Saturday, March 28, 2020

Truckers Call for Exercise of Second Amendment Rights Nationwide During Emergency

A group of small business truckers has sent an email to Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. The email asks that, as part of the national emergency involving the Chinese virus, the federal government declare the Second Amendment overrides state law and federal regulation forbidding truckers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.


The 15,000-member SBTC is calling on federal authorities to preempt state and local laws regarding the right to carry a firearm.
Therefore, in accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, we hereby request the U.S. Department of Transportation please issue a preemption order nullifying any and all state and local laws that restrict truck drivers from carrying firearms across state lines throughout America in order to enable them to protect themselves and their cargo as they engage in interstate commerce.
As this is now a matter of life and death, please issue same forthwith.
“The SBTC through its TRUCKER LIVES MATTER campaign has sought the unfettered ability of drivers to carry firearms for self protection nationwide since its inception in 2014,” Lamb tells Transportation Nation Network (TNN).  “We have pointed to Department of Labor statistics that show the unusually high rates of murders on the road for workers in interstate transportation.”

This is a valid argument.  It is vital that trucks keep delivering everything society needs to keep operating during the emergency. During social unrest, there will always be an element attempting to take advantage of the situation.

One argument between those who want the population disarmed, and those who believe the population should have easy access to arms is a small scale, utilitarian one.

People who are voluntarily unarmed have a psychological  interest in promoting the idea that having a gun makes a person less safe, and that having a gun has no utility in preventing crime. It reassures them they have made the correct decision by deciding to be unarmed.

It is a difficult argument to make rationally persuasive. Weapons would not exist if they did not provide the possessor with an advantage over the disarmed.

The fall back position, for those who wish the population to be disarmed, is to claim only intensely trained and supervised individual, such as, supposedly, police and military personnel, can gain benefit from being armed.

However, people who have passed through the legal hoops required to obtain carry permits, commit far fewer crimes than do police. Police tend to train more with firearms than do most military (as difficult as that is to believe).

Commercial truckers go through a similar background check process as do most concealed carry permit holders. Truckers are especially vulnerable to violent crime because of their vocation.

It would be a good test case for the Trump Administration to declare, during this emergency, the exercise of Second Amendment rights by commercial truckers (whose licenses are federally supervised) overrides state powers to regulate firearms. This argument would be bolstered by the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, as granted by the Constitution.

Those who have lived by the abuse of the interstate commerce clause for decades, would be feeling the other side of the blade.

It would be good policy.

It would be good politics.

It would be immediately challenged in court. It would send a good message to the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court.

It combines utility, emergency powers, the Second Amendment and the Commerce clause. It would be nearly irresistible for activist district court judges. It would be difficult for the appellate courts to ignore. Such a combination would be very difficult for the current Supreme Court to ignore.

It would not be perfect. Perfect is the enemy of the good, because, those who insist on perfect prevent the good from ever happening.

Such an emergency proclamation would be a double edged daggar pointed at the heart of the arguments against the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Will it happen? I suspect not. It is not on the radar of the Trump administration. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


ScienceABC123 said...

When it becomes necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a right, we loose that right.

Anonymous said...

There is no valid argument against for the right to carry any where you happen to be in this country The tenth amendment makes it very clear states have no authority to address issues covered in the federal constitution all rights What makes one state more safe than another state the right to defend your self with the right to carry. all rights are federally guaranteed all rights are equal you have the same right to speak in one state as you do in another state. You have the same right to carry in one state as you do in another state. federal law only requires a license for retail gun sellers. a federal firearms license is a national right to carry because licensed dealers are required to guard their inventory in transport. Truckers should be allowed to carry any where but so should every one else. why is a truckers safety any more important than my safety when I travel?

Anonymous said...

A little known USSC ruling about 1984 The state a vehicle is licensed in guns laws apply if and the if is important. if you can live in the vehicle as a home away from home. some of the truckers have some pretty fancy sleepers. Motor homes clearly qualify. so if you can afford to take your home traveling with you, you have more rights than I do. The first USSC ruling read a bonified traveler and the state the vehicle was licensed in, then it tightened up to must qualify as a home away from home. The fact is you are first an American citizen with all of your rights guaranteed any where you are in side the borders of this nation and secondly a resident of the state that has no authority to infringe on federally guaranteed rights. The words license or permit are not in the second amendment and the states have no authority to add them.

Anonymous said...

What is the purpose of the united states constitution? what is the reason the bill of rights exists? How many people even read the bill of rights? The constitution exists to control the power of government. It took several years for the framers of the constitution to write exactly what they meant it to say. therefore it is written to be enforced exactly as written. In fact it is unconstitutional to add leave out or change what is physically written. Factually changing where punctuations marks are is unconstitutional. any change even the slightest change can only be accom0plished by a ratified amendment. Now read the tenth amendment until you fully understand exactly what it says and what it means. The bill of rights specifically lists the rights the government must guarantee. The tenth amendment says the ones specifically listed are not all of the rights we have and are too numerous to list and those unlisted rights are also guaranteed. It is my belief that when Comey changed the words in the written law to avoid charging Hilary, He committed a crime against the constitution, violated his oath of office and should have been impeached and charged with the same crimes as a co-conspirator as an accessory to the same crimes she was accused of committing. We get the government we allow to be in power. we get what we deserve for not being better citizens. If you do not demand rights be protected for every one they will be protected for no one. when it comes your turn to demand rights who will stand with you if you have not stood for them? We have the right under the tenth amendment to demand our children are better educated Especially when it comes to understanding the Constitution. When the constitution is harmed we are all worse off. The framers lived through what they wrote the constitution to change. They knew first hand how government gets corrupted. The constitution was written for our selves and Our posterity meaning all future generations of American citizens. It is quite fair to tell any one that does not like our constitution that they have the right to leave this country and go some where they can appreciate. No one is forced to be an American.

Anonymous said...

How many understand the 26 words of the second amendment? When it says an armed militia it requires understanding what the militia is according to the constitution any male 18 years or older is automatically a member of the militia just by their existence. By the age 18 when the constitution was written Your father should have already trained you to be a good shot, know gun safety and how to make your own bullets and powder. How many much older to day know how to cast bullets? better yet how many know how to make their own powder? black powder can be used in any gun modern or antique. smokeless powder will destroy an antique gun. Modern smokeless powder has a burn rate. black powder does not have a burn rate. Black powder simply explodes instantly. Static electricity can set off black powder. Black powder weapons use pure lead for making the shot or bullets. Modern guns need alloy bullets. bullets to hard will destroy the rifling's in the barrel. Making bullets can turn into a science. I have about 400 pounds of bullet making metals on hand.

Anonymous said...

Loss of rights? what about the right to work? why should any one be required to have a license for the right to work if you have proof of proper training and proof of qualifying by national standards testing?