Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Carrying guns on Virginia Railway Express Trains...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:45 PM
Original message
Carrying guns on Virginia Railway Express Trains...
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 11:46 PM by virginia mountainman
In light of the recent, pissing and moaning about Amtrak, and guns..

Let me share with you a letter, about carrying guns, on Virginia Railway Express Trains (VRE)

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for writing.

We understand and appreciate your perspective. As stated in emails to other passengers, we are making revisions to our tariff to be in compliance with Virginia Code and to clarify the circumstances that would permit us to refuse passage.

That said, you may board our trains armed if you have all the necessary permits to legally carry firearms in Virginia. Please be aware that the laws are different in D.C., where it may not be legal to carry a firearm.

Thank you for riding VRE.

Regards,

Jeremy Flores
Operations Service Manager
Virginia Railway Express
1500 King Street, Suite 202
Alexandria, VA 22314-2730


That being said, VRE, TRIED to ban firearms, after a few letters, they realized, that as a entity, of the State of Virginia, they are completely powerless to do so..Virginia, is a full preemption state.

It is against the law, for ANY GOVERNMENT entity, in Virginia, to pass gun legislation, ONLY the state legislature has that power...

Some try, when they do, they get sued into submission...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. as long as people like to blow up stuff for fun this will continue nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. STATES RIGHTS !
STATES RIGHTS !

STATES RIGHTS !

(Where have I heard that before ???)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Who said anything about states rights?
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 12:04 AM by virginia mountainman
The right to bear arms, IS GUARANTEED by the US Bill of Rights, AND the Virginia Bill of Rights

It is a RIGHT of the people, No piss-ant is going to step on those...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. ...
"It is against the law, for ANY GOVERNMENT entity, in Virginia, to pass gun legislation, ONLY the state legislature has that power...

Some try, when they do, they get sued into submission..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. No its not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Small but important (IMO) point
The right to bear arms, IS GUARANTEED by the US Bill of Rights, AND the Virginia Bill of Rights


Neither the BOR nor the VBOR guarantee anything, they simply enumerate. Your right to keep and bear arms exists wholly independent of either document and would continue to exist if both documents were repealed tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I for one think "states rights" is a crock of shit.
Independent state governments may have made sense back in the days when it took weeks for a message to get from Boston to Atlanta, but this is the modern world. There shouldn't be 50 different sets of rules governing individual swatches of territory. Yes, different regions have different needs and problems, and regional control is a good thing. But there's no excuse, in my mind, for not standardizing some things.

In New Jersey, if a 17 year old boy sleeps with his 16 year old girlfriend, it's okay. But if they cross the border into New York and do that, it's statutory rape. In Vermont gay couples can get married, and you can carry a concealed pistol without any hassle. Just over the border in New York, gay marriage is illegal, and to even own a pistol requires hundreds of dollars in fees and 6-12 months worth of paperwork.

We live in a world where I can get on a plane and touch down in any other state within hours. There's no reason that certain basic things should not be the same across the country, from driver's licenses to marriage certificates, from what guns you can own to who you can sleep with. Let the Nebraska legislature and the California State Senate handle things like balancing Medicaid versus infrastructure spending. The universal stuff isn't their business.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. States rights are necessary
to progress with our set system of government. Let's take any divisive issue....gay marriage for instance. Just try passing a national referendum allowing (requiring) gay marriage in every state simultaneously...it would never pass. How about CCW? It took 20 years to get to this point. Had you tried to pass ccw in every state it is currently in, it would have never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Exactly.
Many issues that are ahead of their time has 0% chance of passing at the National level.

They get passed locally and then in more localities, then people realize it isn't as scary as they thought and eventually it passes nationally.

CCW & Marriage Equality are two great examples. Without state powers (there is no such thing as state rights. states have POWERS), today gay marriage and CCW would both be completely illegal in all 50 states.

Yeah it would be uniform but it would be uniformly bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. That cuts both ways, though.
If we DON'T enable gay marriage on the federal level, then it's probably going to be decades before all the states get on board. That on the face of it is a violation of the Equal Protection clause, and it's arguably why we have the Supreme Court: in many cases, they overturn bad laws that don't meet the test of constitutionality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I think you answered your own question here..
if a law is found by the SCOTUS to violate the Constitution it will be overturned. I am, admittedly, not up on the issue of gay marriage, nor am I a Constitutional scholar. I have heard the 'equal protection' philosophy mentioned. I can see some merit in the equal protection argument, I can also see how equal protection may not apply. The bottom line is that if you wish your party to force this issue on the entire country you must be prepared for the repercussions..I don't believe that either party will be taking that risk now, nor would they if state powers were replaced with some sort of federalism. The chances of getting there within decades is less if we were to depend on federal legislation, than to allow the movement in that direction to occur regionally over the next couple of decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I agree with the sentiment, but for different reasons
States don't have rights. States have powers, and if we accept--to use Jefferson's phrasing--that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," any rights in question belong to the governed (i.e. the people), not to the state.

Even so, assuming for the sake of the argument that "states' rights" exist, they do so only in the sense that the state acts as an intermediary to prevent the federal government encroaching on the individual rights of the state's citizens. This is where, in my view, proponents of "states' rights" almost invariable lose sight of what constitutes the ends, and what constitutes the means. "States' rights" are not a desirable end unto themselves; they are a means unto the end of protecting the rights of the individual citizen. But what happens when it is the state that seeks to infringe upon the civil liberties of some segment of its citizenry, be it women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, GLBTs, what have you? To my mind, the federal government is not only justified, but indeed obliged to override a "tyranny of the majority" (if it even is a majority) at the state level in order to protect the individual rights of residents that the state seeks to infringe upon.

To my mind, it was idiotic that the 14th Amendment even needed to be passed; if you start from the premise that citizens have certain rights that are so essential that the federal government isn't allowed to infringe upon them, what sense does it make that state or local governments (let alone private actors) aren't restrained from infringing upon those same rights? I concur with the ACLU's position (as formulated by former president Nadine Strossen) that civil liberties are meaningless if only one entity--the federal government--is prohibited from infringing on them, while state and local government and private actors have free rein.

For example, I believe that the passage "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" means exactly that. Your employer doesn't get to force you to submit to random drug tests, because you have the right "to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches." Not just by the federal government, but by anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. It should have worked that way....
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 09:38 AM by Statistical
theoretically the Supreme Court being perfect and just would have ensured that and the 14th wouldn't be necessary.

Sadly however there were bigots on the Supreme Court who looked at the short term gain ("protecting whites) instead of the long term consequences of their decision.

Once the SCOTUS decided that the BofR does not apply to the states the 14th became necessary. This has led to the nonsense of "selective incorporation" where some restrictions apply to the states, and some don't, and some are in legal limbo.

The SCOTUS relies on precedent a lot and has been unwilling to break with that totally flawed rational. Even if the Supreme Court finds the 2nd applies to the states in McDonald v. Chicago it will be yet another narrow decision.

Instead the SCOTUS should find that all restrictions of rights apply equally and fully to all levels of govt at the same time indicating that the PEOPLE comprise of all PEOPLE of all genders & races with no exception. Of course that will never happen but it would bring consistency back to the rule of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. And what is the firearm related death rate on VRE trains?
Astronomical I assume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC