NARP Goes Anti-Gun

[Ryan]

I'm not sure the bad guys who aren't following the rules are really the thing we should be worrying most about. My vague recollection is that the general statistics show that there are more gun deaths from family members misusing guns that were supposed to protect them from the bad guys than there are from burglers shooting their victims. Reducing the number of guns that happen to be around Amtrak passengers will probably improve overall safety, and having rules that say guns are simply not allowed are highly likely to have the effect of reducing the number of guns present even if those rules aren't always followed.

That's absolutely ridiculous. There is absolutely no danger to anyone from a properly packed and secured firearm in the baggage car. Any statistics about firearms in the home have precisely NO bearing on firearms in checked luggage. I would be amazed if you could find a single case of a firearm from checked baggage being used in a crime.

 

[Everydaymatters]

I don't pretend to know as much about firearms as you men do, but I can't come up with one single reason why someone would be transporting one in a train in the first place.

Hunters going to Montana, as in the example above, would normally fly to Montana for an elk hunt. Or Alaska, or where ever. Or they would all ride together in one vehicle. I've never, ever heard of hunters taking a train. Because of my husband's business, I'm constantly around hunters. In his 25 plus years of being in business, there has never been one hunter who has taken the train.

What would be the purpose of transporting a firearm on Amtrak?

 

[Ryan]

Well in the last 8 years, such a thing would have been impossible, so that's hardly surprising.

As far as being unable to come up with a single reason, hunting is certainly a valid one (your experience hardly disproves the theory) as are collectors traveling to/from a gun show, someone moving/relocating, taking a firearm to be presented as a gift.

At the very root of it however, since keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected right, I don't have to come up with any reason to justify transporting a firearm on Amtrak - it's up to those who would want to prevent that to come up with a logical and compelling reason to infringe on that right.

 

[p&sr]

Hunters going to Montana, as in the example above, would normally fly to Montana for an elk hunt. Or Alaska, or where ever. Or they would all ride together in one vehicle. I've never, ever heard of hunters taking a train. Because of my husband's business, I'm constantly around hunters. In his 25 plus years of being in business, there has never been one hunter who has taken the train.

More to the point, what do they do with all the Elk they catch (and perhaps the occasional Buffalo). Does Amtrak allow them to carry their kills home by Train? If not, then the hunters will just have to conclude that they are inadequately supported by public transportation.

For that matter, do the Airlines allow Elk carcasses either? Check-in or carry-on?

 

[p&sr]

National Association of Railroad Passengers, a not-for-profit membership advocacy organization supporting passenger rail (or at least as passenger rail exists in the form of Amtrak).

I have read their stuff. I would NOT call them an "advocacy organization" supporting either Amtrak OR passenger rail in the USA. They have lots of screwy ideas, and they evidently advocate for THEM. But I just have not seen anything of a reasonable character from that group, whereby they realistically hope to influence ANYTHING for the better.

We can be better advocates for Rail Travel by buying tickets, and by our online discussions. With occasional letters to Amtrak, or to Congress as appropriate.

CORRECTION: I was thinking about URPA, not NARP. Sorry for the mixup.

 

[ruudkeulers]

Hunters going to Montana, as in the example above, would normally fly to Montana for an elk hunt. Or Alaska, or where ever. Or they would all ride together in one vehicle. I've never, ever heard of hunters taking a train. Because of my husband's business, I'm constantly around hunters. In his 25 plus years of being in business, there has never been one hunter who has taken the train.

More to the point, what do they do with all the Elk they catch (and perhaps the occasional Buffalo). Does Amtrak allow them to carry their kills home by Train? If not, then the hunters will just have to conclude that they are inadequately supported by public transportation.

For that matter, do the Airlines allow Elk carcasses either? Check-in or carry-on?

 

[Ispolkom]

Hunters going to Montana, as in the example above, would normally fly to Montana for an elk hunt. Or Alaska, or where ever. Or they would all ride together in one vehicle. I've never, ever heard of hunters taking a train. Because of my husband's business, I'm constantly around hunters. In his 25 plus years of being in business, there has never been one hunter who has taken the train.

More to the point, what do they do with all the Elk they catch (and perhaps the occasional Buffalo). Does Amtrak allow them to carry their kills home by Train? If not, then the hunters will just have to conclude that they are inadequately supported by public transportation.

For that matter, do the Airlines allow Elk carcasses either? Check-in or carry-on?

I don't see anything prohibiting transporting elk chops, as long as they cut down and shipped in 50 lbs. loads with dry ice. If you bag a buffalo, though, you might want to just go and rent a reefer car. Are there states with bison seasons?

EDM, my argument was that Amtrak forbids a) something that is of relatively low risk (firearms in checked luggage), but allows b ) something that is a known and much greater security risk (unaccompanied luggage). I have traveled on airlines that require you to identify your luggage on the tarmac before you and your luggage are allowed to board. Your claim that a) never happens really is beside the point. Given that the regulation is an empty letter (how could Amtrak enforce it?), it strikes me that this is the sort of security theater I usually associate with the TSA.

What shocks me, though, is that there is a specific prohibition on transport of swords. I'll have to rethink my plans to travel to my next jousting tournament.

 

[Ryan]

Hunters going to Montana, as in the example above, would normally fly to Montana for an elk hunt. Or Alaska, or where ever. Or they would all ride together in one vehicle. I've never, ever heard of hunters taking a train. Because of my husband's business, I'm constantly around hunters. In his 25 plus years of being in business, there has never been one hunter who has taken the train.

More to the point, what do they do with all the Elk they catch (and perhaps the occasional Buffalo). Does Amtrak allow them to carry their kills home by Train? If not, then the hunters will just have to conclude that they are inadequately supported by public transportation.

For that matter, do the Airlines allow Elk carcasses either? Check-in or carry-on?

Generally speaking when you go on a hunt like that, the carcass is process locally by a butcher into packages not unlike that which you would find in the meat section of your local grocery store. Those packages are then shipped in containers of dry ice, so this really isn't an issue.

 

[p&sr]

Generally speaking when you go on a hunt like that, the carcass is process locally by a butcher into packages not unlike that which you would find in the meat section of your local grocery store. Those packages are then shipped in containers of dry ice, so this really isn't an issue.

Sounds good. That just leaves the Antlers to deal with.

 

[George Harris]

"Froggy went a courting and he did ride

Sword and a pistol by his side

. . . "

Guess he didn't ride on a train.

Other that explosives and caustic liquids, I really see no sense in any baggage restrictions on a train, and this one gets way into none of anybody else's business. To prohibit swords in checked baggage is if anything even sillier than prohibiting firearms.

 

[Neil_M]

At the very root of it however, since keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected right,

You do know they got that wrong, don't you? When your constitution was drawn up the guy writing down all the bits of it was a little deaf, what was actually proposed was the 'right to keep and arm bears'.

That would make the hunting lot think about what they were doing....... :lol:

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

This is likely to be voted on today, starting sometime around noon Eastern Daylight Time.

Does anyone know the outcome of the actual vote?

 

[Guest]

My gut reaction to all this is to picture some of my distant crazy cousins who would take to this allowance with ease. As it is now, one (she) likes to travel to Walmart with a custom made holster and her pistol (just because she can) because Georgia expanded its laws. There is currently some issue about Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson wanting exemption from this easing of gun laws. Sorry about the rambling, but folks I don't want to be on Amtrak with guns unless they're carried by law enforcement.

GML, soldiers don't travel (in this country) with their weapons, generally. If a well-trained soldier walks into a building with their head covered it can mean they are armed. Rare. Even the weapons on display in soldiers' arms at the Atlanta airport (not true for all airports) after 9/11 were empty...a political issue to avoid gaffes.

As far as soldiers and their guns on planes: Soldiers' weapons travel very securely. From an armory to trainup I've seen the tractor-trailor carrying the weapons under trooper escort. I've seen military gun caches come from under commercial jets with the pilot in attendance at their loading and unloading.

We would not enjoy traveling on a train with the amount of security required to transport weapons.

 

[Ryan]

Sorry about the rambling, but folks I don't want to be on Amtrak with guns unless they're carried by law enforcement.

Tough. I suggest emigrating to a country that's more in line with your desires. Japan and England have great rail systems and no guns. (well, legal ones anyways)

We would not enjoy traveling on a train with the amount of security required to transport weapons.

Bunk. If you've traveled by plane more than a handful of times, I'd be willing to bet that you traveled on the plane with privately owned weapons and weren't ever aware of them (unless you saw the cases in the baggage pickup at your destination). There is no reason that security on the train would be significantly different than it is now.

 

[sechs]

We would not enjoy traveling on a train with the amount of security required to transport weapons.

Bunk. If you've traveled by plane more than a handful of times, I'd be willing to bet that you traveled on the plane with privately owned weapons and weren't ever aware of them (unless you saw the cases in the baggage pickup at your destination). There is no reason that security on the train would be significantly different than it is now.

Bunk. If you've traveled by plane in the last eight years, I bet you went through security. I bet your bags did, too. Passengers don't need to be aware of privately owned weapons on a plane as long as security is (and doing their job). There is no real security on a train, as their is for planes now.

 

[tp49]

Sorry about the rambling, but folks I don't want to be on Amtrak with guns unless they're carried by law enforcement.

Tough. I suggest emigrating to a country that's more in line with your desires. Japan and England have great rail systems and no guns. (well, legal ones anyways)

We would not enjoy traveling on a train with the amount of security required to transport weapons.

Bunk. If you've traveled by plane more than a handful of times, I'd be willing to bet that you traveled on the plane with privately owned weapons and weren't ever aware of them (unless you saw the cases in the baggage pickup at your destination). There is no reason that security on the train would be significantly different than it is now.

Bunk. All lugage on a plane is supposed to match up to each passenger. Meaning that your luggage flies with you on the same aircraft. Currently since Amtrak will route luggage to a destination with no concern as to whether that passenger is on that particular train. As the poster above said there is no real security or baggage screening on trains and considering they can't match bags to actual passengers on the train then no keep the guns out of the checked baggage.

 

[Neil_M]

It's very simple. Allow the transport of guns, but ban the transport of bullets.

 

[Ryan]

Sorry about the rambling, but folks I don't want to be on Amtrak with guns unless they're carried by law enforcement.

Tough. I suggest emigrating to a country that's more in line with your desires. Japan and England have great rail systems and no guns. (well, legal ones anyways)

We would not enjoy traveling on a train with the amount of security required to transport weapons.

Bunk. If you've traveled by plane more than a handful of times, I'd be willing to bet that you traveled on the plane with privately owned weapons and weren't ever aware of them (unless you saw the cases in the baggage pickup at your destination). There is no reason that security on the train would be significantly different than it is now.

Bunk. All lugage on a plane is supposed to match up to each passenger. Meaning that your luggage flies with you on the same aircraft. Currently since Amtrak will route luggage to a destination with no concern as to whether that passenger is on that particular train. As the poster above said there is no real security or baggage screening on trains and considering they can't match bags to actual passengers on the train then no keep the guns out of the checked baggage.

Wrong! (maybe I can start that as a trend too)

Matching passengers up with luggage is so that you can't slip explosives into the cargo hold and blow up the flight w/o blowing up yourself. Unless you're concerned about firearms spontaneously exploding, matching passengers to baggage has absolutely nothing to do with transport of firearms in checked luggage.

Likewise, sechs, the ridiculous security theater that you pass through to get on a plane attempts to prevent you from bringing weapons into the passenger compartment and again is completely unrelated to the transport of firearms in the cargo hold (or baggage car on a train).

 

[Everydaymatters]

Well in the last 8 years, such a thing would have been impossible, so that's hardly surprising.
As far as being unable to come up with a single reason, hunting is certainly a valid one (your experience hardly disproves the theory) as are collectors traveling to/from a gun show, someone moving/relocating, taking a firearm to be presented as a gift.

At the very root of it however, since keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected right, I don't have to come up with any reason to justify transporting a firearm on Amtrak - it's up to those who would want to prevent that to come up with a logical and compelling reason to infringe on that right.

My experience does not disprove the theorgy, but you are talking about one in over 2000 that might possibly take a train to a hunt. To reiterate, taking a train to go hunting is such a remote possibility that I don't know why one would need to use such a weak example for a reason to take a weapon on Amtrak. Same with taking a fire arm home from a gun show. Another weak example. So, those two removed, what other reason would there be for transporting a fire arm on Amtrak?

I agree that it is a Constituonally protected right and I am completely in agreement with that right. Yes, you are correct in that you don't have to justify transporting a firearm on Amtrak, but why would you want to?

 

[Upstate]

Well in the last 8 years, such a thing would have been impossible, so that's hardly surprising.
As far as being unable to come up with a single reason, hunting is certainly a valid one (your experience hardly disproves the theory) as are collectors traveling to/from a gun show, someone moving/relocating, taking a firearm to be presented as a gift.

At the very root of it however, since keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected right, I don't have to come up with any reason to justify transporting a firearm on Amtrak - it's up to those who would want to prevent that to come up with a logical and compelling reason to infringe on that right.

My experience does not disprove the theorgy, but you are talking about one in over 2000 that might possibly take a train to a hunt. To reiterate, taking a train to go hunting is such a remote possibility that I don't know why one would need to use such a weak example for a reason to take a weapon on Amtrak. Same with taking a fire arm home from a gun show. Another weak example. So, those two removed, what other reason would there be for transporting a fire arm on Amtrak?

I agree that it is a Constituonally protected right and I am completely in agreement with that right. Yes, you are correct in that you don't have to justify transporting a firearm on Amtrak, but why would you want to?

I would say that less than 1 in 2000 people where I live actually ride the train. Lets get rid of Amtrak all together because obviously no one takes the train anymore.

 

[Irv]

This whole discussion can never be settled, because it involves three distinct and very different groups of people:

1. Firearm owners who know how to handle arms safely and are quite certain they would never use them to harm innocent people.

2. Firearm haters who fear demon-haunted inert pieces of metal and seem to think these guns will jump up and start shooting things.

We can see that the arguments from group 1 tend to be far too logical, dry, and factual. Not nearly emotional enough.

The arguments from group 2 are the opposite - based on feelings, ignoring or distorting any facts which conflict with those feelings.

Oh - and #3?

Criminals who don't fear guns as long as they are the only ones who have them.

These folks generally aren't involved in any discussions, since they could care less about silly laws.

I suspect they mostly support gun bans, since they

A: don't intend to observe them anyway, and

B: such bans would make their daily work - home invasions, rape and murder - so much less risky.

These folks have nothing in common. Except for one thing: who do gun-haters call when they are threatened by criminals?

A: Someone with a gun.

.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

This whole discussion can never be settled, because it involves three distinct and very different groups of people:
1. Firearm owners who know how to handle arms safely and are quite certain they would never use them to harm innocent people.

2. Firearm haters who fear demon-haunted inert pieces of metal and seem to think these guns will jump up and start shooting things.

We can see that the arguments from group 1 tend to be far too logical, dry, and factual. Not nearly emotional enough.

The arguments from group 2 are the opposite - based on feelings, ignoring or distorting any facts which conflict with those feelings.

Oh - and #3?

Criminals who don't fear guns as long as they are the only ones who have them.

So, if someone's great grandfather's bother died at age 16 fooling around with guns, what category does that person fall into?

 

[Upstate]

This whole discussion can never be settled, because it involves three distinct and very different groups of people:
1. Firearm owners who know how to handle arms safely and are quite certain they would never use them to harm innocent people.

2. Firearm haters who fear demon-haunted inert pieces of metal and seem to think these guns will jump up and start shooting things.

We can see that the arguments from group 1 tend to be far too logical, dry, and factual. Not nearly emotional enough.

The arguments from group 2 are the opposite - based on feelings, ignoring or distorting any facts which conflict with those feelings.

Oh - and #3?

Criminals who don't fear guns as long as they are the only ones who have them.

So, if someone's great grandfather's bother died at age 16 fooling around with guns, what category does that person fall into?

The Darwin Category?

 

[Everydaymatters]

I'm not a criminal and I neither own nor hate guns. I just simply don't know why anyone would justify taking one on a passenger train other than to make a statement that they can, so they do.

 

[henryj]

I'm not a criminal and I neither own nor hate guns. I just simply don't know why anyone would justify taking one on a passenger train other than to make a statement that they can, so they do.

The question is about transporting the item in checked baggage, not carry it on your person. Many people for various reasons have to ship firearms, whether it's to a gun show, to hunt, law enforcement or whatever. It's legal. The TSA has set rules for shipping firearms and most airlines follow these rules. So, the question is what is wrong with Amtrak that they consider this a problem and why would someone have to get a congressional mandate to force them to do what they should be doing as a public service? And.......why is NARP opposed to it. It smells too much like a hidden gun control agenda, not passenger train advocacy. Here is the SW Airlines policy concerning shipping firearms and ammunition as an example.

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/guns.html