Amtrak Can’t Meet “Guns” Deadline?
Attached to a recent transportation spending bill was a provision to allow citizens to once more bring firearms — in checked baggage — onto Amtrak trains. Amtrak says it can’t meet the April 1st deadline next year to do that. From The Hill:
“We don’t think we’ll be able to do that March 31 deadline, and, of course, finding the funding to make all of that happening,” said Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm. Failing to meet that deadline and missing out $1.5 billion in appropriated funds, its entire funding request for 2010, would bring a “cessation of train service nationwide,” Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper wrote to appropriators last month.
Kulm said that Amtrak trains and stations lack security systems seen at airports, baggage cars that are separate from passenger areas and a secure baggage loading area. Under its current policy, only law enforcement officers can bring guns onto its trains.
Seeing as how, before “9/11,” the same policy was in effect — guns OK in checked baggage — it’s hard to see what the problem is. Maybe they just don’t want to allow law abiding citizens the ability to transport, to travel with, their guns.
13 Responses to “Amtrak Can’t Meet “Guns” Deadline?”
Leave a Reply
(Be sure to answer the anti-spam question!)
on 26 Oct 2009 at 7:21 am # divemedic
Since there is no screening equipment, how do they know people aren’t bringing aboard now? and does it really matter? After all, it isn’t like you are going to use a gun to take over the train and steer it into the Pentagon.
on 26 Oct 2009 at 10:24 am # steve
Perhaps from all of the old movies, but somehow, carrying on a train seems like the thing one would do without much hesitation.
on 26 Oct 2009 at 3:22 pm # Kirk Parker
divemedic,
Forget checked baggage, how often do you suppose someone cc’s their handgun?
on 26 Oct 2009 at 3:34 pm # Sigivald
Amtrak might shut down?
Hallelujah. The last thing this nation needs is an expensive waste of taxpayer money doing something commercial buses do cheaper and better.
on 26 Oct 2009 at 6:09 pm # John A
divemedic, I do not know why extra security equipment/personnel or newly seperating bagage cars from passenger cars is necessary - but I can guess. Congress, when it decided to “allow” what almost certainly has been in practice for over a century, quite probably included these requirements to be sure that no unacknowledged .22 single-shot derringer gets transported, and eventually that people known to own guns will be in for “extra handling” - and to extend the database of “people known to own guns.”
And also no doubt special labelling and handling will also be necessary, as it is if shipping a significant-size container of, say, propane.
I also wonder if an exception has been carved out, as it was for most airports, to allow for transport from State A to State C passing through State B even if State B does not allow a particular weapon or recognize (reciprocity) thay States A and C allow it…
on 26 Oct 2009 at 6:17 pm # Dr. T
I’m trying to understand this. Amtrak claims it cannot follow the law because it will be too difficult to NOT inspect baggage for guns. Baggage that doesn’t need inspection anyway because it is inaccessible to the passengers? Am I missing something here, or are the Amtrak bosses even stupider than I thought?
on 26 Oct 2009 at 8:26 pm # WT
What the hell. I just bring my folding Kel-Tec anyway, and don’t bother checking it. If I’m going someplace that might have security or dogs (NYC, DC), I just have my spouse (a Fed LEO) available.
on 26 Oct 2009 at 9:44 pm # Ian Argent
Enh - unshackled from the rest of the system, the Northeast Corridor would do quite well. The autotrain from Lorton VA to FL could probably do OK. The rest?
My gripe about noting “loaded” baggage - sure does highlight those bags for pilferers, doesn’t it?
on 26 Oct 2009 at 10:08 pm # Air Jordan shoes
Enh - unshackled from the rest of the system, the Northeast Corridor would do quite well. The autotrain from Lorton VA to FL could probably do OK. The rest?
My gripe about noting “loaded” baggage - sure does highlight those bags for pilferers, doesn’t it?
on 26 Oct 2009 at 10:38 pm # Paul
I guess if the CEO and management can’t do their job, they should quit or be fired for cause, and seek employment elsewhere.
These people never cease to amaze me! Now we are expected to believe they would like to conform to the law but can’t?
I am going to have the tattoo “STUPID” removed from my forehead so they no longer think they can Bulls–t , me.
Paul in Texas
on 27 Oct 2009 at 12:51 am # Josh A
They are just playing this up, expecting that congress will blink when faced with the possibility of shutting down the trains (by allowing the funding to be ended).
I predict they’ll figure it out before they lose their money.
on 27 Oct 2009 at 8:55 am # Ian Argent
I wouldn’t bet on congress blinking; but we’ll see. The power in the relationship is definitely with Congress; and this one is shockingly pro-gun. Might bet the cost of a bagel.
on 28 Oct 2009 at 10:31 am # comatus
If they suddenly had to re-institute the absence of a smoking ban, one presumes the trains would just pull over to the side of the tracks and stop.
Then Eddie Willers would go for a walk…