Gray Column: Guns on trains—not a good idea
Published: September 28, 2009
When I think of guns, I think of hunting or protecting myself, my family or my property. The last thing I think of is the Virginia Rail Express (VRE).
Last week the VRE’s operation board ruled that riders will be able to carry firearms aboard their trains.
This ruling was to comply with Virginia’s Code on firearms. Basically the Virginia law allows citizens, who have no criminal record, to carry weapons in plain view and those with a permit to carry a
concealed weapon.
Obviously, due to the restrictions on firearms in the District, you can’t take the weapon there if you are on the train.
Which brings me to a question: Why did this have to be passed now?
Yes, I know it puts the VRE in compliance with state law. But considering most folks are riding the VRE system going to work or heading into the District, I can’t see the need for this one.
I’m sure someone will write in and enlighten me but for the life of me right now I just can’t see it.
I do find it strange, or just ironic, that during the same week the federal government issues a watch warning for terrorism on mass transit, the VRE allows guns on its trains. The timing is only coincidental
but still, it is ironic.
Now I seriously don’t think the VRE board is trying to put lives in danger. They are just staying compliant with state law. But I have to wonder what is the rush to compliance right now?
Nevertheless, the real problem here should be addressed within the Virginia General Assembly. When the next session begins, a member of the House of Delegates or State Senate needs to introduce
legislation that excludes the VRE from this law.
The General Assembly should do this because they are the only ones who can. State law prohibits localities from making their own laws pertaining to purchase, carrying, transfer, ownership, storage or
transport of firearms or ammunition.
I can only imagine the nightmare scenario of someone getting on the train and forgetting to get off before entering Washington, D.C. They basically go from carrying a firearm legally to doing so illegally,
punishable by D.C. law.
Also there are some specifics that need to be known about how you carry the firearm. Virginia law requires that a person have their firearm holstered on the side or with a shoulder holster.
So you can’t just walk around with the gun in your back pocket, tucked in your waist (however I believe you can use a waistband) or in your hand. That would be brandishing a firearm, which is illegal.
So before you go and grab a gun and go on the VRE, you might want to take a look at Virginia law on carrying those firearms.
Other than knowing how to carry a gun, we all need to consider the insane idea of wanting to do so in the first place on public trains. The idea of a crowded train and random people carrying guns should
make you feel less safe rather than more so.
There are too many threats on our transit system as it is.
Fortunately, I doubt a lot of people will take advantage of this ruling. I have a hard time imagining a train full of gun toting commuters. But it is possible.
It’s just another one of those things that make you say, “Hmmm. I don’t think the people making the laws thought this one all the way through,” at least not the idea of guns on trains.
Davon Gray works in Washington, D.C., and resides in Woodbridge. Contact him at .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Defending the Constitution with ones life and through service is a great honor. By any means necessary.
Great article by Newsmax. New York should keep its nose out of other states business and worry about its major problems first.
So, simply because she was shot by her husband in a murder-suicide, she was deserving? Ron, that’s low, even by your standards. This woman, a responsible firearms owner was a victim of a horrible crime. It does not support your position in anyway. In fact, it makes you look desperate for grasping at anything that might make the opposing side look bad. She was betrayed by someone she trusted with her life. It wasn’t the firearm or her owning that firearm that killed her. He husband was set to off himself and her. He would have found other means if this one wasn’t avaiable.
It’s horribly insensitive for you to post this in this manner and shows your true callous colors. You don’t care about safety, law or anything else execpt your agenda. It belittles your position and quite frankly discounts your arguement. Let’s say you got rid of all the guns. What then? What becomes the next thing to make illegal? You know that violent deviants are going to find something else to use to exact their will… It’s not the gun that kills, its the person holding it. When will you own up to that fact? When will you absorb the reality that it is the person who is responsible and not the tool they chose? It’s about a tangible item for you. It’s the material item that is the evil not the person who delviers that evil.
You’ve lost ALL credibility in my eyes. I guess it’s easier for you to blame the tool because it can’t defend itself and it’s a coward’s way to confront a problem.
Last Words before Work takes over:
Gun-toting soccer mom is shot dead
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/gun-toting_soccer_mom_is_shot.html
“Meleanie Hain, the pistol-carrying Lebanon mom who received national attention for taking a loaded gun to her daughter’s soccer game, was shot to death Wednesday night with her husband in an apparent murder-suicide, police said. [...]
Neighbor Mark Long said Meleanie baby-sat his 3-year-old son and that she and Scott had been having marital problems for the last week. [...]
Meleanie Hain was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon.
Her permit to carry a gun was revoked by Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo on Sept. 20, 2008. DeLeo said Hain showed poor judgment in wearing her gun to the game.
Hain’s permit was reinstated by Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby on Oct. 14, 2008, but the judge asked her to conceal it when she goes to soccer games. Hain said she would continue to carry it openly under the Second Amendment.
Hain then filed a lawsuit against DeLeo for $1 million in U.S. Middle District Court seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, emotional distress and lost wages.
[...]
About the decision to sue DeLeo, Hain said she did it because she was wronged
“Just the fact that he was wrong is evidenced by the fact that my license was restored to me. ... I am a victim of Sheriff Michael DeLeo’s. I am a victim of those in society as a direct result of his actions as well. The way people look at me sometimes when I am out running errands, I feel as if I am wearing a scarlet letter, and really it’s a Glock 26.“ “
She should have gone with that block of wood.
I’m not equating the lethality of lumber to that of a firearm, I’m simply pointing out that it’s not the tool used to commit murder that is the root cause of the murder. Wood doesn’t kill people, people kill people.
I haven’t “finally’ decided enforcement is a good thing, you’re promoting increased legislation to do the same things that the current legislation does.
Seems to me, you want to go after the dealers and leave the blackmarket alone. Let the cops and gangs have guns, but take away my ability to protect my house and my family as I see fit. Why, cause you’re scared of the individual. Scared that the Almighty Gov’t can’t take care of you and you can’t do anything about it.
IF you were serious about gun-violence, you’d be discussing ALL aspects of it from some random dealers to the gangs and blackmarket. BUT, you’re only discussing the availability of firearms from dealers. Some would argue that your position is socio-economic discrimination. Just target those who travel to a gun-show and leave the back alley deals alone. What are the stats for those gun-related crimes involving a legally purchased fire-arm versus those purchased illegally? Bet you don’t have that.
You’re so completely irrational and way out there, you’re “time off” should be spent in a rehab facility. Why? You MUST be on something to equate some illegal activity at a gun show to terrorism.
Why do you cast off what happened to that young man outside Chicago? IS he irrelevant because his death doesn’t fit neatly into your point? This young man’s death should serve as a wake-up call to you and everyone else that it a culture of violent behavior that is eating away at this Country. People who have malicios intentions will find whatever means necessary to carry out those actions. I don’t see you clammoring for a ban or licensing for any and all products that can be used by people to make an explosive device. Or, for that matter, a ban on anything else that can be used in a lethal manner. It’s just firearms…
Grow up and reach out to those in YOUR community against ALL types of violent behavior. Stop singling out one group just because it fits into a Statist agenda. But, you won’t go there because most violent behavior is commited by those on the left side of the political aisle.
Enjoy your time off… maybe you’ll be able to clear your head and come to some Rational conclusions…
OBTW,
As much as I hate to leave a debate when I’ve got (several) opponents on the defensive, I regret that real life is inruding again. You folks probably will not be hearing much from me the next couple of weeks due to my job requirements.
But I’ll be thinking about you’all.
45jhp,
First; equating the lethality of lumber with firearms makes you willfully stupid.
Next:
“After thinking about this a bit more, I’m actually glad you posted this.”
Here’s what I see. After several day’s debate when my point was that gun owners are in fact mostly not responsible, I show you proof that very many gun dealers are not in fact obeying existing gun laws. Your first reaction is to attack me, minimize the facts, and change the subject. After “thinking about it,” you finally decide that enforcing existing laws is really a good thing, then aggressively announce your decision with a demand that I explain where I “want to go next” with the information.
Mmarin is still attacking me and attempting to minimize the facts. I find your reactions very interesting. And amusing. In a black humor amusing kind of way.
As to where I want to go next; I want gun-control advocates to finally meet the NRA head-on. I want them to use this NYC sting tactic on a continual basis. I want to see gun-control groups send people into gun shows, and work the private gun sellers markets, looking for sellers who are not following EXISTING gun control laws. These groups should take their information and turn it over to Democratic-appointed gun-control-friendly AGs for legal action. If they do this enough, and bust enough dealers, we’ll get to the point where NO gun dealer will sell a gun without voluntarily performing a background check first. Because we’re enforcing EXISTING laws.
You’all got a problem with that?
For straw-man tactics, I want to see the people that are attempting to buy guns use the behaviors and actions that Homeland Security / TSA has identified as indicating potential terrorists. You know, the behaviors and actions that give Homeland Security folks in airports the “probable cause legal right” to single out an individual for “increased attention” (denial of boarding a plane, strip searches, body cavity inspections, extended questioning, extraordinary rendition, harsh interrogation, etc). I want to see the straw-men trying to buy guns without a background check act like terrorists suspects and learn just how many gun dealers will sell to them without conducting background checks.
Because, quite honestly, I really want to see NRA lawyers argue in court that gun dealers shouldn’t be restricted from selling guns to terrorists. In fact, I’d take vacation time and buy tickets for a courtroom seat to watch that case.
Or, if you actually read the PDF report of this ‘investigation’ you’ll find that private sellers actually stopped MORE transactions than licensed gun sellers.
19/30 transactions occured with private sellers and 17/18 straw purchases occured with licensed dealers.
Whats one of the findings for this report? Enforce existing laws. Wow. What a concept!
I’ll leave it to others to mine this report for other fun facts that actually bolster the arguement against Bloomberg’s group.
you know, Ron. After thinking about this a bit more, I’m actually glad you posted this. You point out that there are criminals, but MOST importantly, you point out that the City of NY actaully set out to enforce the law! That’s all that we are asking. Don’t create more and more and more laws… Just simply enforce those you have already enacted. I’d like to commend NYC for this. They’re taking a pro-active approach to this instead of a reactive one.
So, where do you go from here? The bad guys in this case are being punished and the word is out so these actions might be curbbed. That’s what you want, right? And you’re getting it. So, I’ll ask, where do you want to take it from here?
WOW… Looks like you’ve proven that there are some criminals out there… Kudos to you. Points of uninterest in this are: 35 of 47 said they sold to people who said they “could probably not” pass a BG check. That’s WAY subjective. I had doubts myself that I would pass due to my familial associations, but I was wrong… That PROVES nothing… Secondly, they were “APPARENT” straw purchasers… Again, NO proof…
With that having been said, Ron, there are criminals out there that give the good guys a bad name. But that’s no reason to REFORM the law… How about just simply ENFORCING what’s already on the books..
You’re far from the lesser evil as your tolerance is just about non-existent.
But, again, I’m proud of you for pointing out the fact that there are some criminals at gun shows… NOW, Mr. Investigative Journalist… Go find a few articles about the illegal gun sales from the backs of vehicles to those who WOULD not pass a BG check… You know, those guys are criminals, too… Don’t discriminate by just choosing one small incident limited to one small show…
Oh, and what about my 11:47 post? You gonna restrict the sale of lumber?
Advertisement