(Truck Driver News)—Two truck drivers have filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, claiming the state’s policies infringe on trucker gun rights and violate their Second Amendment protections. The drivers, David McCoy and Jeffrey Johnson, argue that Minnesota’s refusal to honor firearm permits from other states leaves them defenseless. The case, McCoy v. Jacobson, was filed on January 7, 2025, with support from the Liberty Justice Center.
The Issue with Minnesota’s Laws
Minnesota does not recognize firearm permits from 29 states, including Texas, Florida, and Georgia. This policy prevents McCoy and Johnson from carrying firearms in Minnesota, even though both have valid permits from their home states. Minnesota requires either a state-issued permit or recognition of an out-of-state permit. This policy affects millions of lawful gun owners traveling through the state.
Each year, Minnesota reviews other states’ firearm laws to decide which permits it will recognize. This process is controlled by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The decision is left to the commissioner’s discretion, with no clear or consistent criteria.
The Challenges for Truck Drivers and Trucker Gun Rights
Truckers like McCoy and Johnson face unique dangers on the road. They often spend weeks away from home, living and working out of their trucks. McCoy, who is based in Texas, has experienced crime firsthand. He relies on his firearm for protection. Johnson, a Georgia resident, shares similar concerns. Both truckers travel through Minnesota several times a year as part of their jobs.
Without recognition of their firearm permits, they must store their guns in locked cases, making them unusable for self-defense. Violating the law could lead to criminal charges. Such charges would jeopardize their jobs and professional credentials.
Arguments Against the Policy
The lawsuit claims that Minnesota’s policies place an unfair burden on truckers and other travelers. According to the plaintiffs, the rules violate the Second Amendment. They also argue that no other constitutional right is treated in this way.
“Minnesota’s refusal to honor other states’ lawfully issued firearm permits places an unreasonable burden on the Second Amendment rights of individuals like Mr. McCoy and Mr. Johnson who regularly cross state lines in the course of their work,” said Loren Seehase, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center. “No one loses their right to free speech or freedom of religion by simply driving from Texas to Minnesota—so why should they lose their right to self-defense?”
Obtaining a Minnesota firearm permit is not an easy option for these truckers. The process requires an in-person application, a fee of up to $100, and a wait time of up to 30 days. For truckers who are constantly on the move, meeting these requirements is nearly impossible. They would also need to repeat the process every five years to renew the permit.
Why The Trucker Gun Rights Case Matters
The lawsuit aims to force Minnesota to recognize all out-of-state firearm permits. If successful, the case could set a precedent for other states with restrictive reciprocity laws. For truck drivers like McCoy and Johnson, this would mean greater safety while traveling. For other gun owners, it could mean fewer obstacles to exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Truckers face high risks on the road. They transport valuable cargo, often to remote or high-crime areas. As a result, many carry firearms to protect themselves. Minnesota’s restrictive policies make this impossible for drivers who do not hold a state-issued permit.
Trucker Gun Rights Moving Forward
The lawsuit highlights an ongoing debate about gun rights and state laws. Advocates for gun rights see the case as a challenge to unfair restrictions. On the other hand, supporters of stricter gun control may argue that states have the right to set their own rules.
The court’s decision could have far-reaching effects. If the lawsuit succeeds, it would require Minnesota to honor firearm permits from all other states. For truckers like McCoy and Johnson, this would eliminate the difficult choice between self-defense and legal compliance. The outcome of this case could shape the future of firearm laws across the United States.