If the amendment becomes law, it will undo a policy change which Amtrak imposed in 2001.

Which was implemented to stop all of those high-profile train hijackings.

Just keep it in your carry-on. It's not like there's any security on Amtrak. I think SNL (or perhaps the Onion) put it best when they said "Amtrak: America's Favorite Way to Travel with Weed."

I am waiting to see the headline - Obama Restores Gun Rights to Owners Across America

Who checks bags on Amtrak? I had no idea it was even possible to do so.

What an awful piece of legislation. Does Sen. Wicker understand what hardships that imposes for both the riders and Amtrak as an institution? And for what purpose?

In the Northeast, most Amtrak riders are commuters going to and from work. The majority want to get to work on time, not have to go through a security checkpoint that adds to their commute and to potential delays. I doubt that very few are carrying firearms to the office.

Without funding, it would make it almost impossible to implement under the current fiscal situation Amtrak faces. The best thing to do is for Sen. Wicker to pull the legislation and it being forgotten. It serves no value for the majority of Americans and Amtrak's ridership.

Hmm 2001. So let's see, that's what, eight years ago? 4 of which were under both a Republican President and a Republican Congress? You'd think the NRA would have lit a fire rather than wait until both the White House and Congress flipped.

It was a policy change by Amtrak, not a legislative change by congress or the president

No, because the NRA doesn't care about gun rights, only hunting. They have sold us up the river before. They didn't even want Heller to see the inside of the Court.

If it weren't for the Cato Institute, there would be no D.C. v. Heller and the NRA wouldn't care.

The NRA does support all gun rights, they just didn't believe that the Heller case would turn out favorable, and it was too much of a gamble. They were wrong on that case, but their idea was valid. If you get any of the NRA magazines then you would know that it is far less than half dedicated to hunting gear or guns. (well my American Rifleman magazine at least)

It was a policy change by Amtrak, not a legislative change by congress or the president

Yes, and today the Senate voted to undo it. Why didn't they vote to undo it 8 years or 6 years ago under a Republican president and a Republican congress? If you plan to say 9/11 9/11 9/11, why not 2 years ago before the Democrats gained control?

The NRA does support all gun rights, they just didn't believe that the Heller case would turn out favorable, and it was too much of a gamble.

I'll give them props for at least seeing Bork as being hostile to their interests and not going with the rest of the conservative groups.

It was a policy change by Amtrak, not a legislative change by congress or the president

It was a policy change then and now--why didn't the overriding legislation happen earlier when the Bushites had all the marbles, that was the question.

did NOT

Jesus, time to go home.

Sen. Gillibrand is sure trying hard to have the fastest drop in history in an NRA grade, isn't she?

I like trains and always take them in Europe.

But, in the USA, I always fly. This is why.

It is no hassle to take a firearm in checked baggage [except on Sun Country which wants you to display it to the clerk (and everyone else) at the ticket counter]. Even TSA has learned to respect gun owners. There is nothing "special" about Amtrak as a mode of transportation.

This is a welcome move. Can I entertain hope that a "national forest" protocol for carrying fireams will follow soon. I.e. just follow whatever the law is in the state you're in, meaning I could carry concealed when taking Amtrak from WA to MT (or openly, for that matter, though in WA that would still require a CPL.)

I guess on 9/10/2001, a rule requiring bulletproof doors on commercial jet cockpits would've struck Houston Lawyer as yet another silly regulation.

Did you read the amendment:

b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``secure transportation of firearms'' means--

(1) if an Amtrak station accepts checked baggage for a specific Amtrak route, Amtrak passengers holding a ticket for such route are allowed to place an unloaded firearm or starter pistol in a checked bag on such route if--

(A) before checking the bag or boarding the train, the passenger declares to Amtrak, either orally or in writing, that the firearm is in his or her bag and is unloaded;

(B) the firearm is carried in a hard-sided container;

(C) such container is locked; and

(D) only the passenger has the key or combination for such container; and

Do you honestly think a terrorist would do these things?

Even if one did, it is a gun in checked luggage. Kinda hard to access it.

The policy is just NY/Beltway mindless fear of guns.

It was a policy change by Amtrak, not a legislative change by congress or the president

But the point is that someone could have petitioned the nominally pro gun House, Senate or President to reverse it.

Anderson:

"Which was implemented to stop all of those high-profile train hijackings. "

While I almost always think that Houston Lawyer is remarkably full of it, even I thought that this was pretty funny. I mean, outside of movies, and remakes of movies, has anyone in the last 100 years ever "hijacked" (as opposed to robbed, or committed some other crime aboard) a train? An Amtrak train?

A Polish hijacker took over a train at gunpoint back in the early '70s and demanded that the conductor take him to Cuba.

Nick

M-K, couldn't it have been tacked on as an amendment to any of those Acts (except the non-act of not renewing the AWB, but duh). Would the act have lost any important votes?