VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Allowed' to carry for self-defense - Opinion

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

Nov. 08, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Allowed' to carry for self-defense

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ
MORE COLUMNS

A "push in Congress for broader gun rights is threatening to derail Amtrak and stall a transportation spending bill," wrote Walter Alarkon on thehill.com on Oct. 25.

"Gun-rights advocates in Congress are pressing appropriators to keep a provision that would let Amtrak passengers check in handguns with their baggage."

Most Popular Stories

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name

EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

Our politicians are the greatest, all right

EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

The provision, which calls for withholding $1.5 billion in Amtrak funding if the policy isn't implemented before April, was inserted into the $68.8 billion Senate transportation and Housing and Urban Development spending bill as an amendment. All 40 Republicans, 27 Democrats and one admitted socialist voted for the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss. (The House version of the bill contains no such provision; the two would need to be reconciled.)

Gun-rights proponents have noted that Amtrak always allowed passengers' guns on its trains, deciding to ban them only after the 2001 terror attacks.

Amtrak and its defenders in Congress have argued that the government-owned passenger line needs more time before it can "allow" firearms onto trains.

"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 happen," said Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm. Failing to meet the deadline and missing out on the $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 the appropriators last month.

Mr. Kulm pointed out 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, he said.

Read it again. Because American train stations lack the insane strip-search lines, X-ray machines, and "turn your head while I grope you" protocols that have been installed at our airports, it doesn't much matter who is or isn't "allowed" to carry a self-defense handgun onto a train, according to official Amtrak "policy."

Yes, the various states through which your train may pass probably have their own, contradictory firearms bans. You'd thus be taking your chances should local law enforcement happen to notice that bulge in your coat when you step off to purchase a local newspaper on the platform. But that aside, in reality, pretty much anybody can carry a concealed weapon onto an Amtrak train, right now.

In terms of its usefulness to defend yourself and others when the next Colin Ferguson decides to step aboard and open fire (Long Island Railroad, Dec. 7, 1993 -- and a lot of good "gun control" did his victims), how on earth is it a step toward "broader gun rights" for the good senators to install a new system which requires us to unload our firearms, lock them in a box, and hand them to some railroad employee to seal them up in the baggage car for the duration of our trip?

I'm not sure why taxpayers in the 40-odd states with no regular Amtrak service should be subsidizing the riding habits of rich guys in the Boston-to-Washington corridor, at all. But if the congressmen are going to keep handing this toy train set a $1.5 billion annual subsidy, and if (as we're informed) the senators' goal is to "broaden our gun rights," why not simply declare that -- so long as they keep accepting that federal money -- every Amtrak train and station is to be considered an island of federal freedom, where the Second and 14th Amendments shall hold sway? That so long as you're on Amtrak property, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," so long as the firearm or rocket launcher you're carrying will fit under your seat or in the nearest luggage bin?

The Senate has already approved a separate provision this year that would allow "properly permitted" gun owners to carry in national parks. A July proposal that would have "allowed" gun owners carrying a permit from one state to carry concealed weapons in another (just as your driver's license is good across state lines) fell just two votes short in the Senate.

Meantime, does anyone know why Democrats are suddenly stalling a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress -- a bill they've long championed despite the fact it may well be unconstitutional?

Yup. "An amendment blocking Washington, D.C. officials from regulating guns" -- proposed by Nevada's John Ensign -- "was adopted by the Senate in February as part of a D.C. voting rights bill," thehill.com reports. "Democratic leaders in the House have since withheld consideration of the bill."

What color are most residents of Washington, D.C.? The 14th Amendment was ratified 140 years ago to keep the states from enacting "black codes," designed to disarm ... who? And the national party most often accused of racism is ... which one?

Wonder how Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops (and Democratic U.S. Sen.) Robert Byrd voted?

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal. See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/ and www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	45 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Bill Smith wrote on November 10, 2009 06:53 PM: Paolo, you forget that most Americans were "educated" in a government school and cannot grasp the concept of freedom or what a real free market is. They always use examples of fascism to support fascism. Paolo wrote on November 10, 2009 03:26 PM: Xlnt article by Vin. In a free society, there would be no such thing as a subsidized, government-owned railroad. Privately-owned railroads, however, would have the right to ban weapons on board their trains. In a free society, they would probably not ban such weapons. In fact, they could reduce their security budget, while increasing safety, by developing a program to encourage qualified passengers to carry weapons. For example, a railroad could offer discounts to traveling police officers, on condition they carry their revolvers. The same could go for regular military, on condition they carry sidearms. In a free society, there would be no such thing as a government "permit" to carry a concealed weapon. However, transportation companies, if they deemed it necessary, could implement a program to train passengers in weapons safety in order to qualify for concealed carry on their trains. Our current system of government-run "security" systems costs billions, while making the transportation systems less secure. shawn1874 wrote on November 10, 2009 07:42 AM: Hey Vin, "See, the right is populated with what are sometimes called 'chickenhawks'. For example, Dick Cheney is a gun-rights advocate and a so-called 'war hawk'. He pushed hard for the invasion of Iraq and has criticized Obama for being weak on foriegn policy." Bill Clinton was also a draft dodger and Joe Biden also pushed hard for the liberation of Iraq. So you see, there are plenty of elitists on the left that never served. What does that have to do with gun rights? Some people serve in the military as pencil pushers who have never been in combat. What does that have to do with anything? Some people simply don't agree with the many wars that America has fought (and in some cases, rightly so).Does that mean that they don't have gun rights? I believe that even the draft dodging hippies of the 60s and 70s have a right to keep and bear arms just the same as any neocon, socialist, or facist. In other words, the connection that you are attempting to make is nonsensical. As Hillary would say, "I have a right to disagree!". She's right! everyone does and yet everyone still has a right to keep and bear arms! shawn1874 wrote on November 10, 2009 07:32 AM: Well I still can't figure out why Amtrack is still subsidized. If they can't figure out how to make a profit they should simply go bankrupt. Airlines don't receive constant injections of subsidies as far as I know yet they seem to have no problem implementing all federal security guidelines. shawn1874 wrote on November 10, 2009 07:29 AM: "I am beginning to feel like I'm living in a Fascist society. This is just another example of our new, take-over-everything government. Amtrak has not said they refuse to accept guns on their trains, but that they need time and money to institute the infrastructure to make it happen. " As was pointed out, they allowed guns to be checked years ago. why suddenly do they need time to reimplement a policy that used to be in force? This provision only allows guns to be "checked" with baggage. What good does a checked gun do for anyone anyway? What is so complicated about that? Amtrack is obviously trying to loot the taxpayers for more subsidies plain and simple. Tim Lenoir wrote on November 09, 2009 08:56 AM: As long as Amtrak is subjected to every whim proposed by obscure politicians seeking to make a name for themselves Amtrak will remain a money looser. This is just posturing for ARA funds, while wasting federal funds. Why don't they allow guns in Congress? It's the peoples right! Joe LoRe' wrote on November 08, 2009 09:13 PM: I am beginning to feel like I'm living in a Fascist society. This is just another example of our new, take-over-everything government. Amtrak has not said they refuse to accept guns on their trains, but that they need time and money to institute the infrastructure to make it happen. Instead of threatening to withhold operational funding, why doesn't the government give Amtrak the same tools and personal as the airlines and the time required to implement those systems. Like government health care; what's the big rush! JL HELENWEILS wrote on November 08, 2009 07:57 PM: Did you see Jon Stewart's impression of Glenn Beck? It's absolutely hilarious. Remember, Glenn Beck is Fair and Balanced. He has to be, he's on the Fox "News" Channel! http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-5-2009/the-11-3-project HELENWEILS wrote on November 08, 2009 07:39 PM: James Hating the instrument (weapon of mass destruction, grenade launcher, atom bomb) instead of the nutcase who used it to kill your hero makes you a nutcase. br wrote on November 08, 2009 07:29 PM: Yet Another Hypocrite Con Yeah, and you are another hypocrite lib who can't stick to the subject of Vin's article. Read All Comments