Guns on trains - Who supports that?

[bigtree]

Lis Smith ?@Lis_Smith (Deputy Campaign Manager, Communicator for @MartinOMalley)
Big believer in #petsontrains. Guns on trains? What was @BernieSanders thinking? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/25/bernie-sanders-claims-vermont-s-hunters-needs-their-guns-on-amtrak-the-hunters-disagree.html …

[Buzz Clik]

1. We need some triangulation here in a hurry. 3, 2, 1, .....

[bigtree]

7. I've been told repeatedly that gun safety isn't a winning political issue

...I completely agree.

Gotta keep those hunters happy!

[aikoaiko]

2. Checking guns in luggage in trains is not a safety issue .

Amtrak doesn't xray all bags whether they be checked or carry-on. If someone with malicious intent wants to bring a gun on a train they can do so easily. This law just made it easier for lawful gun owners to travel by train.

[SunSeeker]

14. Yes it is.

That NRA talking point about gun control only affecting law abiding gun owners has no basis in fact. Why have any laws then? Only criminals break laws, so we shouldn't inconvenience law abiding citizens with any laws?

Many trains don't even have checked luggage compartments. You have access to your luggage because it is right next to you.

[beam me up scottie]

32. If there's no checked baggage compartment they don't get to carry their guns onboard.

Many trains don't even have checked luggage compartments. You have access to your luggage because it is right next to you.

Now we know you're just making this shit up as you go along.

[SunSeeker]

38. Train stations don't x-ray luggage like at airports. nt

[beam me up scottie]

39. What the hell does that have to do with your claim?

The op is about guns in checked luggage.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Locked and in checked bags that are

Not available in transit, same as all aircraft now.

[Cheese Sandwich]

21. "Once you drop the bag off you will not have any access to it until the final stop"

Also firearms have to be declared 24 hours in advance and the rules are very strict

http://www.amtrak.com/firearms-in-checked-baggage

[Duckhunter935]

60. Yep, I see nothing wrong

Just some trying to post untrue information again to smear Bernie.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Sanders okays all of his gun votes with some type of excuse, it is time to pass the excuses and take

action and that action should be voting for sensible gun laws.

[aikoaiko]

8. What exactly would be sensible about banning checked guns when bags are not xrayed...

...when they are checked or carried on. Really, this is not a safety issue

It just helps lawful guns owners travel by train.

[Hoyt]

28. And unlawful ones too.

[aikoaiko]

51. Not really because they could still keep their guns in their bags unlawfully.

[Hoyt]

52. Not if they started xray and searching potential gun nuts.

Hunters are going to be pretty obvious, unless they are into folding stocks and such, in which case they are likely to some extent just a step away from domestic terrorists. No one needs to carry a gun on a train, in a city, to the playground, etc.

[aikoaiko]

54. But there haven't been x-raying which makes this outrage ridiculous

[Hoyt]

55. Truthfully, it's time some kind of chip or something should be placed in gunz and/or bullets

to make it easier to detect those who walk among us with a gun or two strapped to their body.

[azurnoir]

5. what someone was thinking when they ran this thread? but alas we can click a link and read

say wasn't the Senate majority Democratic in 2009?

In 2009, the Senate voted to overrule a ban on guns on Amtrak trains that had been in place for nearly a decade.

Sanders supported the measure, which requires passengers to inform Amtrak that they have a weapon and carry the weapon in a locked, hard-sided container and the ammunition separately, “in the original manufacturer’s container,” like they would if they were traveling by plane.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/25/bernie-sanders-claims-vermont-s-hunters-needs-their-guns-on-amtrak-the-hunters-disagree.html

[bigtree]

11. gotta keep those train-traveling hunters happy

...so, so glad to know our Democrats have their priorities straight.

I can't believe they wasted their time legislating against the ban. I'll never understand the entitlement gun owners are afforded by legislators.

[beam me up scottie]

6. *swoons, clutches pearls*

There's nothing wrong with unloaded guns in locked cases being checked as baggage.

That idiot seems to think people will be carrying loaded guns in the passenger compartments.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Thank you to all those who responded. Mission accomplished. Triangulation complete.

[MH1]

10. Pro O'Malley here, and I think that isn't Lis Smith's finest moment.

(also very pro gun-control)

There are probably a few valid arguments that can be made against Sanders in the area of gun issues, but this isn't a very strong one.

Basically the Amtrak rule is much like it is for planes.

As someone who also is very pro mass transit, I would generally not like to see rules that discourage its use without making much of any important difference otherwise.

The one caveat I would make is that it might be easier for someone to steal someone's checked gun off of a train baggage compartment than in an airplane baggage area. Might. But it would still be highly unlikely. And other than that, I see no reason to have a different rule for trains than planes. It certainly isn't the "OMG WHAT WAS HE THINKING???" thing that Lis Smith makes it sound like, so either she doesn't know what she's talking about here, or she's an idiot, or she's pretending to be one for political purposes. (The latter is probably the truth, but it backfires with a thinking person like myself.)

[bigtree]

12. there are folks who disagree with the change

...many expressing less confidence in Amtrack's ability to manage the policy than proponents.


I give Lis Smith credit here for encouraging us to give this policy a second look. I opposed it in 2009 and I oppose the policy now. I'm unconvinced by the argument that planes do it, so trains are some natural equivalent to that policy. As far as rights go, I'd put the passenger's safety before the recreation or any other activity of hunters. I don't trust Amtrak or airlines.

Of course, I'm not a gun owner, and even less of a fan of guns. I think this was political stroking of the NRA and a minority of gun owners. It's also an unnecessary expense. At a time when public safety and threats have already strained public and private resources, gun owners were able to enact this arm-twisting legislation to essentially force Amtrak to change their policy. Pure NRA political blackmail.

Like I said, I'm no fan of guns, and even less of a fan of the 'hunters' excuses the NRA and supporters trot out when they want Congress to move heaven and earth to accommodate them.

Good for Smith provoking an examination of this legislative action.

[MineralMan]

13. Why would anyone who was going hunting take a train?

Seriously. Too much gear.

[-none]

30. That is just the excuse to be having the gun in the first place.

Nothing more.

[jeff47]

31. As opposed to an airplane, which has the same rules? (nt)

[MineralMan]

33. Every plane I've been on accepts checked bags. Not so on Amtrak:

http://www.amtrak.com/checked-baggage

For more details, even the train station in Burlington, VT has no checked baggage service:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=ESX

In fact, most, if not all of the Amtrak stations in Vermont have any checked baggage service.

No guns on trains in Vermont, it seems. Go check for yourself.

[jeff47]

34. And if the train does not have a baggage car, no guns.

The rule requires the gun to be in checked baggage. No checked baggage, no gun.

[beam me up scottie]

35. No kidding.

Logic - ur doin it wrong.

[MineralMan]

36. I couldn't find an Amtrak Station in Vermont

that has checked baggage service, so no guns to any Vermont destinations.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=ESX

[jeff47]

40. Yep. So what? (nt)

[MineralMan]

42. See, Vermont is a big hunting state, or at least that's

what Bernie says when asked about gun control issues. Apparently, though, people in his own state don't travel on trains to go hunting, since there is no checked baggage service at Amtrak stations in Vermont.

Amtrak allows firearms in checked baggage, but if there is no checked baggage service at your destination, you can't check a bag to that destination. Most place where people go hunting are in more rural areas, and those are the very stations that don't have checked baggage service.

People drive to hunting destinations, because they have gear to haul. People who hunt out of state fly, because all airports that serve commercial flights have checked baggage handling capabilities and you can pack your firearms in your checked bags on the plane.

You can't check bags on Amtrak if your destination does not have checked baggage service.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Was this legislation specific to Vermont?

[MineralMan]

45. Of course not. Go read the article at the link.

Bernie says he supported guns on trains so hunters in Vermont could take their guns on hunting trips. It's in the article. But there is no checked baggage service in Vermont on Amtrak, so it's a specious argument. That's also clear in the article. Hunters in Vermont don't travel with guns on trains.

I doubt that hunters anywhere, do, because most hunting destinations also don't have checked baggage service, either, which is generally available only to more urban destinations.

It's a specious argument to say that hunters travel by train, so they need to carry their firearms with them. It's simply not true. They don't travel by train. If they're traveling a short distance, they drive. If they're travelling a long way, they fly. The train is not their mode of travel.

So, the argument falls apart.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Do you have proof of your claim that hunters don't travel by train?

[MineralMan]

50. Read the article, then go to the Amtrak website

and start looking at train stations in areas where people hunt. That's what I did for Vermont. No checked baggage service at those stations. You'll find the same thing all across the country.

I did my research. Now, you can go do the same research. But first, please read the article linked in the OP. I'm done with this discussion, though.

[beam me up scottie]

57. I read it the first time it was posted, no proof of your claim.

[thesquanderer]

65. The fact that there is no checked luggage service in VT today...

...does not necessarily mean that there will be no checked luggage service in VT next year, or 5 years from now, or 10 years from now.

[jeff47]

47. And yet this law does not only apply to train service in Vermont.

Instead, it applies nationwide. Like all federal laws.

Seriously MM, you are better than this. Stop lowering yourself into the stupid.

[MineralMan]

49. Read the article. Bernie says he voted for it so hunters in Vermont

could take their guns on the train. Just go read the article, please. I'm done with this discussion.

[Major Hogwash]

53. Absolutely!

I have to drive to Winnemucca, Nevada to board Amtrak now.
So, if I want to take my rifle with me, it makes no sense that I would have to ship it via FedEx or UPS to Colorado where I could hunt!

[aikoaiko]

56. Checked baggage would start in NYC for example.

And then leave bag on platform in Burlington.

[MineralMan]

58. The Burlington station doesn't have checked baggage service.

In fact, I could not find a single Vermont Amtrak station that does.

P.S. There is no Amtrak Station in Burlington proper. The Essex Junction station serves Burlington, and has no checked baggage capabilities. Go look at the map.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=ESX

[aikoaiko]

62. Right but they still drop off the bag on the platform

[MineralMan]

64. No, they do not. No checked bags are delivered to

that station. In fact, you can't check a bag to that station, or any other station in Vermont, as you'll discover at the place you get on the train. That's just how it works. The train that arrives at that station probably doesn't even have a baggage car any longer, since there are no stations on the rest of the trip that handle checked bags.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Depending on where one is in Vermont, one might use a station in another State, such as NY.

I'd have to assume that a person with the need to check luggage might select the station that deals with it. It's not just guns, can't take your ski gear on the train as carry on either. Vermont, it's not very big. Amtrak, it's not very effective. Burlington does not have a station at all.

[ibegurpard]

15. locked in checked baggage?

Why not?

[MineralMan]

37. There is no checked baggage service on Amtrak

for any trains with a Vermont destination.

[JonLeibowitz]

43. You do realize Congress passes laws that apply to the whole country, right?

[Luminous Animal]

16. OBAMA signed the law that allows firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak.

In fact, he bragged about signing it.

[bigtree]

18. well, that changes EVERYTHING!

...smh.

[Luminous Animal]

20. It's the same regulations that allow guns on planes.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Guns on trains - Who supports that?

What was president Obama thinking?

Well done, LA!

[NCTraveler]

26. Perfect strawman.

Easiest way to see that it is a strawman, just follow the argument.

You are a big fan of the TPP I take it?

Don't get me wrong, I know you aren't. It simply points to the serious flaw in your argument.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. TPP

can you take the TPP on trains?

sorry couldn't help it

[restorefreedom]

17. just like on planes,

cargo is not an issue. its not like they are going to be sitting in the cafe car with their hunting rifle in their lap.

[bigtree]

24. that wasn't the nub of the opposition

...legislators opposing the removal of the ban weren't arguing that hunters would be allowed to carry the guns in their lap.

Most were questioning giving priority to hunters when resources were already strained by concerns over terrorism and other threats. There were also questions about the ability of Amtrak to manage the policy change effectively.

My issue is the political stroking of the NRA to advance the desires of a minority of gun owners, essentially forcing Amtrak to accept this policy or lose federal funding. In the scheme of what I want Congress to focus on and work on, this wouldn't even line the bottom of my agenda for them.

[restorefreedom]

25. i hate the nra and its strong arm tactics.

i just don't see this as a major issue. not many hunters ride trains, and if the guns are inaccessible during transit, it should not pose an undue burden on security.

[bigtree]

27. it's not a major issue, imo

...worth a discussion, I think.

I like reading the back and forth. Anything which compels folks to roil Congress' political kowtowing to the NRA lobby generally agrees with me.

[restorefreedom]

29. definitely worth looking at, i agree

and yeah, it would be nice to see anyone in congress grow a backbone on the nra issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Why should it be different for planes? Planes have been targets, yet you can check guns on planes.

If guns in collective conveyances are the problem, let's start with planes. We have more planes and more guns on those planes than we have trains or guns on them.

If this issue was presented as 'no guns on transportation' I could accept that it is an issue. If guns on planes are groovy with you, but guns on trains are not then this strikes me as partisan exploitation of the issue.

[bigtree]

68. I'm not sure how it's automatically assumed guns on planes are fine with me

...it would be like arguing guns on trains are some natural extension of guns on planes.

Anyhow, the argument against lifting the ban is more complex than just gambling on airlines and trains providing safety.

If you can recall, critics of Amtrak at the time of the lifting of this ban were demanding the railroad either reduce routes to control costs or absorb the reductions in funding however they could. Here's an example of the NRA bullying legislators and Amtrak to cater to a handful of hunters (less than a fraction from Vermont, btw) by demanding Amtrak spend millions or risk losing the meager funding being offered.

This was such a pressing issue for our national legislature...catering to the NRA and a handful of gun owners. A profile in courage, to be sure.

[Cheese Sandwich]

19. Martin O'Malley wants to ban guns from checked baggage on trains?

[Sancho]

23. There's a really good reason for Bernie to support this.

It's what the gun industry wants. That way, the gun industry will not fund a serious opponent to him. The gun industry doesn't have to contribute to Bernie, nor do they have to "openly" (pun intended) endorse him to get his support. They can affect his election and have done so in the past without any direct or visible connection. He responds accordingly with unexplainable votes that further the gun lobbies dreams.

Argue the merits of the law or not (it's a bad idea to allow easy transportation of guns without really close scrutiny and a slew of regulation - especially over state lines), but overall gun control is pretty non-existent in the US. This just continues the mayhem.

In this case, it's a back door way for Bernie to say one thing, but really vote to protect the gun manufacturer and NRA agenda.

[MineralMan]

46. Bingo.

[Alfresco]

61. Enlightening post, thanks.

One of the benefits of DU.

[aikoaiko]

63. Right, because that D- is a ringing NRA endorsement

If they wanted to find a more progun candidate it wouldn't be difficult

[Scuba]

41. This is an area where Bernie and I disagree. Still, he's miles better than the alternative ...

... with whom I disagree on most major issues.

[Todays_Illusion]

59. I consider it a mistake to consider that liberal Democratic voters are all anti-gun ownership.

But that assumption sure helps lose elections.