are either already packing or transporting drugs or both, and God bless 'em. I primarily ride the Surfliner and I've never felt unsafe. Besides, they tried this before and it was dropped when the Senate and House versions of the bill were negotiated. I expect the same to happen here.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 17, 2009)

I'm not going to get worked up over this whether the provision survives the House and is signed into law or not. All I care about if it does go through is that Amtrak develop the appropriate safeguards and controls to ensure that firearms are transported in a safe and secure manner AND that the implementation of these procedures is properly funded within the appropriation.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 17, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Just for the record, part of the reason that Amtrak stopped transporting guns was the simple fact that they didn't want to be liable for something that valuable. A dishonest employee is far more likely to steal a gun, than someone's dirty laundry.
> Yes, it also sounded good, especially right after 9/11 and they probably earned a few brownie points at that time by doing it. But the liability issue was a much bigger factor in the decision.


This would bolster the case allowing folks to transport their weapon anonymously. Of course, that's sort of hard to do with a rifle... But I also think that ammo should be kept on the person, not in the same container as teh weapon.

It amuses me to see people get so bent out of shape with regards to letting responsible people commit an act responsibly. The problem is that people who don't respect the law will continue to not respect the law. Those are the baddies we need to worry about. Not Joe Shmoe who wants to travel from Florida to Pennsylvania for a turkey shoot.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> A handgun, though, that's a whole different thing. The only purpose of a hand gun is to kill people. Even a powerful magnum .45 doesn't have the stopping power to kill, say, a bear. Smaller pistols even less so. And really, if you shoot a bear and don't kill it the first time, I'd say you aren't going to get a second chance to do so, or do anything else ever again.
> A gun might be an item of self defense, but so is a can of pepper spray. So is being personally trained in self-defense. It is incredibly easy to disable anyone who isn't a professional, they rely on fear. A professional? A gun wouldn't help you.
> 
> That being said, presently the interpretation is that you are, indeed, allowed to carry guns. Given that allowance, there is no reason Amtrak should specifically not allow transport of them as unloaded checked baggage, etc. If I want to go someplace and shoot people up, I'll do so. Laws or no laws.


Should they make the same provision for Samurai Swords, too?


----------



## MattW (Sep 17, 2009)

Let me just toss this out here, but in Kennesaw, GA, the head of every household is required by ordinance to own a firearm AND ammunition. Guess what? Probably the lowest crime rate in Georgia! Not only that, but they were selected as one of the 10 best places for families to live by Family Circle magazine.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 17, 2009)

MattW said:


> Let me just toss this out here, but in Kennesaw, GA, the head of every household is required by ordinance to own a firearm AND ammunition. Guess what? Probably the lowest crime rate in Georgia! Not only that, but they were selected as one of the 10 best places for families to live by Family Circle magazine.


If IIRC all citizens of Switzerland are members of the militia and are required to keep and have available a firearm in their residence,perhaps even Israel may be the same but am not sure? But the key thing is, properly trained and regulated, IIHO this was our founding fathers intention in the 2nd ammendment, its fairly plain, its in English : "a well regulated militia" means just that, not citizen vigilantes nor yahoos playing paint ball and play war in the boonies on weekends! I know you gun proponents dont want kids taking guns to school, to churches and bars, but our governor does and thats scarey no matter where you live or what your beliefs are! The leading causes of death in Texas after car accidents and heart attacks/cancer is gun shots!!!

We kill more people with handguns than the rest of the world put together, this is nuts and needs to be fixed ASAP, do you not agree?  (most police officials and military I know agree about handguns needing to be regulated/controlled, especially cop killer ammo, who on earth needs machine guns besides terrorists/soldiers and drug cartels??)

I live where theres guns everywhere, I wouldnt want my family to live in that town, I thought thats what we had police forces for, to protect and serve!fear and paranoia never made anyone safe,a crim inal is gonna do what hes gonna do, just like a terrorist, no matter what the risk! They dont think, they commit crazy and unstable acts just like untrained gun owners and self appointed vigilantes!If all the gunowners are like reserve deputy sherrifs or members of the Georgia militia I might not have any trouble with that law,!

Ill agree with the OP, this law will not pass the conference committe, I also disagree that most pax riding the trains are packing and/or carrying drugs unless we are talking about prescription drugs, legal highs! :lol:


----------



## JSmith (Sep 17, 2009)

I'm about as far from a "gun nut" as they get, but I don't really have a problem with bringing Amtrak's policy in line with the airlines'. It makes me a bit nervous to think about a gun plus ammo being readily available at baggage check, but that's true at airports, and I don't remember any incidents of someone claiming their gun at baggage check, loading it, and shooting up the airport. Like others said, someone who's inclined to do that will just walk in the front door and open fire.

The part I do have a problem with is holding Amtrak hostage to implementing this by a given deadline, at pain of having its entire funding cut. That makes me think this isn't actually about "gun owner rights" but just a thinly-veiled attempt to completely eliminate Amtrak's funding. Seriously, this is like saying to the Department of Education: "you need to make this small change to the standardized testing policies by March or the entire department will be eliminated". It's absurd.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 17, 2009)

JSmith said:


> I'm about as far from a "gun nut" as they get, but I don't really have a problem with bringing Amtrak's policy in line with the airlines'. It makes me a bit nervous to think about a gun plus ammo being readily available at baggage check, but that's true at airports, and I don't remember any incidents of someone claiming their gun at baggage check, loading it, and shooting up the airport. Like others said, someone who's inclined to do that will just walk in the front door and open fire.
> The part I do have a problem with is holding Amtrak hostage to implementing this by a given deadline, at pain of having its entire funding cut. That makes me think this isn't actually about "gun owner rights" but just a thinly-veiled attempt to completely eliminate Amtrak's funding. Seriously, this is like saying to the Department of Education: "you need to make this small change to the standardized testing policies by March or the entire department will be eliminated". It's absurd.


Well said, wish Id thought of that! Political charades to appease the NRA and the right wing nuts running amok! Fund Amtrak, let them run it!!


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> JSmith said:
> 
> 
> > I'm about as far from a "gun nut" as they get, but I don't really have a problem with bringing Amtrak's policy in line with the airlines'. It makes me a bit nervous to think about a gun plus ammo being readily available at baggage check, but that's true at airports, and I don't remember any incidents of someone claiming their gun at baggage check, loading it, and shooting up the airport. Like others said, someone who's inclined to do that will just walk in the front door and open fire.
> ...


Just a friendly reminder- reread the article. "The measure, an amendment to the transportation and housing appropriations bill, passed *68-30*.

*The House version of the bill, passed in July, does not include the provision, so further steps would be needed for it to reach President Obama's desk*."

Also, this part-"However, despite the policy change, the company has no uniform system of screening for firearms, Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper noted in a letter to Sens. Patty Murray and Christopher Bond decrying Wednesday's congressional mandate. They are the *top Democrat and Republican, respectively, on the Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee*."

Remember that the right wings nuts are not the majority in House or Senate, so it is unlikely that they are running amok.


----------



## printman2000 (Sep 17, 2009)

Spokker said:


> The majority of people riding Amtrak are either already packing or transporting drugs or both, and God bless 'em. I primarily ride the Surfliner and I've never felt unsafe. Besides, they tried this before and it was dropped when the Senate and House versions of the bill were negotiated. I expect the same to happen here.


Are you seriously saying that MOST PEOPLE riding Amtrak are carrying a gun and/or illegal drugs?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 17, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of people riding Amtrak are either already packing or transporting drugs or both, and God bless 'em. I primarily ride the Surfliner and I've never felt unsafe. Besides, they tried this before and it was dropped when the Senate and House versions of the bill were negotiated. I expect the same to happen here.
> ...


Must live in Detroit or California or Miami or Texas! :lol:


----------



## printman2000 (Sep 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> When idiots like our governor want guns carried to school and zwalots are carrying machine guns to political rallys Im sure responsible gun owners would agree that this is extremism and craziness and needs to be controlled!


Jim, I also live in Texas and am not sure what you are talking about here. When you say he wants guns carried in school, are you talking about universities? I have heard something about that, but when you just say schools, it sounds like you are talking about K-12 schools.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 17, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > When idiots like our governor want guns carried to school and zwalots are carrying machine guns to political rallys Im sure responsible gun owners would agree that this is extremism and craziness and needs to be controlled!
> ...


Yeah, the legislature didnt pass his bill to allow university students to carry guns on campus, I dont want to get into a political discussion here but in his appearances before all the T-Party kooks and the secessionists he also used lots of rhetoric about citizens packing heat would make us all safer and if they had guns @ schools the good guys could stop massacres etc! This is insane, even the Republican majority couldnt stomach this,so it failed!There is a hot primary coming up, Kay Bailey Hutchinson vs. the Gov. so look for more far out bs to be flying, hopefully its not lead!


----------



## wayman (Sep 17, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of people riding Amtrak are either already packing or transporting drugs or both, and God bless 'em. I primarily ride the Surfliner and I've never felt unsafe. Besides, they tried this before and it was dropped when the Senate and House versions of the bill were negotiated. I expect the same to happen here.
> ...


Almost every time I board an Amtrak train, I'm packing (a backpack or small suitcase) and transporting drugs (my prescription medication). And I suspect that's true of most people riding Amtrak


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 17, 2009)

:lol: :lol: :lol:



wayman said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Spokker said:
> ...


 Good one, ditto!!!


----------



## JayPea (Sep 17, 2009)

Yep, I'm a drug runner too. Carry my diabetes medicine everywhere.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> I dont want to get into a political discussion here but in his appearances before all the T-Party kooks and the secessionists he also used lots of rhetoric about citizens packing heat would make us all safer and if they had guns @ schools the good guys could stop massacres etc!


As a Virginia Tech graduate who visited the on-campus memorial last weekend, I've got to say that these tea party kooks may be onto something there. When you have a large gun free zone such as a college campus, it makes it really easy for a nutbag to kill massive amounts of people. I can't help but think that if a student or two in one of those classrooms had been able to return fire, then maybe the death toll would have been a little bit smaller.
On the "tea party kooks" front (didn't think that this was deserving of it's own thread), they think that big government is bad, unless of course it's the kind of big government that makes life easier for them. Some of them actually had the audacity to complain that the Washington Metro didn't do enough to accomodate their large crowds: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/09/17/pro-t...ead-it-in-full/


----------



## tp49 (Sep 17, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > I dont want to get into a political discussion here but in his appearances before all the T-Party kooks and the secessionists he also used lots of rhetoric about citizens packing heat would make us all safer and if they had guns @ schools the good guys could stop massacres etc!
> ...


Or it very well may have been higher. It's one thing to be able to shoot at a target on a range but it's a whole different skill to be able to react and engage a live shooter in a combat situation. It's something that requires training and constant refreshing of that training to be able to deal with those situations. Most people who have not received that type of training would not know how to handle a situation with a shooter in a room and would most likely become another casualty or cause another casualty. I would suggest that universities allow off duty law enforcement officers who are students to carry on campus.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> I dont want to get into a political discussion here but in his appearances before all the T-Party kooks and the secessionists he also used lots of rhetoric about citizens packing heat would make us all safer and if they had guns @ schools the good guys could stop massacres etc!


Also Jim, your tea party kooks rhetoric is getting _*very*_ old. We get it you don't care much for Republicans. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but to paint a broad generalization over people who attend tea party's as kooks is disingenuous considering there are extreemists on both sides of every issue.

Since I know it will probably be asked, yes I have attended both tea parties at the California State Capitol.


----------



## profwebs (Sep 17, 2009)

Watch "The Colony" on Discovery. I don't think you guys in the city who are against guns would survive something like that. Can't happen? It has already been shown to those of us in NE Ohio and W PA a few years back.


----------



## Tim_Metra (Sep 17, 2009)

tp49 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > I dont want to get into a political discussion here but in his appearances before all the T-Party kooks and the secessionists he also used lots of rhetoric about citizens packing heat would make us all safer and if they had guns @ schools the good guys could stop massacres etc!
> ...


I am wondering as a "Tea Bagger" why do you ride or even discuss the transportation PUBLIC OPTION??


----------



## Ryan (Sep 17, 2009)

Because walking or taking a cab to too much of a pain in the neck.

I did find it interesting that the exchange between tp49 and I pitted the pro-guns Democrat against the anti-gun Republican. Goes to show you that these labels that we've made up for folks really don't work all that well.


----------



## JayPea (Sep 17, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Because walking or taking a cab to too much of a pain in the neck.
> I did find it interesting that the exchange between tp49 and I pitted the pro-guns Democrat against the anti-gun Republican. Goes to show you that these labels that we've made up for folks really don't work all that well.



You know, on other forums and in "real life", I've been saying that same thing about labels and the people we put them on for years. I'm glad to know I'm not alone in trying to make that message clear.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 18, 2009)

I think the right to bear arms (or arm bears, take your pick) is irrelevant to the legal discussion of whether, given that right, Amtrak should or should not follow airline policy as in regard to carrying them in checked luggage.

As such, I submit for the approval of the forum in general that the details of the second amendment, interesting as they might be, and the justifications thereof, ditto, are NOT RELATED TO AMTRAK. They are not related to Amtrak, they are not related to trains, and they DO NOT BELONG ON THIS BOARD.

As such, I would submit, as a single forum poster, my opinion that this entirely irrelevant and heated discourse be removed, or the thread locked. Or better, both.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 18, 2009)

For my 1,000th post I want to be clear: I did not intend to insult anyone, rhetoric works on all sides, some of the kooks is more appropriate! I basically dont want everyones rights infinged, I just wish that everyone could learn that there has to be compromises on everything, the NRA and lots of gun nuts dont see anything wrong with machine guns and cop killer bullets and bazookas etc. Why on earth could anyone support this insanity!

I dont usually talk about this but as a combat veteran, trained to use weapons to kill, I abhor guns in the hands of the unstable, untrained and unaccounted for!

Whatever your political persusaion, mobs made up of "kooks" carrying **** and animal signs, toting guns and carryinbg sign with crap like "Bury Obama with Kennedy" is insanity, and if you are part of this posse Im afraid of you and afraid for my country!

Responible,trained and licensed citizens that can demonstrate a need for guns I have no problem with, but please understand I dont want them out in public including being on trains! I know that responsible sportsmen support safe and responsible gun useage, just wish they would disavow the extremists of the kooky right like Timothy McVey and other self appointed patriots who want to protect this country by killing innocent people!


----------



## Trainmans daughter (Sep 18, 2009)

I agree with GML. I was kind of enjoying this discourse until it got downright nasty and disgusting with the "tea bagger" reference. I'm really disappointed that this is allowed.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 18, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think the right to bear arms (or arm bears, take your pick) is irrelevant to the legal discussion of whether, given that right, Amtrak should or should not follow airline policy as in regard to carrying them in checked luggage.
> As such, I submit for the approval of the forum in general that the details of the second amendment, interesting as they might be, and the justifications thereof, ditto, are NOT RELATED TO AMTRAK. They are not related to Amtrak, they are not related to trains, and they DO NOT BELONG ON THIS BOARD.
> 
> As such, I would submit, as a single forum poster, my opinion that this entirely irrelevant and heated discourse be removed, or the thread locked. Or better, both.


Ill second that , GML! Its partly my bad, I wont write on this again! Lets do Amtrak and trains!


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Sep 18, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> ... When you have a large gun free zone such as a college campus, it makes it really easy for a nutbag to kill massive amounts of people. I can't help but think that if a student or two in one of those classrooms had been able to return fire, then maybe the death toll would have been a little bit smaller.


Just expounding on the scenario a bit: so a nutcase starts shooting on the quad, a carrying student sees him and starts firing. Then a second, and a third armed student appears; who do they shoot at? Maybe they'll all shoot each other... :blink:


----------



## tp49 (Sep 18, 2009)

Tim_Metra said:


> I am wondering as a "Tea Bagger" why do you ride or even discuss the transportation PUBLIC OPTION??


I should have been more clear. I'm a northeastern republican which places me within the more moderate side of the party. I also spent 25+ years of my life in New York City and it's metro area. I ride and discuss the public transportation option because I believe it is a more efficient way to move people from point A to B within a major city. Not all conservatives decry public transit just as not all liberals drive Prius' or are vegans. Also, having spent pretty much my entire life in politics in some way shape or form I have many friends on the opposite side of the asile from me.



HokieNav said:


> Because walking or taking a cab to too much of a pain in the neck.
> I did find it interesting that the exchange between tp49 and I pitted the pro-guns Democrat against the anti-gun Republican. Goes to show you that these labels that we've made up for folks really don't work all that well.


:lol: , I'm not anti-gun either far from it as I own a handgun. I am for personal responsability and common sense which is something I've seen less and less in my own and later generations. I also have respect for the 2d Amendment but I also understand that the Supreme Court has placed limitations on it and that the well settled interpretation has been that the 2d Amendment is not applicable to the states meaning they can restrict firearms in whatever way they deem fit.

I too went to a large public southern university. As a VT fan you've probably heard of my alma mater we played y'all in football last week  it's also while there that this city boy learned how to hunt.

I also like to play devil's advocate and by nature I like to analyze and be able to argue both sides of an issue.



Green Maned Lion said:


> I think the right to bear arms (or arm bears, take your pick) is irrelevant to the legal discussion of whether, given that right, Amtrak should or should not follow airline policy as in regard to carrying them in checked luggage.
> As such, I submit for the approval of the forum in general that the details of the second amendment, interesting as they might be, and the justifications thereof, ditto, are NOT RELATED TO AMTRAK. They are not related to Amtrak, they are not related to trains, and they DO NOT BELONG ON THIS BOARD.
> 
> As such, I would submit, as a single forum poster, my opinion that this entirely irrelevant and heated discourse be removed, or the thread locked. Or better, both.


I would submit that actually the 2d Amendment is wholly relevant to the legal discussion as to whether Amtrak should follow airline policy as to carrying firearms in checked luggage.

You see, if you went and researched the case RT Olson referenced above (District of Columbia v. Heller) it relates to the overturning of firearms laws in DC. This is relevant because as I mentioned above it is well settled that the 2d Amendment applies solely to the federal government and not to states nor private entities. Amtrak is a federally owned corporation. The courts view Amtrak as a federal entity thus now the 2d Amendment becomes an issue.

Conversely, if the airlines tomorrow decided to prohibit firearms in checked luggage they can do that and it's not a 2d Amendment issue because the airlines are private parties.

The Heller case is interesting if you look at where the Amicus briefs came from. Those for the repeal of the law came from the more conservative states while the brief in support of the existing (At that time) DC code sections were from more liberal, more urbanized states.

As such, the details of the 2d Amendment *do in fact relate to Amtrak*. However, like I said previously we'll see if this provision makes it into the final bill that goes to the President's desk.


----------



## MattW (Sep 18, 2009)

Actually, the 2nd amendment does indeed apply to states as stated in the 14th amendment:



> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;


2nd Amendment (much as I hate that p word) is a privilege of being a citizen of the United States. Supreme court can't interpret what's blatantly stated...


----------



## transit54 (Sep 18, 2009)

The NY Times has an editorial this morning on the bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18fri3.html

I've already weighed in on my opinion of it, though the editorial raises some questions - does the bill only effect handguns, as it says? I was under the impression it was all firearms. I also agree that Amtrak needs to be given additional funding to deal with this, if it is to be properly implemented.

Before, I drew parallels to my time in the airline industry. In the airlines, before we checked any firearms, a properly trained TSA screener (who took an additional course on firearms, over and above standard TSA training) would open the case, inspect the weapon to ensure it complied with the regulations, and then resealed it for checking. There was also paperwork that I and the passenger checking needed to complete. Each airline does not have to have their own personnel in place for checking firearms, which is what is being suggested for Amtrak.

While before I wasn't all opposed to this, now I'm actually pretty upset. It's one thing to instruct Amtrak to carry firearms and properly fund the implementation, it's another to instruct them to do so and make them fund it themselves. Looking at it this way, a portion of dollars that previously were going to operating that nation's passenger rail system are now going to checking guns. That's something I absolutely don't support.

This just seems to be another one of those unfunded mandates that ultimately harm Amtrak more than hurt it. They're being put on an uneven playing field with the airlines. If this comes to pass, I hope Amtrak will be able to charge a fee to cover their expenses in this area. One can quibble about the second amendment all they want, but as far as I see it, that's not the issue here: it's the lack of funding.


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 18, 2009)

The Bill(s) can be found  here. 

I attempted to locate the info on requiring transportation on Amtrak of firearms to Amtrak funding, but I could not locate it.

I am not an Attorney. I did not read all of them, I looked thru only the two Senate Bills.

Can you guys/gals find the info in there and post it? I know some of you are Lawyers, maybe you can find it.

One other comment/question-

Do any of you think that if something like this was passed, the next step for Amtrak would be that the Feds would require more stringent screening before boarding the trains like the airports?


----------



## wayman (Sep 18, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> The Bill(s) can be found  here. I attempted to locate the info on requiring transportation on Amtrak of firearms to Amtrak funding, but I could not locate it.
> 
> I am not an Attorney. I did not read all of them, I looked thru only the two Senate Bills.
> 
> Can you guys/gals find the info in there and post it? I know some of you are Lawyers, maybe you can find it.


MattW posted it very early in this thread. Here's what he posted:



> SA 2366. Mr. WICKER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3288, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
> At the appropriate place, insert the following:
> 
> Sec. __. (a) Funding Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, amounts made available in this Act for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) shall immediately cease to be available if Amtrak prohibits the secure transportation of firearms on passenger trains.
> ...


That looks to me like it is what was entered into the Record, that is, the log of everything spoken or read on the floor of the Senate; but since we know the Amendment was accepted, I assume this wording was kept verbatim in the bill the Senate passed. I haven't gone looking for the bill itself.


----------



## wayman (Sep 18, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> Before, I drew parallels to my time in the airline industry. In the airlines, before we checked any firearms, a properly trained TSA screener (who took an additional course on firearms, over and above standard TSA training) would open the case, inspect the weapon to ensure it complied with the regulations, and then resealed it for checking. There was also paperwork that I and the passenger checking needed to complete. Each airline does not have to have their own personnel in place for checking firearms, which is what is being suggested for Amtrak.


We've never really had a post 9/11 world where Amtrak checks firearms. If they do start checking firearms, how much federal regulation would they be under, and how much of the personnel and equipment would come from the government? When an airline decide "we will allow checked firearms", what regulation does that subject them to? Do they get the use of the TSA personnel and equipment already on hand at the airport for free, or do they have to pay the TSA or the airport for that service? Do they have to implement a tracking system on their own, or does the TSA provide that? Do they have to create special cargo areas for firearms? Do they have to train their baggage handlers to deal with checked firearms?

I believe Amtrak has over 100 stations which offer checked baggage (a quick search didn't turn up the exact number, but I know they are slowly adding checked baggage service so the number changes anyway).

* Would Amtrak be required to have a separate person on hand specifically to inspect and check firearms, should any show up?

* Would that person have to be employed by Amtrak, or would that person be a trained TSA officer supplied by the TSA (as is the case with airports)? If the latter, at least Amtrak doesn't have to hire, train, and pay these people. Unless Amtrak has to pay the TSA, of course.

* And if the TSA provides its own equipment, paperwork, and computers, then Amtrak does not need to pay for that either. Unless Amtrak has to pay the TSA, of course.

* Would Amtrak have to create and install some sort of secure safe in each baggage car? Is this required by federal law somewhere?

* Would Amtrak have to train their baggage handlers (presumably all station agents, redcaps, and conductors and assistant conductors) in special procedures for firearms? Is this required by federal law somewhere?

Those details just don't appear to be available at the present time, so debating this amendment requires a lot of assumptions at this point. It's a shame the Senate didn't (appear to) bother to discuss any of these issues before voting on the amendment.


----------



## transit54 (Sep 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > Before, I drew parallels to my time in the airline industry. In the airlines, before we checked any firearms, a properly trained TSA screener (who took an additional course on firearms, over and above standard TSA training) would open the case, inspect the weapon to ensure it complied with the regulations, and then resealed it for checking. There was also paperwork that I and the passenger checking needed to complete. Each airline does not have to have their own personnel in place for checking firearms, which is what is being suggested for Amtrak.
> ...


This is a question I really don't have the answer to.



> Do they get the use of the TSA personnel and equipment already on hand at the airport for free, or do they have to pay the TSA or the airport for that service?


It is a free service. Actually, each airline ticket that is sold contains a security fee that funds the TSA. This program is also funded in the same manner. The weapon isn't screened using anything other than the standard TSA equipment, but it must be hand inspected by a TSA agent with the proper training to do so. At BTV, there was always at least one such person working all the time. I'm not quite sure how many they had overall.



> Do they have to implement a tracking system on their own, or does the TSA provide that?


There's actually no additional tracking system for firearms, other than the paperwork that is filled out, in which the passenger certifies that the firearm has been packaged to the appropriate standards (i.e. unloaded, no ammunition in the case, etc) and which the airline employee signs (and likely the TSA, but I forget). That paperwork is then enclosed in the case with the weapon. Some airlines have more robust tracking systems than others for baggage. At the time I left the industry (last year) United was the only one with a FedEx/UPS style system in which bags are scanned at every point along the journey. Most airlines have surprisingly lax or non-existent baggage tracking systems.



> Do they have to create special cargo areas for firearms? Do they have to train their baggage handlers to deal with checked firearms?


No, firearms are just placed with all the standard baggage under an aircraft. There were no special procedures used for storing it and when I was cross-trained to work the ramp, I received no special training in dealing with them and they were unloaded with all the conventional baggage. There was much more training involved doing the customer-facing side of things - as far as the standards for packaging, screening procedures, restrictions, paperwork and the like, as that's where the enforcement of such things took place. Probably the only thing covered in the ground crew training was in the hazardous materials segment, in which it was mentioned that a maximum of 10 pounds of ammunition is allowed in checked baggage. But that was something I was already aware from working ticket counter/gate agent/etc.

Hopefully this clears up how things are handled on the airline side of things. I think wayman raises some important questions about how this would be handled in a rail context. I'm also interested in how Amtrak handled this in the past when they did allow checked firearms.


----------



## wayman (Sep 18, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> > Do they have to create special cargo areas for firearms? Do they have to train their baggage handlers to deal with checked firearms?
> 
> 
> No, firearms are just placed with all the standard baggage under an aircraft. There were no special procedures used for storing it and when I was cross-trained to work the ramp, I received no special training in dealing with them and they were unloaded with all the conventional baggage. There was much more training involved doing the customer-facing side of things - as far as the standards for packaging, screening procedures, restrictions, paperwork and the like, as that's where the enforcement of such things took place. Probably the only thing covered in the ground crew training was in the hazardous materials segment, in which it was mentioned that a maximum of 10 pounds of ammunition is allowed in checked baggage. But that was something I was already aware from working ticket counter/gate agent/etc.


That would seem to make this objection moot. I quote here from the NYTimes opinion piece:



> The budget cudgel was approved despite pleas from Amtrak that it lacks the manpower, equipment and extra financing to effectively meet the deadline and that it faces a shutdown if federal funds are lost. Among other changes, baggage cars would have to be securely retrofitted and manpower increased.


I don't understand the bit about the baggage cars; I feel like that was probably said in haste, to get an objection raised that was easily understandable and quotable, rather than necessarily true.... Basically, neither side appears to be seriously trying to understand the issue before discussing it!


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > The Bill(s) can be found  here. I attempted to locate the info on requiring transportation on Amtrak of firearms to Amtrak funding, but I could not locate it.
> ...



My bad- I missed the SA 2366 part of that post. I did just google/checked Library of Congress site for that amendment, & did not find it.

I'm sure it's around somewhere...

I will be suprised if it does pass with that amendment included. If it does, the President can use his Veto power, and send it back to be rewritten.

I'm not trying to argue, I just want to read it for myself, then decide.

I understand that there are alot people on this board that are worried about it, I think we need to check it out thoroughly to see what is involved.


----------



## MattW (Sep 18, 2009)

Or once it's back from the Veto, they can 2/3 it (it passed 68-30) making the Veto pointless.


----------



## wayman (Sep 18, 2009)

MattW said:


> Or once it's back from the Veto, they can 2/3 it (it passed 68-30) making the Veto pointless.


It may be unlikely to get 2/3 in the House. But the House would be voting on the bill as a whole, not just the amendment, and the bill as a whole may be important enough that the amendment doesn't matter in the end. Who knows. But the fact that it got 2/3 in the Senate the first time around doesn't by itself give it strong odds to stand up to a Veto.


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Or once it's back from the Veto, they can 2/3 it (it passed 68-30) making the Veto pointless.
> ...



Well, then my questions are these-

Would any of you quit riding Amtrak if they change the firearms policy to include firearms in checked baggage?

Or would you really feel threatened by having them in the baggage etc.?

Given that at this point, none of us really know for sure if/how many people are currently carrying them onboard,

how do you all feel about that?

I had never even thought about it until this thread. I would prefer not to have someone carrying onboard unless there are limitations.

I saw one response basically giving firearms carriers/drug dealers a pass.(He was probably kidding)

And one more-is this more about making the security on Amtrak more like the Airlines and disagreeing with those policies?

I for one would prefer not to see those type of changes on Amtrak, but I expect at some point Amtrak will have some form of security similar to the airlines.


----------



## wayman (Sep 18, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Well, then my questions are these-Would any of you quit riding Amtrak if they change the firearms policy to include firearms in checked baggage?
> 
> Or would you really feel threatened by having them in the baggage etc.?


I wouldn't feel at all threatened.

The only ways this particular change could affect my ridership are

* if it entailed a marked fare increase (it sounds like airlines cover these costs with a fee worked into the fare; it may not be a big fee for the airlines, but Amtrak might need to charge a larger fee, who knows)

* if it entailed termination or cutbacks of other services (Amtrak could decide to eliminate all checked baggage from seventy smaller stations in order to make this work; I'm not saying they _will_, I'm just saying this is one possible way they might decide to make ends meet if push comes to shove)

I am also mildly concerned that this might start a slippery slope towards TSA involvement with rail travel and an eventual shift towards airport security for rail travel. But that is, I'll stress, a mild concern compared to the other two listed above.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> That would seem to make this objection moot. I quote here from the NYTimes opinion piece:
> 
> 
> > The budget cudgel was approved despite pleas from Amtrak that it lacks the manpower, equipment and extra financing to effectively meet the deadline and that it faces a shutdown if federal funds are lost. Among other changes, baggage cars would have to be securely retrofitted and manpower increased.
> ...


There are major differences between the locked, and inaccessible luggage bay on a plane, and the unlocked always accessible baggage car on Amtrak.


----------



## wayman (Sep 18, 2009)

AlanB said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > That would seem to make this objection moot. I quote here from the NYTimes opinion piece:
> ...


I thought vestibule doors could be locked--they lock the rear door of the train, certainly. So couldn't they use the existing lock on the front door of the front coach/sleeper/transition car adjacent to the baggage, if the baggage car itself doesn't have a lock?

I'm assuming the baggage doors themselves have some means of locking already.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > There are major differences between the locked, and inaccessible luggage bay on a plane, and the unlocked always accessible baggage car on Amtrak.
> ...


Sure they could lock that door. But unlike a plane, the AC has to keep walking into the baggage car at every stop that has checked baggage service. That's a lot of locking and unlocking. Some will just get tired of doing that and stop locking things, other's will legitimately forget because something else comes up.

As for the side doors, not sure if they lock at all now or if they ever did. Remember these are very old cars that haven't seen a lot of money over the past 30 to 40 years.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 18, 2009)

AlanB said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Alan. IIRC a member posted awhile back about opening the side door in the baggage car on the EB and kicking back to unwind and enjoy the view, guess they probably dont lock, Ive never seem them unlock the door when in the station to load/unload, they just open it up? Perhaps a railroader has the definitive answer to this one, Im sure the conductors and AC dont want any extra paperwork or extra walking to/from the baggage car!


----------



## Ispolkom (Sep 18, 2009)

wayman said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Or once it's back from the Veto, they can 2/3 it (it passed 68-30) making the Veto pointless.
> ...


The president's veto doesn't enter into it. This is a very large bill. The Senate and House bills as passed are different. So then they go to a conference committee.

Imagine that the conference committee (stacked with Democrats, as they are in the majority in both houses) eliminates this provision. Then the bill emerges as a conference committee report and is voted on in both houses in a straight up or down vote. No opportunities for amendments--that's against the rules. Many of the legislators who voted for the amendment vote to approve the conference committee report, because passing this bill is *so important*. It goes for the president's signature without the gun provision, and with any number of legislators on record voting on both sides of the issue. No muss, no fuss.

This doesn't always happen -- there was that weird concealed-carry in national parks provision that stayed in to the final bill last spring (and got signed), but I don't remember the legislative history of that bill. If this provision stays in the conference committee report, and the report passes both houses, I'll bet that the president signs it. After all, hardly any one in Congress or the White House cares *that* much about Amtrak.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 18, 2009)

MattW said:


> Actually, the 2nd amendment does indeed apply to states as stated in the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
> ...


Actually, no it doesn't.

The Bill of Rights is applied to state and local governments through it's incorporation into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

*EXCEPT*

*1. The 2d Amendment right to bear arms.*

2.The 3d Amendment right to not have a soldier quartered in a person's home.

3. The 5th Amendment right to grand jury indictment in criminal cases.

4. The 7th Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases.

5. The 8th Amendment right against excessive fines.

Right's are applicable through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment Priviliges and Immunities clause is only invoked when the interference is with the right to travel.

If you do a general google search and use the terms "Second Amendment Applicability to States" the first entry that comes up says "The non-application of the Second Amendment to the States is good law today."


----------



## Sam31452 (Sep 18, 2009)

I never clearly understood why they did pass this 2nd amendement to your constitution.

Obviously they did also pass it before the machine gun was invented.

Question: Does the 2nd amendement also grant you the right to carry a small atomic bomb or any other kind of weapon on Amtrak?

Being from Europe, I would like to stand aside of this anti-gun/pro-gun debate, but let me tell you: over here most people are just scared by weapons.


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 18, 2009)

Sam31452 said:


> I never clearly understood why they did pass this 2nd amendement to your constitution.Obviously they did also pass it before the machine gun was invented.
> 
> Question: Does the 2nd amendement also grant you the right to carry a small atomic bomb or any other kind of weapon on Amtrak?
> 
> Being from Europe, I would like to stand aside of this anti-gun/pro-gun debate, but let me tell you: over here most people are just scared by weapons.


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 )

No, it was ratified (passed) in 1791.

The key word is Arms, which in those days would be firearms.


----------



## pennyk (Sep 18, 2009)

Sam31452 said:


> I never clearly understood why they did pass this 2nd amendement to your constitution.Obviously they did also pass it before the machine gun was invented.
> 
> Question: Does the 2nd amendement also grant you the right to carry a small atomic bomb or any other kind of weapon on Amtrak?
> 
> Being from Europe, I would like to stand aside of this anti-gun/pro-gun debate, but let me tell you: over here most people are just scared by weapons.


Some of us over here are scared by weapons also. I do not trust the judgment of most of the people that I see on the news (at protests, etc.) carrying guns.

:angry:

I am an anti-gun liberal. Although I drive a hybrid car, I am not a vegan, not even a vegetarian.


----------



## espeefoamer (Sep 18, 2009)

It's about time. Guns are allowed in checked baggage ONLY! The owner has no access to his gun(s) until retrieving luggage at the end of the trip.

Proud to be a non gun owning member of the NRA  .


----------



## Ispolkom (Sep 18, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Sam31452 said:
> 
> 
> > I never clearly understood why they did pass this 2nd amendement to your constitution.Obviously they did also pass it before the machine gun was invented.
> ...


Not just firearms. Private, armed militias were legal until the late 19th century (I vaguely recall that the ban had to do with the great railroad strikes of 1877). Present-day Minnesota Statutes (the only ones I have to actually read cover to cover), ban private armed militias carrying any weapons, and make careful exceptions for (among others) Knights of Columbus and Shriners marching in their fabulous outfits complete with swords.

I still think that this is a nonissue, since you can carry firearms on Amtrak now and there's no way they can know you have them.


----------



## Donctor (Sep 18, 2009)

espeefoamer said:


> It's about time. Guns are allowed in checked baggage ONLY! The owner has no access to his gun(s) until retrieving luggage at the end of the trip. Proud to be a non gun owning member of the NRA  .



Boo!


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 18, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Sam31452 said:
> ...


Sorry, it was a reference to the bomb comment. I should have been more specific. Arms meant weapons of that time period. But I'm not sure that means that more modern types would or should be excluded.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2009)

I travel cross-country for skeet shooting events regularly. It would be really nice if this passed so that Amtrak would be an option. Right now with airline fees it is getting so ridiculous to check baggage. I compete it two different types of event and each one uses a different kind of gun.

You know how awesome it would be to show up in California after two nights in a sleeping car? The event would be off to a much better start.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 19, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Sam31452 said:
> ...


You can check firearms in checked baggage on any domestic US airline flight. You could check firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak until April 2003. You can check firearms on the Alaska railroad. Heck you can even check legal firearms on VIA Rail Canada (long guns up there).

WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? You can do the same today on an airline. Right now.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 19, 2009)

pennyk said:


> Sam31452 said:
> 
> 
> > I never clearly understood why they did pass this 2nd amendement to your constitution.Obviously they did also pass it before the machine gun was invented.
> ...


So you do trust the judgement of those who would carry firearms illegally, then. And did the people at those protests DO anything, besides getting some folks' panties in a bunch?

And how does that have anything to do with putting unloaded, broken down firearms in Amtrak checked baggage, inaccessable to passengers?

Full disclosure, I do not, and never have, owned a firearm of any kind. I am not a member of the NRA or a similar organization. I just like facts.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 19, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> And how does that have anything to do with putting unloaded, broken down firearms in Amtrak checked baggage, *inaccessable* to passengers?


There's the rub as it were.

While the baggage car is officially off limits to passengers, it is not inaccessable to passengers.


----------



## Neil_M (Sep 19, 2009)

Let the gun nuts carry as many guns as they want.

Just ban bullets.


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 19, 2009)

I was wandering around on the internet this morning, & I managed to locate the full amendment. It is posted  here.

I have posted it so that everyone who is interested can look at it.

It is currently "in Commitee".

If you click on the link to the left "go to Bill Status", it will show you the sponsors & another link "view Commitee Assignments" then read that, & click on the link at the bottom of the page "Senate Commitee on Commerce, Science & Transportation".

This will give you the list of all Commitee Members involved. Most have contact info listed too.

These are the people that you may want to contact to express your opinions concerning this Amendment.

I know there are a lot of steps listed-but you may want give the info a quick once over before looking up the members.

Or just skip to the Members.

IMHO, it is important for all of you to let them know how you feel (hopefully politely) about this Amendment.

I would have posted it earlier, but I wasn't sure if I should, since it seems to be something most of you have strong feelings about.


----------



## Tim_Metra (Sep 19, 2009)

Guns in luggage. Fine; give Amtrak the money to upgrade all the stations to handle weapons. Without the money it is unfunded mandate! (remember that term conservatives!)


----------



## Donctor (Sep 19, 2009)

Tim_Metra said:


> Guns in luggage. Fine; give Amtrak the money to upgrade all the stations to handle weapons. Without the money it is unfunded mandate! (remember that term conservatives!)


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 19, 2009)

Tim_Metra said:


> Guns in luggage. Fine; give Amtrak the money to upgrade all the stations to handle weapons. Without the money it is unfunded mandate! (remember that term conservatives!)


If or when it passes.

Of course that would have to be the next thing on the list, seeing that Amtrak is Federally funded.

Also, some kind of 'grace period' to get it up & running.

That's why I posted it, and suggest people contact the Senators with their concerns & ideas !

Didn't the Fed provide the TSA funds for the Airports?


----------



## DesertRat (Sep 27, 2009)

On a trip back east by plane, I met this young man who was going to shooting semi finals for the Olympics. He had his weapon in a steel, locked, and profusely labeled case about as tall as he was and he looked to be about six foot. The case had to be opened, inspected, checked for any ammo, then sealed back up and - if I recall rightly! -more labels stuck on the case. I'm not sure if this was before or after the X ray machine.

All that I would think takes a lot of funding for adding personnel, training, and equipment to screen guns the same way this young man had to undergo.


----------



## transit54 (Sep 27, 2009)

DesertRat said:


> On a trip back east by plane, I met this young man who was going to shooting semi finals for the Olympics. He had his weapon in a steel, locked, and profusely labeled case about as tall as he was and he looked to be about six foot. The case had to be opened, inspected, checked for any ammo, then sealed back up and - if I recall rightly! -more labels stuck on the case. I'm not sure if this was before or after the X ray machine.
> All that I would think takes a lot of funding for adding personnel, training, and equipment to screen guns the same way this young man had to undergo.


Yes, that's basically the procedure. They don't have to X-Ray them, they just swab the interior for explosives seeing as they have to open them. I described the process in detail a few pages back, but you've basically got it right. My air carrier didn't use stickers, but we did include paperwork inside the case certifying the procedure was followed.

As I've said before, the issue really isn't whether guns should or should not be allowed in checked baggage, the issue is that this is an unfunded mandate to Amtrak.


----------



## DesertRat (Sep 27, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> Yes, that's basically the procedure. They don't have to X-Ray them, they just swab the interior for explosives seeing as they have to open them. I described the process in detail a few pages back, but you've basically got it right. My air carrier didn't use stickers, but we did include paperwork inside the case certifying the procedure was followed.


 Oh, sorry, I obviously missed it... :blush: 
And yes, I realize that it was the issue of it being unfunded...I've always thought it was ridiculous to make unfunded requirements.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 28, 2009)

GET A CLUE ! ! !

The people that will be dangerous with guns don't care what the law is anyway. Therefore, the prohibition on carrying guns only inconveniences the people that would not be a danger to those around them regardless of what they have in their baggage, whether checked ro carry-on.


----------



## leemell (Oct 5, 2009)

tp49 said:


> Tim_Metra said:
> 
> 
> > I am wondering as a "Tea Bagger" why do you ride or even discuss the transportation PUBLIC OPTION??
> ...


The SCOTUS is taking up incorporation (applying to states) this term and probably will rule in favor. One other item most people get wrong --- the term "regulated" at the time of the writing of the BOR with respect to militias referred to their military bearing and discipline, not the stricture of their conduct.


----------



## leemell (Oct 6, 2009)

wayman said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > I am also mildly concerned that this might start a slippery slope towards TSA involvement with rail travel and an eventual shift towards airport security for rail travel. But that is, I'll stress, a mild concern compared to the other two listed above.


Too late. TSA has always had a mandate to provide security for rail, they just never implemented it. They said it was a matter of priorities and funding. They also said that they will get to it as time passes.


----------



## Ispolkom (Oct 6, 2009)

leemell said:


> Too late. TSA has always had a mandate to provide security for rail, they just never implemented it. They said it was a matter of priorities and funding. They also said that they will get to it as time passes.


By securing all the grade crossings, I assume. Now *that's* a full employment act.


----------



## yarrow (Oct 15, 2009)

rehberg wants guns allowed on amtrak trains


----------



## wayman (Oct 15, 2009)

leemell said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > sunchaser said:
> ...


It is an impossible mandate, unless the TSA intends to force Amtrak to close all unstaffed stations! No amount of funding can change that--there aren't even buildings to staff at quite a number of Amtrak stations. It's simply another sign that many politicians do not understand some very basic fundamental aspects of how passenger rail works.


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 15, 2009)

I think what they would have to do is either upgrade the security at all stations or close all unstaffed & non checked baggage handling stations.

Another option would be to designate them as non boarding locations.

I also think since Amtrak is owned by the Fed, financing for such an upgrade would come from there (more correctly, the taxpayer).


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 16, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> I think what they would have to do is either upgrade the security at all stations or close all unstaffed & non checked baggage handling stations.Another option would be to designate them as non boarding locations.
> 
> I also think since Amtrak is owned by the Fed, financing for such an upgrade would come from there (more correctly, the taxpayer).


Your naive. They'd mandate it, but leave it to be funded from Amtrak's normal budget.


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > I think what they would have to do is either upgrade the security at all stations or close all unstaffed & non checked baggage handling stations.Another option would be to designate them as non boarding locations.
> ...


Why do you think that a Dem House/Senate & President would not finance Amtrak?

Where does Amtrak's 'normal budget' come from? The same place-the taxpayer.

All I was trying to say is that most posters have been worried about an unfunded mandate & possible shutdown.

The funding would still come from the same place.

As far as Amtrak getting shut down, since VP Biden is very pro-Amtrak & a Quick-trak has been installed IIRC in the White House, IMHO, it is unlikely that would happen anytime soon.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 16, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Why do you think that a Dem House/Senate & President would not finance Amtrak? Where does Amtrak's 'normal budget' come from? The same place-the taxpayer.
> 
> All I was trying to say is that most posters have been worried about an unfunded mandate & possible shutdown.
> 
> ...


Don't bet on it, Sunchaser. I'm not saying it will happen. But it could.


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that a Dem House/Senate & President would not finance Amtrak? Where does Amtrak's 'normal budget' come from? The same place-the taxpayer.
> ...


I'm not the betting type.

I would be surprised if the bill gets pushed through anytime soon.

I just checked it's status, and there has been no change.

They seem to up to their eyeballs in other things right now.

It also seems that if they want something funded, they will fund it.

So I guess the real question is, of all the members of the House & Senate, how many are pro Amtrak?

If they are your representatives, those are the people to contact. (I would do it even if they are not pro Amtrak.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 16, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> If they are your representatives, those are the people to contact. (I would do it even if they are not pro Amtrak.)


I'm a transit advocate. I spend my life in pointless meetings with pointless politicians pointlessly trying to improve service and funding for Amtrak and other transit organizations. I've already discussed this, at length, with Lautenberg's aide. They have more important things to do, as you say, and the bill this thing is attached to is too important to let this item stand in its way.


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > If they are your representatives, those are the people to contact. (I would do it even if they are not pro Amtrak.)
> ...


I do think it is important to have a functioning, dependable rail system.

I cannot speak for everyone in the US on this subject.

I am sure there are many who feel that passenger trains are a thing of the past & planes are the future.

I hope they make wise decisions in this area, but the odds are against it.


----------



## tp49 (Oct 16, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Where does Amtrak's 'normal budget' come from? The same place-the taxpayer.All I was trying to say is that most posters have been worried about an unfunded mandate & possible shutdown.
> 
> The funding would still come from the same place.


Just to clarify the concept of an unfunded mandate. As one of those people who are speculating any additional security requirements would present an unfunded mandate maybe I can help provide some understanding as to what I meant.

First, I don't think anyone's arguing that there wouldn't be any Amtrak funding but the argument is there wouldn't be enough funding sent Amtrak's way to implement things.

If there is a requirement that Amtrak provide additional security and enact new security procedures (possibly including hiring additional personnel or retrofitting stations, equipment, etc.) to make things work the worry is that there would be a new expense but no increase in Amtrak's budget to pay for it. Amtrak would have to do something mandated in this bill that would cost them additional money without an additional revenue stream to pay for it (either by a fee placed on all tickets for "station security" or a surcharge placed on people carrying firearms or from an increase to the Amtrak appropriation by Congress to implement the procedures.) Hence, the unfunded mandate.

The main concern of course is that in order to come up with the funds if this was the case is to make cuts in other areas of the Amtrak budget to compensate for it.


----------



## leemell (Oct 24, 2009)

he bill has been reintroduced in both the House -- H.R. 3789 and the Senate --- S.B. 1638.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 24, 2009)

I think some talk needs to happen between Amtrak and Congress along the lines of, "Some new Viewliner baggage cars would help us transport guns safely. While were discussing new equipment, we also need new Viewliner sleepers and diners, and Superliner IIIs." Not saying it would get anywhere, but it might help to get the issue of new equipment out there.


----------



## caravanman (Oct 27, 2009)

Everyone looks the other way when Amtrak kills off the full Sunset Limited route, but WOW, not carrying guns?? That is a case for budget cut threats!!!

Ed


----------



## guest (Nov 18, 2009)

Check out the comments, the ARA is really behind this one. To me guns aren't as big an issue as the threat to shut down the national passenger rail system in four months if they don't get their way.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declass...#commentmessage

November 17, 2009 7:02 AM

Will Gun Measure Threaten Amtrak Terror Attacks?

Michael Isikoff

Just how much clout does the gun lobby have on Capitol Hill? This week may prove to be a crucial test: A House-Senate conference committee is about to take up a massive transportation-funding bill that is pitting advocates of gun rights against security-minded members worried about the threat of terrorist attacks on Amtrak trains. Tucked into the measure is a controversial National Rifle Association-backed amendment that would cut off $1.5 billion in subsidies to Amtrak unless the federally backed national passenger-train company reverses its post-9/11 security policies and permits train passengers to travel with handguns and other firearms as part of their checked luggage.

The idea of allowing guns on trains—something Amtrak banned after 9/11—passed the Senate by an overwhelming 68 to 30 margin last month and was hailed by the NRA at the time as a vindication of Second Amendment rights. But since then, the measure, sponsored by GOP Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, has raised bipartisan alarm among House Homeland Security committee members, especially because Amtrak, according to its own account, is largely unable to check baggage (only 30 percent of stations can) and doesn't have the method to secure checked luggage in the same way airlines do. As company representatives wrote, checked bags are "significantly easier to access in transit or at individual stations than the secured baggage compartments of passenger aircraft." (Airline passengers are allowed to check unloaded firearms.)

"Deadly terrorist bombings of commuter trains in Madrid in 2004 and the 'commando-style' terrorist attack on a major rail station last November in Mumbai have emphasized the importance of passenger rail security in large urban areas," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Peter King, the panel's ranking Republican, in a recent letter to House conferees urging them to reject the amendment. According to Thompson and King, Amtrak has twice revised and enhanced its security policies in recent years after the Madrid and Mumbai attacks revealed a "significant firearm specific threat" from terrorists to passenger trains.

(In last year's Mumbai attacks, which Indian authorities have blamed on the Pakistani-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, 10 terrorists struck in 13 places in the city, including the city's main railway station, and killed 174 people. In the railway part of the attack, two of the terrorists indiscriminately fired at passengers with AK-47 assault rifles.)

Thompson and King argue that the new measure could make Amtrak similarly vulnerable. But NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam calls those arguments "bogus."

"This isn't something new," he says. "Amtrak would be reverting to its pre-9/11 policies." He also says that the Senate amendment wouldn't really apply to the heavily traveled Northeast corridor between Washington and New York, where checking luggage is largely not an option. It would only affect long-distance travelers such as those who take the train south to Florida for the winter, he argues, and "those people want to be able to defend themselves and their families … without being harassed by Amtrak."

The fate of the measure is now up to the House-Senate conferees; while the Senate version contains the "guns on trains" amendment, the House version has no such provision. Arulanandam says the NRA is "working the issue hard." But the ultimate call may be up to House leaders, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who have to decide whether to heed the warnings of the chamber's homeland security experts—or please the gun lobby.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 18, 2009)

> "This isn't something new," he says. "Amtrak would be reverting to its pre-9/11 policies."


That's not something you normally hear the GOP complain about. :blink:


----------



## George Harris (Nov 18, 2009)

Howabout a thread concerning allowing pets on Amtrak?

The gun issue has been beaten to a pulp by now.

The people you would have to really worry about would not care what was legal and permissible anyway, so the prohibition against guns only works to do two things:

1. Inconvenience the law abiding

2. Give the criminal element a level of confidence that they will not face anybody that could shoot back.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 18, 2009)

> Howabout a thread concerning allowing pets on Amtrak?
> The gun issue has been beaten to a pulp by now.


If memory serves, we've beaten those pets into the ground too - thread wise.



> 1. Inconvenience the law abiding


In so far as Amtrak, and what they can reasonably handle for checked baggage, yes.



> 2. Give the criminal element a level of confidence that they will not face anybody that could shoot back.


With Amtrak, how is this going to make a difference, with unloaded guns locked in the baggage car?


----------

