Senate Votes to Allow Guns on Amtrak

Proposal Would Deny Railroad $1.6B Subsidy Unless It Changes No-Weapons Policy Established after 2004 Madrid Train Bombings

(AP)  The Senate voted Wednesday to permit passengers on the Amtrak passenger railroad to transport handguns in their checked baggage.

The proposal, approved by a 68-30 vote, seeks to give Amtrak riders rights comparable to those enjoyed by airline passengers, who are permitted to transport firearms provided that they declare they are doing so and that the arms are unloaded and in a securely locked container.

"Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason, particularly if they choose to travel on America's federally subsidized rail line," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who made the proposal.

Wicker's amendment would deny the railroad its $1.6 billion taxpayer subsidy unless it changes the gun policy.

Current Amtrak policy, put in place after the bombings of passenger trains in Madrid five years ago, prohibits weapons, including firearms, from being carried on its trains.

Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Amtrak permitted firearms to be carried on its trains so long as they were separately secured in locked baggage or carrying cases. But it added restrictions on carrying weapons after 9/11 and imposed a total ban on all weapons after the Madrid bombings.

Wednesday's vote was the latest in a string of victories for gun rights activists in the Senate despite Democrats' sizable majority. Some 27 Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted for the amendment, many from western or southern states. Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who aligns with Democrats and is one of the chamber's most liberal members, also voted on the pro-gun rights side.

Opponents of changing the policy back, such as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., say it would be too costly and burdensome to return to the old policy. Durbin said that "Amtrak doesn't have the security infrastructure, the processes or the trained personnel in place to ensure that checked firearms would not be lost, damaged, stolen or misused."

The chief author of the underlying transportation appropriations bill, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said implementing the policy would be too costly.

"Amtrak would have six months to build a process for checking and tracking firearms. It would have to find the manpower necessary to screen and guard firearms and it would have to purchase the equipment necessary," Murray said. "If they do not comply, Amtrak will shut down."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he "doesn't have problems with people transporting guns on trains so long as steps are taken to make sure they're secured and properly stowed."

He added that some senators are eager to get back in good stead with the National Rifle Association after crossing the group by voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and to defeat a proposal to permit people with concealed weapons permits to carry hidden guns outside their home states.

The legislation still must be reconciled with a House-passed measure than does not contain the gun rights provision.

[JD-said]

Boarding Amtrak I will have to declare my weapon & ammo then lock it up until I reach my destination so I am unarmed & unable to defend myself in a gun free zone. Next to me sits a petty criminal with his loaded Glock shoved down his crotch because he can't declare his weapon since he is a felon but he can & will defend himself if need be because he is already a loser. I don't like this picture myself because I am at the mercy of the petty criminal & the train Dick will have to protect me until reaching my destination that is if Amtrak does not have him guarding the gun safe. More gun laws goes on the books. More freedom stripped from the law abiding. It never ceases.

[JSTEENBOY]

Wow, I wouldnt care either way. No one should EVER leave the house unarmed. After all, its CONCEALED so no one knows you have it unless you NEED it!

web-privacy.de.tc

[Carl_in_Chicago]

The title of the article ... "Senate Votes to Allow Guns on Amtrak."

It's sad how the media, and many others, view things so "backwards." The title should read "Senate Repeals Amtrak's Prohibition on Guns."

The operative clause of the second amendment commands that the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed. That is the crux of the matter. It's not up to Congress to "allow" the keeping or bearing of arms. Their command is to ensure the right is not infringed.

Again, this vote did not "allow" guns ... it repealed an illegal, standing prohibition.

[AOCGUY]

Folks, Please read the article not just the headline which is misleading. What is being authorized is to allow passengers to have handguns placed in checked baggage. No one has suggested bring handguns into the passenger compartment of the train. I'm surprised there has ever been aprohibition against handguns in checked baggage. - can't see how that poses a threat to anyone.

[Victory_08]

This is a shame. I will not ride Amtrak anymore.
This will make Amtrack loose a lot of riders.
How safe can one be when the next rider can have a gun and "declare" is unloaded. Why would you want to carry a gun on a train? Things like this make us go back in time as a people.

[bubbadubba]

But the right wingers said Obama and the democrats were going to take our guns away.
How could they have lied to us?
LOL

[jab232]

Now they need to improve the screening processes for trains and other public transportation.

[stryker54]

I don't see a problem with the guns if dealt with in a responsible manner. What bothers me is why we as taxpayers are subsidizing Amtrack to the tune of 1.6 billion dollars. Did the govt. buy them too? Regulate yes, subsidize no.

[AOCGUY]

The USG has always owned AMTRAK. AMTRAK was created in 1971 by the USG and much like the USPS is a wholly owned coorporation of the USG. It has never been anything else.

[incog-nito]

As a lifelong conservative I think people should be able to carry arms anywhere. Not just handguns or rifles, mind you, but automatic assault rifles, grenades and grenade launchers, explosives, etc. Hey, there is no where in the Constitution that restricts what kind of arms citizens can possess. I should be able to buy a tank or other military hardware if I want to. In fact, my well-regulated militia is currently looking for a few nuclear warheads, to keep our government honest, you know.

[the74blaster]

This is madness!!!! Since when is it necessary to have the right to carry pistols on passenger train?

Wow! When are they going to legalize machine guns?

I have a defective rifle that keeps missing the big antlered bucks but hits the bullseye at the rifle range.

I need the ability to shoot 500-600 rounds per second to bag my big buck!

Does anyone know if Amtrak is going to allow hunting from the window seats while driving through the national parks?

It will be like those video deer hunting games at local taverns.

Is Amtrak going to play music from the The Good, The Bad and The Ugly while carrying passengers?

On a serious note, this is out of hand.

Congress needs to start using their heads and stop worrying about the lobbys!



This is madness!!!! Since when is it necessary to have the right to carry pistols on passenger train?

[brother112]

What is mad is how people are just letting our constitution get pulled out of our hands after it has been bought with over 200 years of blood. You ask why people need pistols on passenger trains, and soon they'll be asking why you even need them in the first place. Truth is, the why is none of your business. Because if you knew anything about your own constitution and bill of rights you would know we also have something else called privacy. But you seem pretty convinced that we don't need our second ammendment rights, so I hope you're satisfied next time you're getting mugged on a street corner, or maybe your kids are in the house when a burglar breaks in, or maybe God forbid your wife is home alone and someone attacks her, and good ol' big brother will have a dispatch there in 3 minutes to pick up the pieces. Gun restrictions are only going to take guns out of the hands of people who are willing to give them up. Those who use them illegally are just going to be more powerful because of that. So why don't you wake up and realize that our second ammendment (and all the scary questions you can think of associated with it) are for Your Own Good. By the way, next time one of those bad things happens to you, I'm going to be the guy that hears the scream and puts 2 or 3 in the rapist before he gets away. Too bad your lady didn't know how to use one, maybe it would have never happened to her. Or maybe you should forget the target practice, and just start with reading your bill of rights.

[koko98-2009]

If Doc Holiday could ride on a train with a gun, why can't I?

[ralphwaldo]

My family and I had been looking forward to taking Amtrak for a trip to the coast. This policy allowing firearms on the train (even in checked baggage) has changed my mind.

How hard would it be for unarmed terrorists to halt a train and achieve access to the baggage compartments? All it would take is parking an unredeemed clunker car on the tracks.

Sorry, Congress, but you just cost Amtrak 5 tickets and 5 future customers. I'm going to transport my loved ones using the safest mode of transportation available -- or not go at all if we don't feel safe.

[DaVicar6]

by ralphwaldo "How hard would it be for unarmed terrorists to halt a train and achieve access to the baggage compartments?"

- pretty dadgum hard, I would say. Did you ever try and stop a train?

[kesac4650]

If the first airline hijackers had met armed resistance, there never would have been a second ocurrence.

[gca2]

Sounds like they are getting ready to reverse the rules on airliners now.

[steeepe]

If these GOP jerks have their way, we will all be armed to the teeth everywhere in the country. Combined with the lack of civility, that will surely be great for undertakers. I can't wait until I can take my rifle on the subway or my handgun on the bus.

[wdh3007]

People drive cars everyday and a car can be just as deadly and we make no real big deal about that. The guns are not the problem only the person behind the gun just like the person behind the car.

[steeepe]

Yea, I guess a lot of people could be assassinated by cars. Is a car without gas the same as a gun without a bullet? Don't you have to pass certain tests to drive cars? And you can't drive drunk, no? I don't remember ever being tested for owning a gun. And is it illegal to have a gun when drunk?

[steeepe]

Really important issue!! You never know when the government may need to call up an armed militia to help fight off an invasion. I'd hate to be caught on a train without access to my gun. How else could I settle an argument!

[a-voice-of-sanity]

They ought to call the Senator's bluff and let the Senate explain to the millions of passengers why Amtrak shut down. Better yet, they should amend the legislation to require a similar right to carry weapons into the Capitol Building. When does sanity take over?

[lovegetpeace]

Folks,
Back to the Western Cowboy society where everyone got a gun just in case the Rage/Madness/Frustration kicks in.

[DaVicar6]

You mean the days before planes were hijacked, and schools were turned into mass killing fields, and shopping malls were used for target practice on innocent people?
Yeah...I'll take those "good ole days" anytime!

[NZJHawk]

This just in...
Amtrak customers vote to allow guns in the Senate.