Wicker said airlines allow passengers to do this, and said, “[o]ur federally subsidized rail line should be no different.”
I have never taken a gun on an Amtrak trip. Decades back, I asked about a taking shotgun between rural points on the California Zephyr to hunt pheasants. The agent said have it cased, give to the conductor. I wound up driving.
Checked firearms in baggage seems prudent.
The news wire article makes me wonder why this is an issue if airlines do it. Is this political correctness, or security?
Yea Nobody wants you to get your gun out Hijack the train and go off course to the woods and hold the train hostage while you hunt. Just not american and also the engineer would not be qualified on that strech of highway and signal system ( not standardized). and the women will complain that they aint had anything to eat and gonna get a head ache.
Guns are as American as apple pie and donuts. If everyone would have been armed with assault rifles in Binghampton, the death toll would have been much lower. I think everyone on an Amtrak train should carry a gun…a really big one, just in case of a hijacking. Just think, a shootout on the the CZ would be fantastic.
Just kidding about all that. I just think all gun nuts are just that. Sorry if I offend anyone, I just look at the 44 people who’ve been killed gangland style in the last 30 days and cry. All that just to hunt pheasants??
Not trying to start a political row, but the framers were scared to death of a big government and a standing army. The second amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with an overbearing tyrannical central government. Nuff sed!
Back in more innocent times when juries held people responsible for their own actions and government was less intrusive, some train crews took along firearms to hunt along the train route and on certain routes railroads routinely picked up and dropped off hunters along way…
I would see this as a difference in mentalities. Those people who were shot down gangland style down in your country and the mess of them that cropped up in Vancouver BC were created in a social vacuum. Many programs that targetted ‘vulnerable’ populations suddenly get axed and then only a few years later we see this type of thing occuring. Gangs–the only form of connectness many of the recruits had.
And then OTOH, you get the ‘hunter’ who is just that—BTW, I know a few people who hunt deer etc–purely for the meat. Some do that kind of thing too you know. Why should their reality be shunted aside because a much more fragile person might get hold of a gun? Did all of us forget that there are supposed to be people to help those in need of mental health care? I’m not sure that guns are the problem–for guns by themselves are not doing the killing. Humans kill/injure humans.
There is an argument that gun control will stop the killings–think again. Criminals do not believe in laws to begin with and those who are prone to violence will resort to something else—for example we had a rash of knife killings up here in London a few years ago. Japan just recently had knife killings as well. Wanna bet there were people already going around talking about banning knives? Yeah, we had them too.
Deal with the humans who are either in need of help or put those HC criminals behind bars. Just deal with the troublemakers and let other law abiding citizens live their lives without the rigmarole----
This entire thing is getting off subject, but before it goes too far I have to qualify something that I have said. I lived in Montana for 20 years and knew hordes of hunters, altho I did not hunt myself. They were ALL good people who mainly hunter for pleasure…and the meat. They used hunting rifles and sometimes bows, but never handguns or assault riffles, and there was never any problems. However, most crimes against humans are not done with hunting rifles and bows, but hanguns and assault rifles, neither of which are of any use to a hunter.
The rub comes from the gun lobby that does not make a distiction between owning a hunting rifle, handgun, or assault rifle as it is all bundled together as one item. I now live in Italy and they make that distinction. You can have hunting rifles but not assault weapons, and handguns are relegated to collectors only. The mentality that lumps together all guns, whether they can be used used for legitimate purposes or gangland killing is not a rational stance, but one that relies on the spreading of fear to the public.
I have said enough, and I hope no one gets offended, because that is not my intention.
The anti-gun lobby does not WANT to make a distinction between hunting weapons and assault weapons. They want them ALL banned.
As far as handguns, most of the killings are by people who are not licensed for them to begin with. A way to help that problem would be sledgehammer sentencing for anyone illegally carrying or owning a handgun. But that would violate the American Liberal philosophy of making people accountable for their own actions.
Regarding the lack of distinction in addressing hunting guns, hand guns, and assault weapons:
Hunting is not the only legitimate purpose for guns. Another purpose is self-defense from others who commit crimes with guns or other lethal weapons. Would not a handgun or assault rifle be an appropriate means of self defense against a criminal aggressor with a handgun or assault rifle?
And, other than style, what is the difference between so-called assault rifles and hunting rifles?
I was thinking more along the lines of now that spring is here, more and more people are going to be guilty of having bare arms, at least in the warmer parts of the country.
Same here in Norway. We have a lot of shotguns and rifles in this country.
And we of course can bring those guns with us on the train when we are taking the train to go hunting, as long as the gun is transported in a sensible way - ie unloaded (but you of course can bring along your ammo), carried in a gun bag or backpack or something sensible, and the owner keep a proper eye on his or her gun, so it doesn’t go missing.
Then again - we are pragmatists about guns over - we don’t have any “religious” belief that everyone has a “right” to bear arms to be ready to carry out an armed rebellion against a hypothetical future tyrannical central government.
Our police has the power to refuse you a gun license if you set off their weirdness detector. And people do not get a gun license to own a gun “for personal protection” over here except under extremely rare circumstances.
For personal protection we have an army, that has guns from 5.56 mm up to 155 mm (and if necessary, quite a few of us will report to the depot of our unit, replace our civilian clothes with uniforms and be issued with our H&K G3 automatic rifles), and we have a police force which can check out guns from a gun safe in their vehicle and body armor if they need to.
Also - a train conductor is authorized to refuse any passenger to enter a train, if he gets bad vibes from the prospective passenger.
Works for us - might not work in a society where fear of strangers is way higher than over here.
This past few days have raised the question of gun ownership and usage once again…I am in Bingahmton NY where 13 innocent people were killed and four more badly injured and the shooter killed himself…in Pittsburg, PA three police were killed, others wounded, by a guy fearing his right to have guns was going to be infringed upon. The guy in Bingahmton had permits for two hand guns and reports are that he frequently purchased guns and returned them for others within several weeks. Semi automatic hand guns. Why? He wasn’t hunting anything. But he could have guns and carry them around. There are those who will now say it is the reason we all should have guns and carry them wherever we go just in case. No…leave in case…leave the guns in the case at home if you don’t have a purpose when carrying outside the home or shooting range. I am not opposed to gun ownership, just think that owning a gun should have a regulated purpose. Otherwise, no guns I am now leaning more and more toward gun control. I know 13 neighbors who died last Thursday, who would certainly agree, and now hundreds of relatives and survivors, too. And that’s just here.