• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

possible nationwide carry for truckers

Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
#21
Our history is replete with compromises, give and take away. From the Founding Fathers to the president, congress, and courts of today this process continues - a whittle & nick here, a reversal there.
So nothing unusual or new. The question is, why fear the process and refuse to use it to our advantage when we can?



Example the libs/antis were given the assault weapon ban, then had it taken away.
And from their perspective, were they any worse off after the gun ban expired than they were before it was enacted? By passing the gun ban, did they get some kind of rebound at the federal level where congress turned around and went farther the other direction than they had before?


Conservatives/pro gun people were allowed to buy new full auto guns, then had that taken away.
Really? When were we "allowed" to buy new full autos? Near as I can tell, the history of full autos starts with nary a regulation, progresses to the prohibitive transfer "tax" of the GCA of 1934, and then proceeds to a ban on transfers of all new guns in the 80s or 90s.

There are volumes of similar, some minor, some major.
Respectfully, I doubt you or anyone else could name even 3 or 4 examples of congress acting within the 14th amendment to protect civil or constitutional rights, and then having those rights subsequently restricted by congress. I'm not talking about the normal ebb and flow of politics and policy. I'm talking about the voting rights act, the civil rights act, the ADA, and similar pieces of legislation aimed specifically at protecting individual rights from State and local infringement.


All three branches of our government have hacked at the second Amendment, taking away/reducing, restricting our RKBA. You are right that a future congress could do more - better or even worse laws could be passed.
So my question is, what danger is posed by supporting federal protection of our RKBA? What does it make worse?

Some problems are perhaps too overwhelming and/or involved to be solved by mutual consent of the states. I don't think this one qualifies, falls in that category.
So you actually think that NJ, NYC, Illinois, and California are someday soon going to be brought to see the light and respect our federal constitutional RKBA through some mutual consent? Do tell me on what basis you predict this. I see zero evidence.

"What the government gives, the government can take away" is not just a nice turn of words. It is the caged beast, clawing to get out.
And the States are immune to this alledged problem?

We celebrate Heller and McDonald as far as they go, but are reticent to have congress act within those rulings? Makes no sense to me. Would we have been unhappy had the decisions gone farther and better protected our RKBA to posses usable guns in public?


Accept no pretty Trojan Horses within the walls.
Any bill can be written to be bad. But on general principle, what is the "Trojan horse" if congress were to act to ban State and local laws criminalizing the peaceful possession of firearms by citizens?

For sake of argument, let's say it was a straight up, "shall not be infringed" no permit needed, just a straightforward declaration that "no citizen of the United States age 18 or older shall be prevented from carrying a firearm in public for his self-defense...." with appropriate redress to federal courts against any local or State official who attempted to enforce any law to the contrary.

What makes that any more of a concern at the federal level, than it would be at any State level?

Charles
 

Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
#22
If the feds will not hold NJ accountable for NJ ignoring the "continuous peaceable journey doctrine" then we have a ongoing example of the government giveth/the government taketh away.
Actually, we have an example of gun owners being so stupid that we are easily pacified by empty promises.

How many congressmen have gun owners tossed to the curb for not better protecting our rights? How many gun owners have made enforcement of the peaceable journey law a question for presidential candidates?

We are so scared of using the legislative process and the electoral process that we are still giving candidates rides to power in our trucks, and then being happy park our trucks out back where nobody sees them and being told to wait another generation to get any real benefits. Politicians love to ride into power with gun owners....but then don't want to dance with us. And we keep signing up.

We need to take some lessons from the homosexual lobby. You don't hear them whimpering about "what the government giveth it can taketh away."

They got their nationwide marriage rights. They've got full access to the military. They will get nationwide anti-discrimination and hate crime protections. They will use the power of government to attack every individual and institution that dares disagree with them in any degree. From the BSA to Catholic adoption services to the Christian baker and wedding photographer, dissent will be crushed; society will be fundamentally reshaped to accept, condone, and celebrate the rights of homosexuals.

Meanwhile, gun owners will continue to face felony penalties for making a wrong turn on an Inter-State.

Turns out the government can take away what it never gave in the first place. But we won't even push for getting what the constitution explicitly guarantees us because we are scared.

Brilliant.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,659
Location
here nc
#23
snipp...

We need to take some lessons from the homosexual lobby. You don't hear them whimpering about "what the government giveth it can taketh away."

They got their nationwide marriage rights. They've got full access to the military. They will get nationwide anti-discrimination and hate crime protections. They will use the power of government to attack every individual and institution that dares disagree with them in any degree. From the BSA to Catholic adoption services to the Christian baker and wedding photographer, dissent will be crushed; society will be fundamentally reshaped to accept, condone, and celebrate the rights of homosexuals.

Brilliant.

Charles
there is that same "protesteth too much" GLBT whine we have come to know...

mate, i do find it quite enlightening you consistently & specifically call out the LGBT crusade for equality...why is that?

tell ya what why don't you change from LGBT gains made within out society over the last 45 or so years to discussion of the gains American's black populace has or hasn't made within our society.

mate, let's try something for fun shall we ~ exchange the word "blacks" in place of the word "homosexual" in your sentences above....

oh my...lookie, lookie there mate...what an interesting dichotomy you just created ~ quite fascinating isn't it!!

especially since both entities are complaining what is being taken away from them...some using violence, others using the judicial system.

ipse
 

Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,659
Location
here nc
#26
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926A

We have a federal law that is intentionally ignored by at least one state. We have a federal law that is intentionally not being enforced.
OC4ME how is what you cited, quote: ....if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle. unquote, going to assist as OTR driver if the paperweight is unload, in a separate area from the ammo ??

just saying...

ipse
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,338
Location
Nevada
#27
Well, he's right in that if anti-freedom states are going to ignore a mere transportation protection law, how can we expect them to allow a defensive firearm protected by the same type of federal law?

Anti-freedom states were kicking and screaming about LEOSA...
 

Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,366
Location
White Oak Plantation
#28
OC4ME how is what you cited, quote: ....if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle. unquote, going to assist as OTR driver if the paperweight is unload, in a separate area from the ammo ??

just saying...

ipse
Having it available and ready is not the point, not getting tossed into jail on a felony count for having a paperweight is the point. We, most of us, can avoid anti-liberty states such as NJ, OTR drivers maybe not. Let us keep folks outta jail before we get available and ready.

Making more laws to restrain government is not the same as repealing laws that empower government. The Heien defense cannot be employed if there is no law to misunderstand or misapply.

This makes it easy for the courts to rule in favor of restraining LE as was the case in US v. Black.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,659
Location
here nc
#29
I heard on NRA news that there is a bill starting in the Senate that would give truck drivers with ccl's national resaprosity (sic).
snipp
Having it available and ready is not the point, not getting tossed into jail on a felony count for having a paperweight is the point. We, most of us, can avoid anti-liberty states such as NJ, OTR drivers maybe not. Let us keep folks outta jail before we get available and ready.

Making more laws to restrain government is not the same as repealing laws that empower government. The Heien defense cannot be employed if there is no law to misunderstand or misapply.

This makes it easy for the courts to rule in favor of restraining LE as was the case in US v. Black.
sorry, OC, but having it ready and available is the point of the thread as defined by the OP...

ipse
 

Last edited by a moderator:

Wstar425

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
559
Location
Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
#31
I had a dedicated gun safe bolted down in my sleeper when I hauled produce from CA. In Wisconsin I open carried and drove with it on my hip. WI permit not good in MN, so it went into the safe, sometimes loaded sometimes not. It got to the point where it was a pain to stop before crossing state lines, where it just went into the safe upon getting into the truck.

If I had to park someplace I felt unsafe, the safe was unlocked and left open. I'm never felt too unsafe on on/off ramps, and have never been bothered. Most places that I felt the most unsafe were in California. I've slept in Oakland, LA, Vernon (bad place) along with quite few cities part of LA suburb. Slept a lot of places with one eye open, and with the understanding that if I shot someone, even a gang member stealing my truck, I probably just became a resident of the state of California. Understanding that if I wake up with someone inside my truck, I was already at a disadvantage.

I've also blown a power steering hose in Bakersfield, in front of a car repair business. Some Hispanic guy handed me the keys to his brand new pickup and gave me directions on where to go to get one. People are mostly good, I have not gone looking for trouble and for the most part, have not found it.

Had a lot of inspections, been through Border Patrol checkpoints 75 miles from the border. (Another story) Nobody has asked to get in my cab or search my sleeper. Tennessee was searching sleepers back in the late 80's? But that got stopped by the courts. I always figured you're NOT searching my sleeper without a search warrant. Ever see all the cameras coming into the Border checkpoint! Either they can't see a firearm laying in a lockbox, or they don't care. No one has ever asked to search my sleeper, though I have had an Illinois State Trooper ask if I had any guns, drugs, or dead bodies in my cab. (No, none in my cab, he didn't ask about the sleeper, tho I suspect he meant that as well. Ask a specific question and I'll give you a specific answer.)

Stopped going to Kaliforniastan December 2014. Now I'm mostly 7 states Midwest. Company doesn't allow firearms in truck as company policy, and I don't carry. We do a lot of hazardous materials, I don't think I've seen a pickup or delivery without a no weapons sign.

I would say about 95 percent of truck drivers think there is some DOT rule against firearms in trucks. Some places try to use the rules about hauling firearms and ammo as against the driver having a firearm. Having said that, I don't think I really would push for the ability of truck drivers to carry, any more than people as a whole. Maybe less!! Our industry is being over run by non citizen employees. Maybe because I'm in it, but there are a lot of drivers that just flat out scare me. I don't want to be anywhere near them while driving down the road, and I'm constantly on my family to get around and away from trucks on the highway.
 

Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,659
Location
here nc
#32
Ws, were you an independent or company driver?

i am sure independents have more judicious decision over putting a 'safe' in your sleeper in lieu of using the company's rig?

and overall, isn't it the company's policy(ies) constraining OTR drivers per se?

ipse
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,886
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#33
Years ago when I had complete truck loads it was sometimes cheaper using independent truckers. Loads that I needed to ship to NJ or NY, especially NY city, most independents would refuse due to personal safety. The truckers would tell me about areas up east that they refused to go because of gangs that would hijack their rig at gunpoint.
 

Wstar425

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
559
Location
Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
#34
Ws, were you an independent or company driver?

i am sure independents have more judicious decision over putting a 'safe' in your sleeper in lieu of using the company's rig?

and overall, isn't it the company's policy(ies) constraining OTR drivers per se?

ipse
I've been both. O/O back in the late 70's and early 80's, always carried

Company driver since 1984. The days of the real independents are mostly over, tho there are some I'm sure. Last company was a 7 truck fleet hauling produce on very nice trucks. Owner had no issue with me carrying, or installing a safe in his truck. Four holes bolted down to a panel. I carried coming and going through the business/terminal OC. Company was called Ego-Trip, use you imagination and then some to get an idea of the trucks. Kenworth W900L extended hood conventional with a C-16 600 hp Cat motor and 18 speed. Had over 175 lights on the truck and trailer.



I would say finding any company over 20 trucks or so that would allow you to carry a firearm is nigh unto impossible. Putting a safe in a sleeper should be standard equipment, as far as I am concerned, not even talking firearms. How about my personal effects, cash, checks, anything important But, I think you are right for the most part. As near as I can tell, there are no DOT rules against carrying firearms in a commercial vehicle, you just need to be legal in all the jurisdictions you might enter. Which may well be impossible. Companies can, and do, put all types of rules above and beyond the law on their employees. Last companies rules were : Be friendly. Nothing written down, just dealt with as it became an issue. Not sure that is the best plan, but what he did. Current company has a handbook about the size of a good Bible.


Finally took the time to figure out how to post pictures. A couple of past passengers in the truck. Only took the dog one trip when she was just a pup and that was enough of that. She rides in the pickup, but again this company allows no animals.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Wstar425

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
559
Location
Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
#35
Now you'll be sorry!!

Last trip to CA, in Bakersfield

Night scene, I got lucky this is just with my cell phone and I am NOT a photographer.

CAT logo, if you look closely under the doors, right behind the air cleaner, you can see this. Bulldozer motor! 600 horsepower, 2050 Pounds/ft torque. Didn't get passed too often, but didn't pass many fuel pumps either.......
 

Attachments

Top