Passenger Trains > Amtrak and "open carry" state weapons laws

What's the current status on Amtrak and so-called open carry laws for hand guns carried aboard? Many states now allow licensed individuals to carry a visible, holstered firearm into stores, malls, etc

I know Amtrak now carries firearms that have been secured in a carrying case, and checked as baggage. Does Amtrak allow individuals to carry a visible weapon on an intra-state trip in a state where open carry is legal?

For some reason while the intent of this posting is good, I figure it will be deleted though as most firearms related postings have in the past.

Though in relation to your inquiry, I know CA has the UOC (Unloaded Open Carry) law which boneheads in state gov't are trying to have repealed.

Not sure how this would relate to Amtrak, whether in CA or any state, might prove interesting.

I imagine there would be resistance from the crew, and paranoia on the part of the passengers, and the police would probably be called out.



Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's the current status on Amtrak and so-called
> open carry laws for hand guns carried aboard?
> Many states now allow licensed individuals to
> carry a visible, holstered firearm into stores,
> malls, etc
>
> I know Amtrak now carries firearms that have been
> secured in a carrying case, and checked as
> baggage. Does Amtrak allow individuals to carry a
> visible weapon on an intra-state trip in a state
> where open carry is legal?

If you go to the Amtrak website, it explains it clearly. Looks like in December they will allow firearms in checked baggage only. Open carry state laws don't apply to Amtrak because it is a interstate carrier. So leave the pistols at home cowboy!

Firearms in Checked Baggage

The Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, enacted into law on December 16, 2009, requires Amtrak to implement the procedures necessary to provide storage and carriage of firearms in checked baggage cars and at Amtrak stations that accept checked baggage, within one year of the bill’s enactment. This requirement applies solely to checked baggage, not carry-on baggage.

Amtrak’s current policy prohibits all firearms, ammunition and other weapons aboard its trains. This includes any being carried on the person, in carry-on baggage or in checked baggage. Please be advised that this policy remains in effect until Amtrak begins firearm carriage service by December 2010.

Here's the language off of the Amtrak website:

"Amtrak’s current policy prohibits all firearms, ammunition and other weapons aboard its trains. This includes any being carried on the person, in carry-on baggage or in checked baggage. Please be advised that this policy remains in effect until Amtrak begins firearm carriage service by December 2010."

Seems pretty clear to me.

Just like any other business Amtrak can make it's own rules re: gun carry policy on it's property. The exception is now that Amtrak must except guns, properly stored, in checked baggage.

I fervently hope the day will never come that passengers are allowed to carry guns openly, or concealed on the person or in carry on bags, on trains or in stations.

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

Winnemucca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I fervently hope the day will never come that
> passengers are allowed to carry guns openly, or
> concealed on the person or in carry on bags, on
> trains or in stations.

Amen to that!

Thanks for the info.

I was curious as to how Amtrak will apply state laws when its train operates entirely within an open carry state.

Regardless, it will probably be tested in court before long.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info.
>
> I was curious as to how Amtrak will apply state
> laws when its train operates entirely within an
> open carry state.
>
> Regardless, it will probably be tested in court
> before long.

No problem. They can test it in court all they want, but the case law is pretty clear on common carriers not being subject to state law. For example, the gun laws are pretty liberal in Texas, but you can't get on a plane with a gun, even if you are traveling within the state.

I might get some flack for this, but I disagree. Considering the state of our nation at this time and all the crazies out there, carrying a gun could be a blessing. Mark my words, the day will come when someone shoots up a train and no one will have any protection. I don't think it is a cowboy attitude, but one of common since. I have a permit from Indiana, and that permit allows me to carry a loaded open weapon on my body. I am not about to hold up the train, but I would not hesitate to use it if someone were to cause trouble. It is my feeling that many guns are carried on trains and by people that are very dangerous. If they decide to get wild, there will no one to equalize the situation. Of course I think if we issued guns to all airline passengers there would never be problems. Oh well just a thought. I was just wondering if they had stacked any people carrying guns in boxes in the baggage cars yet, according the bill the president signed. LOL Ok, I am ready for the flack.

Woodman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I might get some flack for this, but I disagree.
> Considering the state of our nation at this time
> and all the crazies out there, carrying a gun
> could be a blessing. Mark my words, the day will
> come when someone shoots up a train and no one
> will have any protection. I don't think it is a
> cowboy attitude, but one of common since. I have
> a permit from Indiana, and that permit allows me
> to carry a loaded open weapon on my body. I am
> not about to hold up the train, but I would not
> hesitate to use it if someone were to cause
> trouble. It is my feeling that many guns are
> carried on trains and by people that are very
> dangerous. If they decide to get wild, there will
> no one to equalize the situation. Of course I
> think if we issued guns to all airline passengers
> there would never be problems. Oh well just a
> thought. I was just wondering if they had stacked
> any people carrying guns in boxes in the baggage
> cars yet, according the bill the president signed.
> LOL Ok, I am ready for the flack.


This isn't the place to get into a debate on the merits of gun control, but in any case you're missing the point. Regardless of your views or those of your state legislature, Amtrak isn't subject to state law. The Federal law - which supersedes state law - permits Amtrak to establish their own policies on this issue, and their policy is no guns. Its the same legal basis by which Amtrak establishes their own policies on smoking, liquor sales, etc. regardless of the laws of the states they're operating in.

Dave

DavidP Wrote:
> This isn't the place to get into a debate on the
> merits of gun control, but in any case you're
> missing the point. Regardless of your views or
> those of your state legislature, Amtrak isn't
> subject to state law. The Federal law - which
> supersedes state law - permits Amtrak to
> establish their own policies on this issue, and
> their policy is no guns. Its the same legal basis
> by which Amtrak establishes their own policies on
> smoking, liquor sales, etc. regardless of the laws
> of the states they're operating in.
>
> Dave


Need to disagree on one thing: Liquor Sales.

While on Train 98 numerous times going north through Georgia (right in the middle of happy hour) on Sundays, bar sales are suspended due to Georgia laws. Though some LSA's have ignored this, most follow the local law. One attendant told me that they periodically check compliance by boarding the train.

Did everyone forget that 6 people were killed on a Long Island RR train in 1993? Nutjob Colin Ferguson went on a shooting spree, then defended himself in court as his own attorney. He's now serving life in Attica.

atsf5701 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did everyone forget that 6 people were killed on a
> Long Island RR train in 1993? Nutjob Colin
> Ferguson went on a shooting spree

Sounds like we need a Federal Open-Carry for common-carriers...?

[rhetorical question]

Woodman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I might get some flack for this, but I disagree.
> Considering the state of our nation at this time
> and all the crazies out there, carrying a gun
> could be a blessing.

Why do people insist that such things are new????

The world has ALWAYS been a dangerous place. There is no new state to our nation that is different from times before. There is no time in human history when someone hasn't decided to grab whatever weapon was at hand and do what they will upon whoever was nearby.

In the general trend of history, there is far less violence today than in decades and centuries past. Go back 100 years and you could get killed easily just travelling between towns. Go back 50 and being the wrong skin tone would get you killed in certain areas. Crazies and criminals are nothing new.

As a lifelong gun owner, I am of the firm opinion that 80% of the citizens of this country have absolutely no business owning any weapon more dangerous than a straw and a spitwad. Most gun owners I have met casually have little regard for the safety and comfort of others or respect for the potential danger of their weapons. The phrase is "well regulated militia", not limitless free for all. The day we have open carry on trains (and planes) is the day I stop travelling. Seen too many armed (guns and knives) jackanapes with chips on their shoulder who decide that a bigger barrel (or blade) is a subsititute for a bigger brain. And if some of the shooting skill at my local ranges is any indication, then that mythical train gunman will walk away unscathed while the would-be vigilante unzips every poor innocent bystander in range.

And, yes, in general, always assume that, when rails are concerned, federal rules trump.

Z

Re common carrier and federal law trumps, seems logical. But remember some years ago when the powers that be boarded an Amtrak train in Kansas and made a big stink, ended up arresting the conductor and I believe the engineer and a server too. Anyone have the details?

They seem to have settled things as there seems to be no problem now, but - - - -

I missed a point. It was a liquor issue. Kansas was a very dry state.

I just love the views from folks about firearms, your all entitled to your opinions, it's not worth arguing the points (not the place anyways) because folks have their own biased opinions formed.

But yes this isn't a debate on Gun Control or anything political, so I'll stay away from going that route just to say the few items below.

Just a thought, reality is that the police aren't anyones personal protectors and the way criminals play these days you have to have a way to even the odds.

But as mentioned the Federal laws trump everything, I wouldn't want to be the test dummy to try getting on a train openly carrying, I recall what happened when a security guard who was going home from work in uniform and legally carrying his sidearm was turned in by the conductor on the train I was working (this was Caltrain in the morning), I noticed about 10 police cars at the next station and then found out what was going on.

Bottom line is firearms are always a touchy subject no matter what, shame too as it's not the gun that causes all the problems, it's the person behind the trigger and 99.9999999% of the folks who legally own guns get a bad rap by that very, very, very small percentage of folks that go off the deep end of do rational things for some cause they have in mind of believe in.

Being a firearms owner is tough these days depending on where you live, in a place such as California you must be a college professor to understand all the laws, it gets that complicated. California has open carry, but it's UOC (Unloaded Open Carry) and right now the brain trust in Sacramento are working to have that right taken away from us as well.

Cheers,

Frank

RFandPFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you go to the Amtrak website, it explains it
> clearly. Looks like in December they will allow
> firearms in checked baggage only. Open carry
> state laws don't apply to Amtrak because it is a
> interstate carrier. So leave the pistols at home
> cowboy!
>

Winnemucca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I fervently hope the day will never come that
> passengers are allowed to carry guns openly, or
> concealed on the person or in carry on bags, on
> trains or in stations.


swsf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Winnemucca Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I fervently hope the day will never come that
> > passengers are allowed to carry guns openly, or
> > concealed on the person or in carry on bags, on
> > trains or in stations.
>
> Amen to that!

DavidP Wrote:

> This isn't the place to get into a debate on the
> merits of gun control, but in any case you're
> missing the point. Regardless of your views or
> those of your state legislature, Amtrak isn't
> subject to state law. The Federal law - which
> supersedes state law - permits Amtrak to
> establish their own policies on this issue, and
> their policy is no guns. Its the same legal basis
> by which Amtrak establishes their own policies on
> smoking, liquor sales, etc. regardless of the laws
> of the states they're operating in.
>
> Dave


atsf5701 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did everyone forget that 6 people were killed on a
> Long Island RR train in 1993? Nutjob Colin
> Ferguson went on a shooting spree, then defended
> himself in court as his own attorney. He's now
> serving life in Attica.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/10 06:47 by fjc.

fjc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as it's not the
> gun that causes all the problems, it's the person
> behind the trigger...

By that logic we should drop our efforts to stem nuclear proliferation because, hey, it's not the atomic bomb that causes the problem, its the person detonating it...

Back on the topic of Amtrak being subject to state law, including liquor law, Federal courts in 1972 enjoined Oklahoma from taking action against Amtrak to enforce the state's restrictive liquor laws, reasoning that the state was infringing on Federal supremacy over interstate commerce regulation. To my knowledge this remains the established precedent.

Dave

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>
> Back on the topic of Amtrak being subject to state
> law, including liquor law, Federal courts in 1972
> enjoined Oklahoma from taking action against
> Amtrak to enforce the state's restrictive liquor
> laws, reasoning that the state was infringing on
> Federal supremacy over interstate commerce
> regulation. To my knowledge this remains the
> established precedent.
>
> Dave

That was my understanding, too.

The recent lawsuits over shipping alcohol from wineries directly to buyers in other states argued whether the federal rules (interstate commerce) could trump the state rules (prohibition repeal gave states broad authority). The court ruled the federal law trumped state law in those two cases, as well.

My guess is somebody with a weapon will board a train with a ticket for a destination inside the same state, and wait to get arrested. The Supreme Court has been deferring to state laws on some recent cases, so it could be interesting to see where it goes.

The item is merely a tool, what if it were a knife? Folks would be belly aching as well, what ban all knifes? Just as you mention about stem cells, and so forth.


DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fjc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > as it's not the
> > gun that causes all the problems, it's the
> person
> > behind the trigger...
>
> By that logic we should drop our efforts to stem
> nuclear proliferation because, hey, it's not the
> atomic bomb that causes the problem, its the
> person detonating it...
>
> Back on the topic of Amtrak being subject to state
> law, including liquor law, Federal courts in 1972
> enjoined Oklahoma from taking action against
> Amtrak to enforce the state's restrictive liquor
> laws, reasoning that the state was infringing on
> Federal supremacy over interstate commerce
> regulation. To my knowledge this remains the
> established precedent.
>
> Dave

fjc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The item is merely a tool, what if it were a
> knife? Folks would be belly aching as well, what
> ban all knifes? Just as you mention about stem
> cells, and so forth.
>
>

Stem cells??