Guns Allowed on Amtrak

To hear some in the media talk about it, there will be gun slingers shooting out the windows of trains soon. But this is far from the truth. The reality is that travelers will soon be able to “transport” their firearms on Amtrak trains, but only after notifying the rail carrier at least 24 hours in advance.

Additionally, firearms must unloaded and be secured in a hard flat container and locked with the luggage. What is the big deal about this? It is essentially the same rules as taking a firearm on an airplane.

CBS News went out of its way to note that Daniel Vice of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “counter that the rule change makes it easier for terrorists to bring weapons on trains with intent to do harm.”

How exactly is that possible? Currently Amtrak doesn’t require riders to go through screenings, so couldn’t terrorists or other bad people just walk on with a gun? How is allowing passengers to legally transport firearms making it easier for terrorists to do anything?

This is just the latest example of how anti-gun zealots show their true colors. Vice and the Brady Center need not have been quoted or referenced for this piece, other than the fact that CBS News wanted to show something negative about this change, and Vice was happy to help them out.

New York Democrat Calls Open Carry “Throwback to Wild West”

While U.S. News and World Reports offered the floor to both sides of the debate with editorials, it seems odd that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) would be the anti-”open carry” voice. As a democrat serving New York’s 4th district on Long Island she lives in a part of the state has some very strict gun laws, as this is in a county adjacent to New York City. So when she says in her piece, “I have never been against people owning guns for protection, hunting, or sport,” we have to believe she doesn’t need to be against people owning guns as the state, city and county laws already make it very difficult.

This is the sort of smoke and mirrors that these liberal politicians play. She can say she isn’t against guns, but the district she represents has very strict gun laws already! To this point, she is not one who qualified to speak out about the “open carry” gun laws in other parts of the country. But she also attempts to make her point by bring up some key facts:

“In the summer of 2009, a man stood just outside a venue in New Hampshire with President Obama inside talking about healthcare reform. He had a gun openly strapped to his thigh. Another time while the president was giving a speech at the convention center in Phoenix, a dozen people were openly carrying guns, including one who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back. In this session of Congress, laws were passed to allow guns on Amtrak trains and in our national parks. Where does it end? When will people realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence? And now it is happening throughout the states.”

Let’s tackle these one at a time. The man who stood outside a venue in New Hampshire, was as she says “outside.” He didn’t attempt to bring the gun inside, and who is to say whether anyone “illegally” had a concealed weapon? We just don’t know. The same goes for the situation in Phoenix. The guns were never near the POTUS, and no one was hurt. To the Amtrak trains, passengers can’t take guns to their seats, and guns must travel as “cargo.” What’s the problem? Already people could just as easily bring guns illegally as well. Same goes with the national parks, just because the law is changing doesn’t mean that people weren’t previously breaking the law.

But to the final point in her above statement: “gun violence.” Violent crime in the country is down, as ownership of firearms is up. But Rep. McCarthy lives in, and represents a district that has such strict gun laws that she probably knows (or represents) few actual gun owners. This makes her unqualified to discuss Open Carry.

Newsbusters Takes Aim at Newsweek

Thank you to our friends at Newsbusters for calling out Newsweek‘s biased reporting on the issue of firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains.

As Newsbusters reported, Newsweek made this an issue suggesting that the NRA’s push to allow travelers to carrying their guns (again unloaded and in checked bags only) would somehow open the door for terrorists. Of course we’d like to ask Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff when was the last time he was actually on a train?

The Hill Plays Politics as Usual

While the article from The Hill attempts to present an unbiased take on the issue of firearms checked in luggage, the story clearly has a bias:

“A push in Congress for broader gun rights is threatening to derail Amtrak and stall a transportation spending bill.”

That is rather strong language and a poor choice of words. Clearly politics as usual from The Hill.

NY Times Speaks Out Against Guns (Again)

Leave it to The New York Times to get all worked up over nothing. In an editorial this week, the paper makes a huge deal of the Senate’s push to force Amtrak to allow passengers to transport handguns in their checked luggage. And the old gray lady doesn’t pull any punches:

“In a shocking genuflection to the gun lobby, the Senate has voted to deny Amtrak its indispensable $1.6 billion federal subsidy unless it allows passengers to transport handguns in their checked luggage.”
But worse the paper offers this question: “Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?”

How exactly is being able to legally transport a firearm making a passenger a “privileged traveler?” On airplanes and on trains those carrying musical instruments – in cases far larger than any normal “carry on bag” regularly bring their bags without worry. How exactly should one transport their firearms? Of course the answer that the editors at the NY Times would give is that only the police and military should have those things in the first place.