A truck driver is keeping his Second Amendment fight alive in an attempt to invalidate a state’s concealed-carry reciprocity gun law.
Long-haul truck drivers with guns face a confusing mix of state laws. Reciprocity laws vary: some states accept permits from others, while some do not. A trucker can be legal in one state but face serious criminal charges once crossing a state line.
Federal legislation to create a uniform reciprocity law has been introduced multiple times in the last 10 years alone. Each time, the bill failed. Two truck drivers decided to tackle the problem in court.
Last January, interstate truck drivers David McCoy II and Jeffrey Johnson Sr. filed a federal lawsuit against Minnesota. They claim the state’s concealed-carry reciprocity gun law violates their Second Amendment rights.
McCoy has a concealed-carry permit from Texas. Johnson holds permits from Florida and Georgia. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Minnesota did not recognize any of these permits. Consequently, both drivers had to lock up their guns before entering Minnesota or risk charges.
The lawsuit claims Minnesota’s concealed-carry reciprocity law violates the Second Amendment.
“Minnesota’s failure to honor lawfully issued firearm permits from all states places an unreasonable burden on plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to bear arms,” the lawsuit states. “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.”
Last April, Minnesota began recognizing Texas permits. That led McCoy to voluntarily dismiss his claim.
In September, the district court dismissed the case. Judge John Tunheim found that Minnesota’s laws do not violate the Second Amendment.
It ultimately came down to Minnesota’s shall-issue permitting system. This guarantees permits if all criteria are met. The Supreme Court had struck down New York’s more discretionary may-issue system.
Johnson isn’t buying Tunheim’s ruling. He’s asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to revive the case. His appeal hinges on three arguments refuting the district court’s findings.
Historical tradition argument
Since the plain text of the Second Amendment covers Johnson’s conduct, Minnesota must show that its law aligns with historical firearm regulations.
He argues Minnesota did not meet this burden with a proper historical showing. Minnesota instead defended its approach by pointing to historical surety laws, which could require people accused of posing a danger to post a bond to keep the peace before carrying firearms.
However, surety laws targeted specific individuals deemed dangerous through individualized assessments. Conversely, concealed-carry reciprocity laws apply broadly. Surety laws also presume an individual’s right to carry, whereas Minnesota’s reciprocity law presumes unrecognized permit holders do not have that right.
Thus, Johnson argues that surety laws are not comparable. The appeals court, Johnson states, must send the case back to revisit that issue.
Proof of endangerment argument
Johnson goes on to argue that Minnesota cannot revoke Second Amendment rights without proving a danger to public safety.
The truck driver contends that Minnesota is essentially deeming unrecognized firearm permit holders as dangerous so that it can ban their Second Amendment rights. He says there is no evidence to back up that claim.
To start, every state Minnesota does not recognize requires concealed-carry permit applicants to pass a criminal background check. Most require education or training courses. Assertions that these permit holders are dangerous are baseless, the brief argues.
Johnson cited court precedent cautioning against sweeping, status-based assumptions of dangerousness. In United States v. Veasley, the court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on gun possession by unlawful drug users, holding the law is not unconstitutional in all applications, while emphasizing that a blanket disarmament of “all” drug users simply because of status is problematic. Later, in United States v. Cooper, the court clarified that the ban can violate the Second Amendment in some as-applied cases and remanded for an individualized determination.
“And if ‘disarming all drug users, simply because of who they are, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment,’ … then disarming all unrecognized firearm license holders is too.”
Unconstitutionally vague and unreasonable argument
Lastly, Johnson argues Minnesota’s concealed-carry reciprocity law is arbitrary, pointing to Texas being added to the list of acceptable permits.
Minnesota recognizes only “similar” concealed-carry laws from other states. During court proceedings, the state never explained what that means. When asked to explain, the state just recited the statute.
New York’s may-issue law was struck down by the Supreme Court because of its illegal discretion. Similarly, Johnson argues, Minnesota has discretion whether to add states to its reciprocity list. That discretion must be accompanied by workable standards, which Johnson says does not exist.
When the lawsuit was filed, Texas was not on the list. Now, it is. That is despite no changes to Texas laws, including no education or training requirements. Johnson argues that this is proof of the Minnesota law’s inconsistency and arbitrary nature.
A decision in an appellate case can take up to a year or longer. LL
Credit: Source link
