posted
Given the events yesterday in Newtown, Conn., and the ensuing discussions on the Internet, it seems like a good time for this reminder.Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've assumed 20% of everyone on board the train is packing. I'm OK with that.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is sort of a bizarre question/observation....but what about folks like me who have CCW authorization in all 50 states? I can go anywhere except onto an airplane with a loaded/concealed weapon (in that case, it has to be checked as baggage). But since there is no TSA-style of weapons screening on Amtrak, would I be within their policy if I was carrying? I'm going to assume yes and that it's okay, but it's an interesting thing to ponder.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smitty, I cannot offer a firm reply with citations, but I'm certain I read somewhere that Amtrak permits active-duty LEOs to carry their weapons on their persons aboard trains IF the LEO "is on official business." Whether "official business" includes "in transit," I don't know.
I've often read that conductors interpret the rule the way they personally see it. Isn't this familiar?
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about marijuana? WA and CO now allow adults (21+) to legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana for private, personal use. How would Amtrak or Amtrak police react if an adult train passenger in WA or CO is found with less than one ounce of pot in their possession?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pistols, pot, or other "possessions" = don't ask, don't tell.
I always have a Buck 119 with me, and yes, it is extremely sharp. A slight tap on your forearm and I'm hitting bone.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I've assumed 20% of everyone on board the train is packing. I'm OK with that.
We usually pack a bottle or two of wine. Does that count?
Just do not use your gun after you have consumed one of those bottles (or more). Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pack wine too but it is for my destination. I must confess that I do have a flask filled with Knob Creek that I enjoy using to freshen my soda from the cafe car. That might not be legal.
Some years ago I was traveling from KCY to KWD and was thinking about going back in the fall. My son and I, who resided in KC at the time, were planning a pheasant hunting trip in northwest Missouri, and I was considering traveling to KC by train then by car ith him to the hunting land. I asked the conductor if I could bring a shotgun on the train. He said that it wasn't a problem, just let him know so he could put it in his office. I wonder if all trains are that casual about bringing firearms on to the train? Probably not.
Posts: 140 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have carried a loaded pistol with me on numerous occasions. No one asked me about it and I never told anyone about it.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find some of these comments unbelievable - all I've ever carried onboard is a flask of coffee and a packet of sandwiches. Why on earth would you need to carry a gun onboard a train (or, frankly, anywhere)?
Posts: 211 | From: Norfolk England | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because some of us are trained in the proper use of weapons, and our occupations required us to carry a gun our entire adult lives---that's why. You might be surprised how often we run into someone that we arrested, gave a ticket to, etc. Sometimes, those people aren't happy to see us again, so being armed is a wise thing. Many of us also feel an obligation to help when the situation arises, and that is why Congress recently enacted legislation (HR 218) to allow us to carry/concealed in all 50 states, as long as we comply with the approval/qualification process.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephen, RRRich, & Henry... 65 MILLION people, allegedly living in the USA, voted for obama. That should scare any normal person!
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephen W: Why on earth would you need to carry a gun onboard a train (or, frankly, anywhere)?
How about just to get it from point A to point B? How about it is nobody else's business what I cary as long as it is not harmful or offensive?
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine wanted to take me to his favorite gun range in southern Arizona and he wanted to try out my P-30. I train tripped there and back. Did that answer your question, Stephen?
OH and in case you did not know, Al Qaida has declared war on the USA. I live in the USA. I need to be prepared, in case the fools want to attack the area of the USA that I am occupying.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We in Britain have threats by terrorists of a number of different persuasions too and quite a number of our citizens have been killed by extremists. However, we just get on with life (unarmed) and have the fullest confidence in our intelligence and police communities to deal with potential dangers. I have never feared for my life on any train journey I have made in either the UK or abroad and don't intend to start now!
George: I would be interested to learn how a gun is not "harmful".
Posts: 211 | From: Norfolk England | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll confess I've been tempted on more than one occasiom to nuke this thread (and have been encouraged to do so), but I think it should stay, even in this category, because one of the long-running aspects of the gun problem in America has been a reluctance to discuss it in public. If we get things out in the open, we may inch closer to a solution.
Smitty195, in my view, is a special case. His status as an active law enforcement officer warrants concealed carry privileges, and he has given good reasons for his. I have no argument there.
As for the others, well, their responses speak for themselves.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, if you do not have to shoot someone with a gun, then it is not harmful. It is very similar to a tool, like a hammer or screwdriver. When you need it, you really need it. If you do not need it, it sits around just like the hammer that you do not need today.
Henry, are you trying to denigrate one of my posts? If so, please proceed. You will give me an opportunity to further explain why I am right and you are wrong...
And Moderator... Good call! Go with your gut instincts. They are very good.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that is right that a gun is not "harmful" if you don't have to shoot someone -- but what happens when some young hoodlum punk (like the kid who killed all the children in Newtown) steals your gun from your person or from your sleeper, or from wherever, and then decides to use it to shoot up a train? That's EXACTLY what the punk hoodlum kid from Newtown did -- he stole the guns from his mother, who owned them LEGALLY.
And Smitty, being a law enforcement guy -- do you really think some young drunk hoodlum punk that you arrested 20 years ago will actually remember you and want to kill you now? Sounds rather paranoid to me....... If they did remember you, then they will know you probably have a gun, and they WILL seek out your sleeper or whatever and try and steal the gun from you.
A few days ago, I saw the movie "Lincoln" -- about an honest and brave president who got the 13th amendment passed, which eliminated slavery and granted equality to black people, which was a very very very UNPOPULAR idea during the 1860's (just like gun control is now) -- if Lincoln had the courage and bravery to change the constitution by passing such an unpopular amendment, why can't our mdoern 21st century politicians do the same thing? For his work, Lincoln stood out as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of this country -- I can't say the same for ANY of our modern presidents (those who presided during my lifetime), except maybe JFK.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
RRRich, that lunatic knew where the guns were. Explain how your mythical hoodlum punk would know I had a gun. And if the Principal or the School Psychologist had a concealed handgun, there would be 20 dead kids still alive right now.
Also, your Lincoln analogy is flawed. There was nothing in our US Constitution that allowed slavery. There is the 2nd amendment right now that prevents Congress from implementing what you feel. And you do know a President cannot change the Constitution, right?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a most interesting reading of Article 1, Section 2; Article 1, Section 9, clause 1; Article IV, Section 2; and Article V.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoops... 3/5, instead of 5/8. And please explain why you think your referenced articles allow slavery in the US. There is no specific wording that states slavery is a part of our constitutionally guaranteed rigths or allows the government to permit it.
And slavery is still a problem in the US, even today.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the ferry operated between Portland/Bar Harbor and Yarmouth NS, we world see stories in the local paper about gun seizures at the border. Those pistol packing seniors! Most would lose their guns, pay a fine and be on their way.
But others would declare it’s their constitutional right to carry that gun.......well buddy that right ended when you crossed a line in the middle of the Gulf of Maine. They would probably forfeit their gun and vehicle to the Crown, appear before a judge, pay a fine and be deported.
It always amazes me that seemingly law abiding people would see a need to arm themselves when they set out on vacation. Guess it’s just a different culture down there!
Posts: 239 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
1) if there was no constitutional or otherwise legal guaranteed right to own slaves, then why did slavery need to be abolished VIA A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, if it was illegal in the first place?
2) Yes I know the President cannot change the Constitution -- my original post referred to our "modern 21st Century politicians," which includes Congress, the Senate, the President, the local mayor, the local judge, the dog-catcher, etc, etc.......I think you get the point.
3) So what if the lunatic in CT knew where his mom's guns were? The fact remains that she owned them legally, and he stole them.
4) You say you are afraid some former arrestee (is that a word?) might recognize you on the train -- vice versa for him. If he recognizes you as a cop, logic has it that most cops are armed, whether or not they are on duty.
5) I actually agree in part with the NRA about having armed guards in schools -- the only problem there is, an armed guard can be taken down and attacked, and his gun could be stolen by a strong guy or a group of guys who are intent on shooting up the school.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Read the tenth amendment. States did have legal slavery. The only way to prohibit them from having slaves was via the amendment process.
2. I just read what you posted. I did not infer what you meant.
3. There will always be lunatics among us. They will not obey any law, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to normal people.
4. You want Smitty, not me.
5. Mandatory armed guards in all schools would be a waste of money. Teachers allowed to conceal carry would be much more efficient, and the bad guys would not know which teachers are carrying.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
gh, when I went to Canada many years ago, via bus from Seattle, the border guard asked me if I knew Canadian gun laws. I said no. She said I didn't need to know because I wasn't carrying any guns into Canada, right? I said that is correct, I left all 47 of them at home. I was promptly moved over to the "detailed inspection" area. I think she noted I was a Texan and wanted to "be sure"... Both I and my wife got a good chuckle out of her paranoia.
I find it humorous when an American goes to Canada and "thinks" they have the same rights as in the USA. They do not understand the difference between being a citizen and being a subject.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess that’s why I don’t feel the need to have 47 GUNS!!!!!!
.....and I get a chuckle too.....when staying in a hotel in a large city here and going out for an evening walk......someone will ask the doorman (possibly in their Texas accent).......is it safe to walk to a nearby restaurant or should they take a taxi!
FYI Murder Rates in 2011:
Toronto: 1.59 per 100,000 pop. Dallas: 12.36 per 100,000 pop.
(Guess those guns are really protecting you)
Posts: 239 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of those 12 are gang against gang. Don't go for a walk through a federal housing area at night.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: USA violent crime rate = 466 per 100,000 Canada violent crime rate = 935 per 100,000 UK violent crime rate = 2034 per 100,000
I'll stay in the USA...
WOW!!! I had no idea.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
