Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Senate votes to allow handguns on Amtrak

September 23, 2009 by  

Senate votes to allow handguns on Amtrak Earlier this month the Senate voted to permit Amtrak passengers to carry handguns in their luggage, and one gun rights proponent has hailed it as a sign that the tide is turning against those who would like more restrictive laws.

John M. Snyder, who is a former National Rifle Association editor and current public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, says politicians finally seem to "get the message" that most Americans are opposed to gun control.

"American firearm owners form the cutting edge of the modern freedom movement in the U.S.," he said, quoted by Newsblaze.com.

The measure, which passed with a vote of 68-30, was contained in an amendment proposed by Senator Robin Vicker of Mississippi to a transportation appropriations bill. It will take away $1.5 billion for the government-subsidized passenger railroad if Amtrak fails to begin checking in firearms by next March.

Supporters of the amendment state that sportsmen who want to take the train to hunting trips will finally be able to do so.

Meanwhile, opponents such as Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, counter by saying that the rail system does not have the same baggage screening capabilities as airlines, and the requirement will put undue financial burden on it, and possibly cause it to shut down.

The National Rifle Association’s website cites statistics which suggest that the number of new guns in the U.S. increases by about 4.5 million each year, while total violent crime rate is down 38 percent since 1991.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19375916-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Senate votes to allow handguns on Amtrak”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • eyeswideopen

    Name me one hunter who travels by train… lol, lol ,lol

    • JeffH

      I am a hunter and have traveled by train on several occasions. My name is Jeff!

      • eyeswideopen

        Jeff, how did you carry your guns? If they are just now going to allow it, did you carry illegally?

        • JeffH

          JeffH says:
          September 28, 2009 at 8:08 am
          This ruling was long overdue. I have traveled by train, but fortunatley, I did have a gun waiting at my destination. Now, I can bring my own gun and enjoy a leisurly trip to and from my destination.

          Reply

      • eyeswideopen

        Well, since the Dem’s allowed guns on the train, and Obama signed that it is ok to carry loaded guns in Federal Parks, Can someone, anyone tell me why you think he is trying to take our guns away?

        I notice, since this is what we wanted, not too many comments have been made. I guess you can’t bash him as he gave us what we wanted. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

        • Don Ingram

          Obama has said that we need stricter gun laws. A majority of Obama’s Administration is ant-gun and want more gun control laws. Just wait and see, Obama will be going after the guns.

        • independant thinker

          It si true Obama has signed the bill to allow firearms in national parks. However he, Pelosi, and Feinstein have all made statements of this nature since he took office. “We need more and stricter gun control but now is not the time to seek it but make no mistake the legislation will be introduced on our schedule.” I know that is not an exact quote but is the essence of what they said.

  • marlyn mabile

    How will we protect ourselves if our guns are taking away nad what is this county comming to! You know only the crooks and thieves will have guns!

    • hopeforamerica

      It’s all over the news from coast to coast in nearly every community and state, people with guns are killing their families, friends, siblings, co-workers, and random strangers. I sure haven’t heard of anybody who had a gun actually protecting themselves or others from another gun toting lunatic! So much for the gun lobbyist argument. And I wouldn’t feel comfortable with guns on a train either! Either way, there needs to be the same security measures as in an airport, or how are we going to protect ourselves from those who’s only intent is to do harm to others.

      • DaveH

        Yes, and before guns, they killed with swords, clubs, and axes among other weapons. My grandma’s renter ran over her husband and then put the car in reverse to run over him again. 40,000 people are killed each year in auto accidents. Should we also ban automobiles? Immoral people are the problem, not the guns.
        It is well known that poor economies are the driving factor for increased violence, so maybe you should devote your considerable energies into reading Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig Von Mises. Then you could educate your friends and neighbors.

      • Don Ingram

        There are plenty of examples of folks using guns to protect themselves. You’re just not looking. There is case law that states police are not duty bound to protect you as a private citizen, so if you want to wait for them, then that is on you, I am not going to wait, and my home is protected by smith and Wesson.

  • ONTIME

    I guess the days of shooting buffalo from the train are over but at least you can transport your firearm from one place to another. I would think that you will have to declare it and offer proof of ownership, I am not sure if you would need proof of registration but a licence to carry may suffice. Best to check.

    It’s a step in the right direction and a lean toward common sense.

    • JeffH

      I am sure it will be similar to the airline requirements.

  • http://v12joe@gmail.com JOSEPH LAMANTIA

    And as for hand guns on Amtrak: DRAW!!!

    • Don Ingram

      What a knucklehead, DRAW!, Law abiding citizens obey the law, not like the criminals.

  • JeffH

    This ruling was long overdue. I have traveled by train, but fortunatley, I did have a gun waiting at my destination. Now, I can bring my own gun and enjoy a leisurly trip to and from my destination.

    • eyeswideopen

      Jeff are you going to thank that horrible group of Dems who signed this for us?? LMAO!!!

      • Don Ingram

        It was not just the Dems that past this bill.

  • Eddie

    Australia is the lastest greatest example of governmental gun control that made the violent crime/handgun issue worse. They spent a huge amount of money to force the populace to turn in their guns, and the crime rate involving guns as deadly weapons went up remarkably over the next year. That’s because afterwards only the criminals had guns, and knowing they were now facing an unarmed society, they plundered at will. Who’da thunk it. Sometimes I think just being in government means you must necessarily check your brain and/or common sense at the door. An unarmed populace is a society at risk of oppression and being subject to violent crimes. I’ll bet that at Virgina Tech, if the students were allowed to carry conceled firearms, the mass murderer would have thought twice about carring out his attrocities, and if he had gone ahead with his plan, the body count would have been less.

    • JeffH

      For some unknown reason, the anti-gun establishment cannot connect the dots. Criminals are criminals for a reason! They do not obey laws. Only honest people obey the laws. If you were a criminal, would you prefer to violate an armed population? NO! It is much safer for the criminals to violate an unarmed population. The theory that the police and government will protect you is completely false. They can’t protect what they don’t have a clue about.

    • DaveH

      That almost happened in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997. Unfortunately the assistant principle had to go to his car to retrieve his weapon and by then was only able to subdue the perp after he killed two and wounded 7 others.
      This was not widely reported by the media which doesn’t want to expose the value of weapons in the hands of non-criminals.

  • George

    I think this is a GREAT move. I would bet money that this will DECREASE the occurrences of gun crimes on trains, However I have not heard of any gun crimes on trains lately…

    As far as I see it It goes like this, if a would be criminal THINKS someone has a gun, they will move on to someone that does not have a gun. It is like having an alarm on your home, it does not eliminate the threat, but why would any criminal break into a house with an alarm when there are so many homes without an alarm… If every man and woman over the age of 21 was mandated to pack heat, crimes like Rape, robberies, murder and other gun related crimes would diminish to almost nonexistence. Who would dare rob a bank if they knew that everyone in line had a gun on their hip or purse, and all the tellers and the manager had a gun? Same thing goes to trains…

    Now I do not think it should be mandatory to force people to pack heat, but it does make an interesting point.

    Geo

    • JeffH

      In a nutshell. The law actualy allows you to transport with checked bagage, as do most airlines, not carry on bagage. One cannot carry a gun onto a train.

  • http://Netzero Buckridge 10

    It’s about time. now if the rest of the states would catch up with Az. on their gun owner regs. this would be a safer country.

  • SONNY

    I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I’VE READ. ALL ARE GOOD POINT’S AND WE DO NEED TO LET OTHER’S KNOW THAT WE ARE ARMED FOR THE GOOD OF THOSE AROUND. I LIVE IN A AREA OF CHES.VA. WHERE GUN-FIRE COME’S AT ALL HOUR’S OF THE DAY’S. LET THE LAW-ABIDDING PEOPLE HELP WITH SELF PROTECTION.——-NOW ,DO YOU THINK THEY CAN DELETE TAX AND TRADE,STOP GOV. RUN HEALTH INS.,FIX MISSILE DEFENSE AND REMOVE ALL THOSE UNWANTED “CZAR’S” THANK YOU.

    • David

      Amen!

  • RICH

    DOES ANYONE HERE REMEMBER THE LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD SHOOTINGS”"? I DO. IF CITIZENS IN NYC OR SUBURBS RIDING TO IT,WERE LEGALLY LICENSED TO CARRY (BLOOMBERG AND LIBERALS IN NYC DON’T AGREE)THE DERANGED BLACK MAN WHO KILLED SEVERAL PEOPLE COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY A GOOD CITIZEN (NYC NY IS LOADED WITH THEM)! BUT………LIBERALS SUFFER FROM A MENTAL DISORDER!

    • JeffH

      Rich, I agree, but you shouldn’t have identified the man as black, whether he was or was not isn’t important to anything.
      That comment will be construed as “racist” in nature.

      • eyeswideopen

        JeffH, nice of you to try and stop the obvious, but it is just automatic for most people.

        • DaveH

          So then you agree that Ebony is racist? Is the Miss Black America Pagent racist? Is The College Negro Fund racist? Is the NAACP racist?
          Is the National Society of Black Engineers racist?
          Can you imagine a National Society of White Engineers?
          The hypocrisy is stifling!

          • Don Ingram

            Yep!, NAACP is racist, just look at their past comments.

        • DaveH

          If you truly want a color-blind society then you need to be color-blind yourself.

      • independant thinker

        While some will try to make it a racest comment Describing a criminal accurately is not actualy racest. After all you cannot describe a criminal as “someone who killed a person” and expect anyone to identify the criminal to arrest him. If the persons race is unknown then it would be racest to assume he/she was of any particular race but if the race is known it is not racest to describe the person accurately.

  • s c

    This gun issue is not exactly a #1 priority. If Amtrak has a reputation for passengers who double as criminals, perhaps the presence of weapons might help.
    I’d be more interested in demanding that Amtrak find a way to make a profit on a regular basis, or go the way of the dinosaur. Otherwise, taxpayers are still funding an incompetent ‘business.’ Aren’t Americans yet tired of perpetual government bailouts?

  • http://None Byard Grim

    I believe that “the right the bear arms” is a right for all law-abiding U.S. citizens. I do not believe the writers of the Constitution intended it for the citizens of some States and not for others as the Federal government seems to think. Other writers are correct in that taking the firearms away from citizens will allow only criminals to have them. I think firearms should be allowed in all buildings and at all activities including/especially where the President is. A gathering of law-abiding citizens would deter those seeking to harm him or any other public official. For some reason, the government thinks we can only be trusted in certain places around certain people, thereby giving us limited rights to bear arms.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.