She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mookie wrote:Amtrak - same thing?
The ruling concerns the right to own a Firearm.
Has no affect concerning carrying a Gun.
ah!
Thank you!
Rail-Roadwarrior wrote:I doubt the carriers will change their no firearm policy but that won't stop people from carrying. I put myself first and my job second.
Are you saying you know a RR worker like a conductor or engineer that carrys a gun on a regular basis? What exactaly is the firearm policy on RR's?
Joe
I knew an SP engineer, based in Tucson, who said that he routinely packed a small pistol, though he'd never needed to draw it.
Too late for him to get fired over it; he had retired, and then died several years ago.
1 thru 4 all forbid T&E employees from carry guns...any gun.
The ruling did nothing but affirm the 2nd amendment, (part of the bill of rights) of the right for an individual to own firearms...
It found that an outright ban on firearms is unconstitutional, but that certain gun controls are allowable.
No railroad will accept the liability of its employees going armed...the railroad police are bonded peace officers, T&E employees are not.
Yes, some guys do carry a pistol when they work "down on the docks" or in some of the heavy industrial areas.
mj5890 wrote: Rail-Roadwarrior wrote:I doubt the carriers will change their no firearm policy but that won't stop people from carrying. I put myself first and my job second.Are you saying you know a RR worker like a conductor or engineer that carrys a gun on a regular basis? What exactaly is the firearm policy on RR's?Joe
23 17 46 11
This is rediculous. My employer may forbid me from having a gun while on their property, but who's to stop me from protecting myself while on my way to work? What do they expect us to do... check our firearms at the gate? If I leave it locked away in my car's glove box and don't produce it while I'm at work there should be no problem, right? Afterall, how would they even know I have a gun if I leave it in my car?
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
OK, unless it was used, how would the powers that be in a company know you have a gun? Do they search your belongings? And if it was used, wouldn't it be better that the employee was still alive whether or not his job was jeopardized? But, if he did use it to protect himself, would the railroad, because they forbid guns, be liable for any kind of shooting committed by one of their employees, even if that employee was protecting himself? Have there been many instances of railroad employees being assaulted (or worse?) that having a gun could have prevented?
mike
Makes you think when 4 justices voted nay to the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>The ruling did nothing but affirm the 2nd amendment,
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
You have the right to own a gun.
There are limitations to this, of course.
Convicted felons and those under the age of 18 may not own a hand gun, and each state has the ability to restrict some types of guns.
Here, with the above exceptions, anyone can own a rifle or a shotgun.
I can give, as a gift, a 16 year old a 22 rifle, or a shotgun, and he or she can own that gun, but they may not purchase it...and they may not own a handgun at all and can not purchase ammunition.
Once they are 18, and have no convictions, they may purchase and own a hand gun, or a rifle and the ammunition for them.
Depending on where you live, you may have the right to carry said gun.
Texas and many other states have a concealed handgun law...here, once you pass a series of tests, you can carry a handgun, as long as it is completely concealed.
There are places you may not carry the gun, the same law allows for the prohibition of a concealed gun.
Where my wife works, even the police officers who have to visit as clients are required to leave their handguns in their patrol car...carrying a gun into her office while on personal business is a federal offense, even for a cop.
My wife carries, I carry too.
Yes Ted, you do "check your gun at the gate"!
On days I work at the railroad, I leave my gun locked in the car (my wife also leaves her gun locked in her car)...although I should leave it at home....because the railroad is private property, it has the right to prohibit guns on the property, even in your personal vehicle...they also have the right to search your car, (with your permission, or with a warrant if you refuse and they can establish probable cause) while you are on property.
If you choose to, you could display a sign at the entrance to your home prohibiting the carrying of any gun inside the home or on the property, and be well within your right to refuse entry to anyone carrying a gun(other that police officers in discharge of their duty)...
The other side of the coin is that, on your own private property, you may carry a gun, if you choose, but you may not display it in a threatening manner.
You could, if you choose to, wear a six shooter in a hip holster while you mowed your law...on the other hand, if you "patrolled" you property line carrying the gun in your hand, your neighbors may feel threatened, and in most states, that is illegal.
That is why here in Texas, if you have a concealed weapon permit, and are carrying a gun in public, you have to completely conceal the weapon; displaying it in any fashion is considered intimidation, illegal.
What this ruling did was affirm the right of this man to own a hand gun, within the city limits of Washington DC, which previously had an ordinance that made hand gun ownership and possession within the city limits illegal, which it (the court) considered an outright ban on hand gun ownership inside the city limits.
The court ruled that such a ban is unconstitutional.
It does not give him the right to carry the gun anywhere, other than on his property, (if you rent an apartment, the law considers any property you rent as "your" property for the term of the lease)...
The court also allows each state to enforce certain prohibitions on some types of gun, but it prohibits an outright ban on gun ownership...that's all it amounts to.
So right, Ed. While I am not a gun owner, (but, would like to be) I am happy with the Court's ruling (That ruling is giving our King Richard II (aka Mayor Daley) a conniption fit, I have never seen him so angry, he was out of his mind yesterday). Anyway, companies can establish any rules they would like regarding what you can, and cannot bring on their property.
It is a toss up though, when you are working in a job that takes you dangerous places and neighborhoods, what is one to do? There are many neighborhoods in Chicago that the railroads travel through that are about as dangerous as it gets.
When I was an EMT for a private ambulance service about 15 or so years ago, one of the people I regularly rode with carried a handgun whenever we were assigned to go to the West Side, or some other dangerous area. He stowed it under the seat so no one could see it, yet it was readily available to him. Otherwise, he kept it in his car if his assignments kept him in the suburbs. I kind of freaked a little the first time I saw it, and then fervently hoped there would never be a reason for him to take it out.
So, does anyone else know anyone who carries regularly?
I often carry, but not for protection, I just like to shoot a lot. It's a great way to kill time while waiting for the next train too
I remember back in the 90s, when I lived in LA, there was an incident where an SP train was going under the I405 underpass at Dolores and a transient decided to take some shots at the locomotive. The conductor returned fire and criticaly injured the transient. He was quite shaken up and had to go see the head doctor.
OK, class this as a "friend of a friend" story, but...
A former paramedic I met who had worked in the DC area had her partner shot while they were sitting in their rig. No warning - just a shot in the dark. A gun under the seat would have made zero difference. He didn't make it, which is one reason why she was a former paramedic.
I have no problem with gun ownership by individuals. Were it not for the hassle, some international transportation logistics, and the fact that I have no real reason to own a pistol, I'd probably have my late father's two pistols in my possession right now.
The only folks I have an issue with are those who use the 2nd amendment to justify actions that many of us would consider outrageous.
I just saw an article somewhere about a place that allows "open carry" and folks who are starting to do so. Wish I could remember where...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 wrote:I just saw an article somewhere about a place that allows "open carry" and folks who are starting to do so. Wish I could remember where...
I don't think that's a bad idea myself. At home (Nevada) Lots of people carry, includeing myself sometimes. I'm not sure what the law is in that state but no one seems to care, including the cops.
It should be remembered that the Second Amendment--and the Court's recent rulling--limits the GOVERNMENT'S ability to restrict access to firearms. Like virtually all Constitutional freedoms, the Second Amendment does very little, if anything, to inhibit an employor--or other private citizen--from prohibiting firearms on their premises.
Think of it a lot like this website. Every now and then after a thread is locked, someone on here cries "Free Speech!" Of course, "Free Speech" is a concept that limits the government's control of speech, not Kalmbach's, and Kalmbach is free to restrict speech on this website in virtually any manner of its chosing.
The Second Amendment is no different.
As to Amtrak, although it is ultimately run by the government, for somewhat more complicated reasons that require a less direct explanation, the ultimate result is the same.
Gabe
TimChgo9 wrote: So right, Ed. While I am not a gun owner, (but, would like to be) I am happy with the Court's ruling (That ruling is giving our King Richard II (aka Mayor Daley) a conniption fit, I have never seen him so angry, he was out of his mind yesterday).
So right, Ed. While I am not a gun owner, (but, would like to be) I am happy with the Court's ruling (That ruling is giving our King Richard II (aka Mayor Daley) a conniption fit, I have never seen him so angry, he was out of his mind yesterday).
Did you notice that some of the first words out of King Richard II's mouth about this were: "raise taxes."
chad thomas wrote: tree68 wrote: I just saw an article somewhere about a place that allows "open carry" and folks who are starting to do so. Wish I could remember where...I don't think that's a bad idea myself. At home (Nevada) Lots of people carry, includeing myself sometimes. I'm not sure what the law is in that state but no one seems to care, including the cops.
tree68 wrote: I just saw an article somewhere about a place that allows "open carry" and folks who are starting to do so. Wish I could remember where...
Colorado used to allow "open carry" every where in the state except inside Denver city limits. Don't know if that has changed or not. They also had what they called a "Make my day" law that said if anyone is on your property, irregardless of where, and you tell them to leave and they don't, you can legally shoot them. That law was actually tested shortly after they passed it.
Dick
Texas Chief
greyhounds wrote: TimChgo9 wrote: So right, Ed. While I am not a gun owner, (but, would like to be) I am happy with the Court's ruling (That ruling is giving our King Richard II (aka Mayor Daley) a conniption fit, I have never seen him so angry, he was out of his mind yesterday). Did you notice that some of the first words out of King Richard II's mouth about this were: "raise taxes."
Of course, it's a natural reflex with him, and Todd Stroger, the Crook County Board President. As of Monday, Chicago's sales tax goes to 10.25% and the rest of the county is at 9.25%, the highest in the country. I believe DuPage is at 7.25%, and the rest of the "collar" counties (Lake, Kane, McHenry, Will, and Grundy) are anywhere between 6.75% and 8.00% on sales tax. (feel free to correct those figures, if anyone has more info)
There is going to be plenty of debate on the Court's ruling. It's quite interesting, to say the least. On one side you have the "2nd Amendment or Death" types..., those who don't want to hear anything about "common sense" gun restrictions, then, over here, you have the "No Guns, No way" types who don't even want to hear about 2nd Amendment protection whatsoever, and believe guns are the root of all evil. And then, in the middle are those who believe the 2nd Amendment is what it is, but also understand that our societal ills are not what was envisioned in 1792.
I fully support the 2nd amendment, and, I don't have too many issues with background checks, and such, because most law-abiding gun owners, or would be gun owners have nothing to hide.
King Richard needs an excuse to raise (and pocket) taxes???
Note that the Constitution delineates a right to keep (own) and bear (carry on one's person) arms. That leaves two not-so-insignificant details:
In relation to the latter, a former N&W (pre-merger) employee told me about an incident where somebody had been pot-shooting the branch line's locomotive at one particular grade crossing. One fine evening, when the perp opened fire, he was met by a broadside - the engineer, fireman and road foreman of engines, all armed with 12-gauge pump shotguns. End of problem.
Chuck
Yes I do know someone who carries, and having a firearm on company property is prohibited. I would rather have one and not need it than need it and not have it. You can always find another job, and I refuse to be a victim. We're sitting ducks. There's usually only two to a crew so a group of hoods could jump us before we knew it. It's a liability issue, they don't want us having acess to a gun because they fear we may have to smoke some lowlife who tries to kill one of us first. Then this person's family wants to sue to company.
The Chicago Tribune has a solution:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,478588.story
I think while we're messing with the Bill Of Rights we should repeal the 1st Amendment too and put the Trib out of business.
Just as soon as the Supreme Court ruling came down I ordered a Desert Eagle .50 caliber to test a local law that said I could not have one. The dealer sold it to me and I will have it by Fedex on Monday. The gun is legally registered and I am a legitimate collector. I guarantee anyone who breaks into my home the Police will have no trouble finding and if he escapes to his car I will put a couple of rounds through his engine. I paid 1700 hundred smackers for the gun and am just waiting to test the local law that says I can't have a weapon of that caliber.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfan wrote: Just as soon as the Supreme Court ruling came down I ordered a Desert Eagle .50 caliber to test a local law that said I could not have one. The dealer sold it to me and I will have it by Fedex on Monday. The gun is legally registered and I am a legitimate collector. I guarantee anyone who breaks into my home the Police will have no trouble finding and if he escapes to his car I will put a couple of rounds through his engine. I paid 1700 hundred smackers for the gun and am just waiting to test the local law that says I can't have a weapon of that caliber. Al - in - Stockton
Having it is one thing. Hitting a target with it is another. Were thee me, I would find an approved range and burn a box or two of cartridges, just to be sure that the rounds were going where my sight picture said they were supposed to go.
Chuck (MSgt, USAF, retired)
Al,
Trust me...shooting someone is nothing like you might imagine.
The cops don't show up, look things over and thank you for taking out a bad guy for them.
You will be, at the least, questioned for several hours.
Your home will be searched, your neighbors questioned.
Depending on the circumstances, you most likely will detained, taken to a police station, questioned more, your gun will be seized as possible evidence.
You will be sued by the bad guy's survivors.
If the police can not clearly determine that it is a case of self defense, but there is not enough evidence for them to charge you with a crime, then the case will most likely be referred to a grand jury.
You should be prepared to be questioned by a grand jury, which is nothing like a court room questioning...they pretty much have free rein to ask you anything they want, you can not have your attorney present, nor can you refuse to answer their questions...the fifth amendment applies, but you have to be careful how you choose to use it.
They can hold you in contempt, and you can be detained until you answer them.
If, as in my case, the grand jury returns a no bill, you still have to defend yourself against the lawsuit.
Just because you are not charged with a crime doesn't mean you can't be sued.
Even if you win, you are still out the time spent, the lost wages, attorney fees, court fees, clerk fees, PI fees, plus all the stress.
Be prepared to spend no less than $60,000.00 to $100,000.00 staying free.
Add to all of that the fact that you can be held liable for any collateral damage...say you do fire a .50 caliber gun at someone...and the round continues through and through the perp, then ends up in the apartment complex across the street, lodged in someone's chest?
Guess who gets arrested and gets sued for a wrongful death....
Owning a firearm is one thing....using it on a person is a whole ‘nother deal...
All of these are things you have to think about...in the half second before you pull the trigger.
I suggest you take a firearms training class or if your state allows or has a carry permit, take the course, it will teach you things you never though about, and give you quite a few decision making skills.
And lastly, a .50 caliber round, even with a Teflon coating, will not go through an engine block...it will ricochet off of it pretty good though, and end up who knows where.
The use of deadly force in defense of life or property has severe limitations and strict protocols; you should learn them and follow them, or be prepared to lose almost everything you have, up to and including your freedom.
This may have been hashed out a number of years ago, and if it has, I'm sorry -- But
Don't even think about carrying a firearm into Canada! Not even a little bitty handgun a la Nancy Reagan. No tolerance means no tolerance, and no joking means no joking.
Violators at the least would lose their gun (or have to stay it temporariliy, I'm not sure) and be refused entry into Canada. That used not to be such a big deal, but now that everything is interlinked via computer you won't be able to try another pass thru a different border crossing without getting caught.
Canadian members, can you add some of your experience or knowledge to this? - a.s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.