Amtrak protested endlessly that they couldn’t allow guns on trains. Well, it turns out they can:
Under the policy, beginning Dec. 15, guns can be brought aboard trains that have checked baggage service. Gun owners must inform Amtrak officials 24 hours ahead of departure. Unloaded firearms must be packed in hard-sided containers and will be stored in train lockers.
Not sure why 24 hours advanced notice is required. Airlines don’t require that. Of course, the Brady Campaign says this is just going to make it that much easier for “makes it easier for terrorists to bring weapons on trains with intent to do harm.” Looks like the Brady folks are responsible for the twenty four hour notice thing.
Come on guys. What purpose does that serve other than to harass gun owners? You want to know why we can’t really have dialog? Stuff like this is the reason why. Is a terrorist going to give Amtrak 24 hours notice? Ian Argent had some useful observations yesterday:
Once the gun is out in the world, the owner can do anything with it. The law-abiding one will, of course, limit himself to the lawful activities. But not one of New Jersey’s many strict and serious firearms laws could stop me from loading up my legally-purchased and legally-owned limited-capacity magazines and my legally-purchased and legally-owned handgun, and going out to cause mischief. It’s worth noting, by the way, that, given my lifestyle and normal mode of dress, I could be carrying my handgun and a hundred rounds of ready ammo at any time I carry a pocketknife (which is most of the time) and had I been doing so there is essentially no chance I would have been discovered doing so.
Of course, I don’t do any such thing. For one thing, that much ammo is HEAVY. I could get by with probably 2 extra magazines. But, more seriously, I don’t carry because it is against the law, and I don’t have a pressing need to.
I have been carrying for about eight years now, and the only time I’ve ever had to present my license is because I was legally required to tell the officer I was armed (TX requirement). If I had been carrying illegally for eight years, without a license, I would have been able to get away with it. Given that reality, who do the Brady folks think is being deterred by these laws? Certainly not criminals. Definitely not terrorists. If one has a gun, the law can only amount to punishment after the fact, and since most of the unlawful things you can do with a gun carry hefty jail sentences, it seems rather redundant. Unless your goal is to punish the otherwise law abiding for not following the rules, or to frustrate the exercise of the right.
The Brady goal has nothing to do with crime or terrorism. Their goal is to frustrate the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right to the extent that they can get away with it. Nothing convinces me more of that than the fact that they pushed a 24 notice requirement on Amtrak.