Amtrak train passengers: Guns in checked luggage?

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Bill would allow guns in Amtrak baggage

A measure to put Amtrak passengers on the same footing as airline passengers, allowing guns in checked-through baggage, was passed by the U.S. Senate Wednesday. The legislation, part of the transportation and housing appropriations bill, was approved 68-30.

The measure's sponsor, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., noted other railroads in the country manage to shoulder that burden. "Only the federally subsidized Amtrak prohibits law-abiding American citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights in checked baggage," Wicker said.

Source: http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/111221.html

Is there any reason why Amtrak passengers shouldn't enjoy the same exercise of 2nd Amendment rights as passengers on other trains, or passengers on airlines?

[SpeedRacer 1]

OK with me.

When I flew to Alaska a couple of years ago, I was looking out the window when we were sitting on the tarmac in Anchorage, and I saw rifle cases being unloaded. If it's OK in planes it ought to be OK in trains.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 3]

Quote

Is there any reason why Amtrak passengers shouldn't enjoy the same exercise of 2nd Amendment rights as passengers on other trains, or passengers on airlines?

As long as they follow the exact same procedures as the airlines and there is no possible way for a passenger to have access to the weapons; no I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Is checked baggage placed in a completely separate and secured compartment on AmTrak trains?

BTW, I breeze in and out of Union Station in LA on a fairly frequent basis. I can't say I've ever even been glanced at in terms of security. Never once gone through a magnetometer. I'm sure there's a rule against it, but I think it would be trivial to just walk around with a concealed weapon there and hop on any train.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pmw515 0]

yay! Now our bags can repel attackers. It would be better if we could carry on our persons.

[quade 3]

Quote

yay! Now our bags can repel attackers. It would be better if we could carry on our persons.

In a thin metal tube traveling at great speed where there are people that are pretty much always going to be in the line of fire and have no option to escape? Where there are already uniformed armed professionals patrolling the vehicle?

No. You pretty much have to go with the same regs as the airlines. Sorry.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hmmmm, things are looking pretty good on this poll, wouldn't you say, JohnRich??


so here's a question for you. We've got a decent mix of people on the political spectrum here. So at least half the people who frequent this forum are critical of Republicans/Conservatives.
And yet, you only see a very tiny number of real gun-o-phobes here.

I see a LOT of people on here loudly denouncing the Right on other issues, but almost none are loudly anti-gun.

Why do you suppose that is? Aren't all liberals supposed to be anti-Second Ammendment?

So why, then, do so many on the Right on this forum have a chip on their shoulder about gun rights?

Seriously, we argue about a lot of topics here, and it is pretty evenly divided. I would even say that in all these arguments we have, those who lean Liberal outnumber the ones who lean Conservative a bit.

But it doesn't seem to come out as anti-gun very often. Why do you suppose that is?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 3]

JR is also the only person I know anywhere that is concerned about cutlery issues in the UK.

I guess everybody has to have a hobby.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

This wasn't just about JR, it was about all who post about gun rights on this forum. We used to have a guy on here called peaceful jeffrey who was OBSESSED with the idea that everyone was out to take away his guns.

My point was that we get into a lot of heated discussions here on different sides of the political spectrum, and yet we really don't hear much from people specifically talking about taking away gun rights.

I say this because I am generally a liberal, and also support the right to bear arms. And from what I am seeing at least on this forum, that does not seem to be an uncommon attitude.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 3]

I think the issue is that with some people it's an all or nothing proposition. I actually support the right of an individual to own fire arms. What I don't support is the wild west attitude that the 2nd Amendment means that includes everything, everywhere and at any time. Some people do. I personally think that's nuts and have voiced that opinion so, of course, I'm the "enemy" to some of those folks.

If a person is not an absolutist with regards to gun rights, they're frequently vilified as a gun grabber when the fact is, that's not their intention at all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Please tell us which guns you would outlaw so we can address this in a debate w/r/t the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

[quade 3]

Quote

Please tell us which guns you would outlaw so we can address this in a debate w/r/t the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

I'm not going to get into a specific list.

While I realize you find it controversial, I like the idea (but maybe not the implementation) of the California list to ensure the guns actually work, won't accidentally go off if dropped and won't blow up in in your hand the first 600 times you try to use them. I think that's not a horrible expectation.

I also think something could be done that would allow a greater number of rounds per magazine on semi-automatic weapons IF there was a way to limit the total kinetic energy output by the device over a certain period of time. Making weapons not able to be bump fired for instance. I'm not a gun smith so I'm not certain how you'd go about that, but I'm sure there are clever people that could figure it out.

I'd even go so far as to expand the types of weapons allowed to be owned by law abiding CCW holders like, perhaps, machine guns and full auto versions of the AR-15.

Unfortunately, any attempts at some sort of compromise will be vilified. Again, quite a few folks are absolutists on the subject.

Pity, because sometimes they are their own worst enemies and end up having to live with really crappy laws because of their attitudes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I also think something could be done that would allow a greater number of rounds per magazine on semi-automatic weapons IF there was a way to limit the total kinetic energy output by the device over a certain period of time.

So with a .308 rifle we would only be allowed a bolt action that fires one round at a time, but with a .22 rimfire you would let us have a semi-auto with a 5-round magazine. Wonderful!

As for AR-15's, you shouldn't have to be a CCW licensee to own one. Just the fact that you've bought it, means that you've had a background check, and are therefore vetted to be a law-abiding citizen. There's nothing special about CCW holders, that are different from anyone else that passes a background check. The background checks done for the two are identical.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Hmmmm, things are looking pretty good on this poll, wouldn't you say, JohnRich??

so here's a question for you. We've got a decent mix of people on the political spectrum here. So at least half the people who frequent this forum are critical of Republicans/Conservatives.
And yet, you only see a very tiny number of real gun-o-phobes here.

I see a LOT of people on here loudly denouncing the Right on other issues, but almost none are loudly anti-gun.

Why do you suppose that is? Aren't all liberals supposed to be anti-Second Ammendment?

It was unusual that the vote was up to 18-0 in favor of this proposal, at one point.
Most of the gun poll threads have about one-third of the votes against guns.
But now the gun-o-phobes have entered and are getting things caught-up here.

I would say that the majority of liberals are against guns, but not all.

Those who have been loudly anti-gun in the past, get beaten down by the facts and logic presented by guys like you and me. They realize at some point that they just sound irrational, so they shut up or go away. But they still lurk in the shadows and vote "no" every chance they get.

[point_code 0]

There's nothing special about CCW holders, that are different from anyone else that passes a background check. The background checks done for the two are identical.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I also think something could be done that would allow a greater number of rounds per magazine on semi-automatic weapons IF there was a way to limit the total kinetic energy output by the device over a certain period of time. Making weapons not able to be bump fired for instance. I'm not a gun smith so I'm not certain how you'd go about that, but I'm sure there are clever people that could figure it out.

Some would consider me a 'gun nut'. Show me a gun law that actually works to stop crime, and it'll probably get my support.

The AWB didn't have any effect on crime, yet there are people that want to bring it back.

The magazine capacity limits in CA don't make a damn bit of difference in preventing crime.

I believe that the problem isn't that pro-gun people aren't willing to compromise, it's that the anti-gun people keep throwing out 'solutions' that aren't solutions at all.

Things like 'one gun a month', waiting periods, and capacity limits may sound good on paper, but they don't really have any effect on crime.

Why not?

I think there's a few reasons, primarily that laws can't really be used effectively to prevent crime, only to punish it once it's been committed.

The stated goals of gun laws are basically to prevent violent crime. If someone going to commit murder, are they really worried about being charged with something much less than that?

Does a gang member intent on shooting up a rival gang really care that he's using a banned weapon?

Passing minor laws to prevent people from breaking major laws (murder, armed robbery, etc..) is a pretty foolish thing.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Do you know what the difference is in punishment for murdering one person or murdering hundreds or even thousands is?

Not much unless you get elected to office and therefore are absolved.

[normiss 622]

Are there metal detectors at some stations?
I've carried concealed without issues.....

[Ron 7]

Quote

IF there was a way to limit the total kinetic energy output by the device over a certain period of time. Making weapons not able to be bump fired for instance.

No offense, but this shows you don't know much about firearms.

NO ONE wants weapons that are dangerous to the user to be out there.... But much like parachuting would you also support approved lists of main canopy's that may be jumped in the US? Would you support it knowing that many of the smaller canopy company's would not be able to submit to the testing and would just not sell the product.

Quote

PC 12131. (a) On and after January 1, 2001, the Department of Justice shall compile, publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all of the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined not to be unsafe handguns, and may be sold in this state pursuant to this title. The roster shall list, for each firearm, the manufacturer, model number, and model name.

This shows it is not really about safety, otherwise RIFLES would also be listed.

Also things like finish matter... If the blued one is on the list and the chrome one is not... then you can't buy the chrome one.

And if the model was certified to be safe, but does not pay the annual 200 dollar fee, then they are dropped off the list.... there is no further testing. So, how does a "safe" pistol on the list suddenly become "unsafe" just because they didn't pay the 200 bucks?

Quote

I'd even go so far as to expand the types of weapons allowed to be owned by law abiding CCW holders like, perhaps, machine guns and full auto versions of the AR-15.

Can you tell me the difference between a machine gun and a full auto?

Quote

Unfortunately, any attempts at some sort of compromise will be vilified. Again, quite a few folks are absolutists on the subject.

I wish you supported the 2nd like you support the 1st.

How many people have been killed by a legally owned Full Auto weapon since 1934?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

I believe that the problem isn't that pro-gun people aren't willing to compromise, it's that the anti-gun people keep throwing out 'solutions' that aren't solutions at all.

Quote

The AWB didn't have any effect on crime, yet there are people that want to bring it back.

Quote

The magazine capacity limits in CA don't make a damn bit of difference in preventing crime.

Quote

Things like 'one gun a month', waiting periods, and capacity limits may sound good on paper, but they don't really have any effect on crime.

Quote

If someone going to commit murder, are they really worried about being charged with something much less than that?

Quote

Does a gang member intent on shooting up a rival gang really care that he's using a banned weapon?

Quoted for truth.

The problem is anti gun people want to create rules that they think SOUND good, but will do nothing.

Quade's example of "to limit the total kinetic energy output by the device over a certain period of time"

What good is that going to do? A criminal is not going to suddenly turn in his AK47 since it is no longer legal. All this kind of rule does is punish a law abiding citizen while making anti-gun people FEEL better.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,136]

Quote

What good is that going to do? A criminal is not going to suddenly turn in his AK47 since it is no longer legal. All this kind of rule does is punish a law abiding citizen while making anti-gun people FEEL better.

I simply do not understand the reasoning or the logic behind this statement.

there are many items and substances that are illegal for the common good of society. Why are guns that different?

(and don't answer because of the 2nd amendmend, cause it has already been established it does not create a free for all on all guns)

[warpedskydiver 0]

Maybe they should invent a device that limits the amount of free speech by impeding the amount bof bullshit expelled per minute.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

What good is that going to do? A criminal is not going to suddenly turn in his AK47 since it is no longer legal. All this kind of rule does is punish a law abiding citizen while making anti-gun people FEEL better.

I simply do not understand the reasoning or the logic behind this statement.

there are many items and substances that are illegal for the common good of society. Why are guns that different?

(and don't answer because of the 2nd amendmend, cause it has already been established it does not create a free for all on all guns)

Ok, then how about this angle.

It is well established that the number of guns and gun owners does not affect armed crime rates. It this were not true look what would happening in the US in the last 8 months.

So, by extension, limiting guns would have no effect either. (now, if one looks at other conutries who have enacted very strict gun laws and bans this could be fully argued against but I will conceed this at this point)

So, for what reason would you want a law that only creates bigger government and paper work but has no effect on crime or anything for that matter?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,136]

Quote

Ok, then how about this angle.

It is well established that the number of guns and gun owners does not affect armed crime rates. It this were not true look what would happening in the US in the last 8 months.

So, by extension, limiting guns would have no effect either. (now, if one looks at other conutries who have enacted very strict gun laws and bans this could be fully argued against but I will conceed this at this point)

So, for what reason would you want a law created that only creats bigger government and paper work but has not effect on crime or anything for that matter?

Which is a completely different line of logic. I really don't want to gte into another gun debate, since I really could care less how many guns you do or do not have in the States.

It is the specific logic behind that statement ron made, since I just don't get it. Under that same logic the general public should have access to buclear warheds, long and short range missles, C4 explosive etc. I mean its not as if a criminal with lots of money could not get their hands on it, so why punish a law abiding citizen?

Criminals can easily get coke, so why punish a law abiding citizen for having it. Criminals can easily get crack, so why punish a crack head for feeding it to her baby.....

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Maybe they should invent a device that limits the amount of free speech by impeding the amount bof bullshit expelled per minute.

You'll be the winner, no question.

BTW, it's of and not "bof bullshit ..."

Man, go back and learn your own language

A big mouth does not replace knowledge.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ok, then how about this angle.

It is well established that the number of guns and gun owners does not affect armed crime rates. It this were not true look what would happening in the US in the last 8 months.

So, by extension, limiting guns would have no effect either. (now, if one looks at other conutries who have enacted very strict gun laws and bans this could be fully argued against but I will conceed this at this point)

So, for what reason would you want a law created that only creats bigger government and paper work but has not effect on crime or anything for that matter?

Which is a completely different line of logic. I really don't want to gte into another gun debate, since I really could care less how many guns you do or do not have in the States.

It is the specific logic behind that statement ron made, since I just don't get it. Under that same logic the general public should have access to buclear warheds, long and short range missles, C4 explosive etc. I mean its not as if a criminal with lots of money could not get their hands on it, so why punish a law abiding citizen?

Criminals can easily get coke, so why punish a law abiding citizen for having it. Criminals can easily get crack, so why punish a crack head for feeding it to her baby.....

You see, you cant answer the question. You have to use an extreen example to try and save your point.

So, I humbly ask again, gun control laws do not and have not worked when looked at in the arguments used by the anti gunners. So, what purpose would having yet anothe law have?

And I am speaking to resonable ownership as is currently defined. Not owning nukes or C4 or any of the stuff you list.

What good would it do?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln