Truck drivers sue to restore right to bear arms across state lines

On Jan. 7, two interstate commercial truck drivers filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit contends Minnesota and, in particular, the commissioner for the Department of Public Safety, is infringing on the exercise of their Second Amendment rights by not recognizing their right to bear arms across state lines.

Here is the introduction of their complaint:

1. This is a constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to recognize firearm permits lawfully issued by other States. Minnesota criminalizes carrying a firearm without a Minnesota permit or a recognized out-of-state firearm permit. Every year, the Commissioner for Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety decides which out-of-state firearm permits Minnesota will and will not recognize. The recognition of out-of-state firearm permits is at the Commissioner’s sole discretion and is not based on objective standards.
2. Currently, Minnesota only recognizes the out-of-state firearm permits from 20 states, and refuses to recognize the out-of-state permits from 29 states, including Texas, Florida, and Georgia. In other words, millions of law-abiding citizens who lawfully bear arms in their home states cannot do so while visiting the State of Minnesota—unless they obtain a separate Minnesota firearm permit.
3. Minnesota’s failure to honor lawfully issued firearm permits from all States places an unreasonable burden on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to bear arms. Individuals do not lose their constitutional rights simply by crossing into another state. In fact, there is no other constitutional right that Minnesota requires a visiting individual to first obtain permission before they may exercise a fundamental right.
4. The Minnesota firearm permit law and the Commissioner’s arbitrary refusal to recognize the lawfully issued firearm permits from all other States violates the Second Amendment. Defendant will continue to infringe on millions of Americans’ right to bear arms in Minnesota unless, and until, a court declares the law and actions unconstitutional and enjoins Defendant’s enforcement.

There are several cases in the courts, challenging restrictions that place unreasonable burdens on the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment while traveling across state lines. Two are combined criminal cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Court of Judicial Appeal. The other two cases are being processed in California. Any of these cases could make precedent favorable to exercising Second Amendment rights across state lines, if only in one state or one federal circuit. Reciprocity across state lines is highly variable and rapidly changing.

These cases could become moot if Senate Bill S65, National Reciprocity, is enacted. The bill was recently introduced into the Senate, with a companion bill introduced in the House of Representatives. 29 states have permitless or Constitutional carry. Twenty-one states have “shall issue” permit laws, even if several of them, Hawaii, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey, are actively resisting the implementation of shall issue in the courts and in their legislatures.

Related story: NC congressman introduces Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Most senators are from states with large numbers of people who can legally carry concealed weapons. Those senators may see little advantage in preventing visitors to their state from exercising rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. President Donald Trump’s reelection means that if the national reciprocity bill passes the Senate and House, the president will sign it.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.