Truck Drivers Sue to Spread Constitutional Rights over State Lines

For most of us, if we’re going to travel, we have a lot of time to plan. That includes whether or not we’re going to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes. We can even decline a trip to, say, California simply because we can’t protect ourselves there.

Truck drivers don’t really get that option. 

I mean, they might be able to turn down a load, but that’s money out of their pockets. If they turn down enough, though, you have to believe they’re going to have fewer opportunities overall–and that’s assuming they can at all, which might not be an option for some drivers.

That means them going into states where they might not really even have a right to keep and bear arms anymore. Now, a lawsuit seeks to change that.

On January 7, 2025, 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.

This isn’t the only case challenging these laws, either.

If this sounds like a lawsuit that basically argues for national reciprocity, you’re right. And if HB 38, which is the national reciprocity bill, passes, the lawsuit is moot.

However, there’s no guarantee the bill will pass. It should, but a lot of things that should happen never come to pass, so I’m glad to see these lawsuits that seek to get the courts involved.

With the makeup of the Supreme Court, I’d love to tell you that’s our best shot, but based on what we’ve seen recently, including just this week, I’m not as optimistic as I should be right now. Of course, the Court didn’t outright deny cert in those cases this week, so my skepticism might be misplaced, but that’s just the latest in a series of less-than-stellar outcomes involving the Court.

So while it’s possible this is a great change, the truth is that the bill before Congress is a much better hope simply because we have the votes. Sure, the filibuster is a thing in the Senate, but depending on how it’s handled, that can be mitigated.

Still, these truck drivers have a reasonable concern, and states like Minnesota kind of screw them over. Especially considering there are no objective criteria for which states have reciprocity with Minnesota and which don’t. That’s a major problem all on its own, even without national reciprocity. 

Subjectivity and the law aren’t usually great friends.

I like that we have to avenues of approach at this problem. Hopefully, one of them will bear fruit and do so soon.