The Senate voted 68-30 Sept. 16 to approve a proposal that will allow Amtrak passengers to carry firearms in their checked luggage.
The proposal must still pass through the House of Representatives before it becomes law.
If passed, the bill will present many difficulties for Amtrak and may result in the end of the company’s services, Thomas C. Carper, Amtrak chairman of the board, said in a letter to members of the Senate. Amtrak would have six months to comply with the requirements or lose its $1.6 billion federal subsidy. Amtrak depends on this funding to keep its trains running.
Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, passengers riding Amtrak were able to carry unloaded, locked firearms. After the attacks, Amtrak banned the carrying of firearms completely.
Steve Kulm, director of Media Relations at Amtrak, said the company should be able to access its full appropriation.
“If it doesn’t work out with the amendment, we will lose our federal funding, which we need to support our national train,” he said.
If the proposal is passed, Amtrak will need to prepare for the safe carrying of firearms in checked baggage by drafting new rules and regulations, educating employees and training engine crews and station staff on procedures for checking and transporting firearms. It will also need to find a way to properly store firearms on the trains, develop more internal security and analyze the condition of old baggage cars.
Amtrak would have to analyze their checked baggage stations, possibly add locks and alarms to the baggage cars and determine costs, funding and labor, Carper said in his letter to the Senate.
“Amtrak believes this provision is neither fair nor practical,” Amtrak said in a statement to The Eagle. “Our entire annual appropriation to support a national passenger rail system should not be contingent on a compliance deadline Amtrak has stated we cannot meet.”
More than 27 million passengers travel on Amtrak trains across the country, Carper said in his letter to the Senate.
This number includes many AU students.
Neil Brazer, a freshman in the School of Public Affairs, said the impact of the amendment did not sound very severe upon first thought.
“It’s great that people can exercise their rights and voice their opinions, but this seems unnecessary,” Brazer said. “We’re not at a point, economically, politically, or in any sense, to be creating problems with transportation.”
Union Station in D.C. does not have baggage check services, so passengers traveling from that station will not be affected if the proposal becomes law.
Some members of AU College Republicans voiced their support for the new proposal in compliance with the constitutional right to bear arms.
Josh Jacobs, a sophomore in the School of International Service and member of College Republicans, said that because Amtrak is not a private entity, they should not have the right to restrict Americans from traveling with their firearms.
“As a person who owns many firearms, the Senate amendment strikes me as a victory for gun owners across the country,” he said. “This has a lot of utility to me as someone who rides Amtrak very often.”
Sam Hagedorn, treasurer for the AU College Democrats, said that while the College Democrats have no specific stance on the issue, they do not think the legislation will become law.
“This is a posturing vote by the NRA ... Going forward to see that will actually equal any long-term legislation. This was more about holding lawmakers feet to the fire.”
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., proposed the gun amendment on the grounds of fighting Second Amendment restrictions, according to a statement from Wicker’s office.
Wicker and supporters of the amendment argue that train passengers should enjoy the same rights as airline passengers, according to the statement.
In his letter to members of the U.S. Senate, Carper wrote, “Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak has no system in place for a uniform system of screening for weapons or exact regulations regarding firearms.”
There is no set date for the House to consider the proposal.
You can reach this writer at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
9 Comments
AU Free Market Society
Oct 5 at 1:38 AM
Note this quotation from the article:
“If it doesn’t work out with the amendment, we will lose our federal funding, which we need to support our national train,”
What does it say about Amtrak that their ticket prices are not enough to cover their expenses? When Amtrak says that it needs federal funding to continue to function, what is actually means is “Amtrak is not a successful company and cannot exist without government subsidies.”
This article assumes that Amtrak should exist at all, which is not supported by the fact of its inability to stay afloat without a taxpayer “bailout.”
Should companies which are not successful be kept alive? With or without this nitpicky piece of gun legislation, the question remains. This debate over the gun law hurting the finances of Amtrak only highlights the problem.
Since Nixon signed the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, Amtrak has been a monopoly and large-scale private competition with the government has been outlawed. Maybe the reason Amtrak is in money trouble is because it doesn’t have any consequences for doing poorly. If an American wants to ride a train, they have to ride Amtrak. There’s no alternative.
Instead of bickering over the minutiae of gun laws and budgetary constraints, Washington would do well to liberalize rail transit in America. Students at AU would be better served when companies are allowed to compete, providing better services at reduced prices.
Right now, AU students are just getting hosed by the government, guns or no guns.
Zach
Oct 5 at 2:11 PM
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how more guns is necessary. You want a gun for self-defense, fine. Bringing them where there are other people just seems…I don’t know, more dangerous?
Alex
Oct 5 at 5:38 PM
Free Market Society - could not agree more.
Josh
Oct 6 at 12:08 AM
Zach I don’t think you understood the article. It is not about carrying on board a train (which by the way I believe every citizen should have the right to do, especially on Federal property) but to allow us firearms owners to lock our firearms away on the train so that we can transport them via Amtrak. This happens on planes I fail to see the security risk in extending it to Amtrak. As someone who takes Amtrak often, it would be very nice if this was possible.
Zach
Oct 6 at 8:46 AM
I just think it’s unnecessary. It’s another example of the NRA trying to have guns everywhere. It’s the reason DC doesn’t have a vote in Congress yet.
Josh J
Oct 6 at 3:45 PM
With all due respect how is it unnecessary? Or even burdensome? It is a fundamental right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and it is absurd that a Federally funded institution like Amtrak does not even allow citizens to transport firearms in luggage or stowed away. For people traveling to hunt, sport shoot, or for other reasons that they might be bringing their firearms it automatically excludes Amtrak as an option.
Alex
Oct 6 at 7:19 PM
Zach you have no idea what you’re talking about. Another example of NRA trying to have guns everywhere? It doesn’t matter what the NRA wants, it’s about what people have the right to do.
Steven
Oct 6 at 11:56 PM
The AU Free Market society makes a good case, but fails to see historic precedent. One of the reasons for the creation of Amtrak, with federal subsidy in the first place is that passenger rail service in the United States was about to fail completely. Historically mass-transit in the age of the automobile cannot function wholly on its own (even buses have public subsidy-road maintenance). Given the high maintenance costs of the rail system, Amtrak probably would fail (except for perhaps the Northeast Corridor) if it was to become a private sector company.
AU Students for the Preservation of the 2nd Amendm
Oct 9 at 1:21 PM
If you receive federal money you should be obligated to respect constitutional rights.
Also, Josh J makes an important point about hunters traveling with their weapons. It is ridiculous to restrict people from traveling with their firearms on a train that they are forced to pay for.
Post a comment
Comments are reviewed: inappropriate, off-topic or offensive content may be deleted.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.