• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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

conandan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
236
Location
florida
I heard on NRA news that there is a bill starting in the Senate that would give truck drivers with ccl's national resaprosity. I thought I heard them say Senator Corker is the one who put the bill up and is looking for sponsors. I'm not going to hold my breath, but it's nice to see them try.

If I can find the actual bill number I will post it. And if this bill does get traction please call or write your congressman or senator and tell them to support the bill.
 

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
747
Location
Fayetteville NC
IF this is fact, it is just what we need: Another special group of people allowed to carry, with the vaunted permission slip, while the rest of us cannot.:cuss:
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
http://www.legalinfo.com/content/truck-accidents/truck-driver-drug-usage-and-truck-accidents.html
In a relatively recent study, 85% of all truck drivers surveyed said that methamphetamines were easily available at truck stops. Methamphetamines use is prevalent among truck drivers, due to the fact that they allow the drivers to stay awake longer, log more miles, and deliver their cargo to its final destination that much sooner.
Yeah, great niche segment of the population to grant full interstate 2A Rights to...

If you plan to later use them as an example for why only Cops deserve interstate 2A Rights.
 
Last edited:

Wstar425

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
560
Location
Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
I hope their aim is better than their backing skills!

I see no way this is happening. It's somebody's pipe dream that has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

The new drive/sleep/break regs has not improved anything, and made it worse, unless you can tell me when I'm tired. It's the government, of course they didn't make it better. They killed the new 34 hour restart regs this past July. The only people coming out better are the people "trying" to explain the new, new, new regs to the companies and the drivers. They're busy.

You can find any kind of drug, or activity, on the back row of any truckstop in any large city.
 

Wstar425

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
560
Location
Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
So break time is not enforced by either the company or the state? By drugs I don't mean recreational drugs, but performance enhancing.
Yes to both. How successfully is up for debate. Mandatory 30 minute break after 8 hours work. Trucking might be the only industry (one of few) where people cheat on their time so they can work LONGER. Paid by mile mostly. Electronic logs solves much of this, but small companies and one truck guys mostly don't have that. I ran THREE log books for years.

No break less than 30 minutes count, so if I take four 15 minute breaks before 8 hours, none of that counts and then I have to sit for 30 minutes twiddling my thumbs unless I can piggyback it on top of getting unloaded or loaded. That is supposed to be on duty time, but it took me 5 minutes to load and a 30 minute break instead of 35 minutes to load.

It is a one regulation fits all that is trying to fit 56,789 (est.) different scenarios, and doesn't work well for any of them.

I don't use drugs, never have. Don't smoke, don't drink alcohol. You can find anything you want on the back row. Drivers get drug tests for pre-employment, random and post accident. If I get rear ended at a stop light, I get drug tested. If my log book says I can't be there, it just became my fault since if I wasn't there, they couldn't have hit me. It's messed up.

Truck drivers will be the LAST group that will ever get a National Carry Permit, not the first/next. Military bases, Canada, NYC, along with some states, and other things. How in the world would you deal with those?
There's probably a 1000 trucks a day that get broken into, or stolen. Even if they wanted to do this, I see it having insurmountable issues, and our government for sure isn't going to make it happen.

**estimation made in my head and pulled out of the clear blue sky, meaning "a lot".
 
Last edited:

just James

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
28
Location
Southern Oregon
I'll second that

Yes to both. How successfully is up for debate. Mandatory 30 minute break after 8 hours work. Trucking might be the only industry (one of few) where people cheat on their time so they can work LONGER. Paid by mile mostly. Electronic logs solves much of this, but small companies and one truck guys mostly don't have that. I ran THREE log books for years.

No break less than 30 minutes count, so if I take four 15 minute breaks before 8 hours, none of that counts and then I have to sit for 30 minutes twiddling my thumbs unless I can piggyback it on top of getting unloaded or loaded. That is supposed to be on duty time, but it took me 5 minutes to load and a 30 minute break instead of 35 minutes to load.

It is a one regulation fits all that is trying to fit 56,789 (est.) different scenarios, and doesn't work well for any of them.

I don't use drugs, never have. Don't smoke, don't drink alcohol. You can find anything you want on the back row. Drivers get drug tests for pre-employment, random and post accident. If I get rear ended at a stop light, I get drug tested. If my log book says I can't be there, it just became my fault since if I wasn't there, they couldn't have hit me. It's messed up.

Truck drivers will be the LAST group that will ever get a National Carry Permit, not the first/next. Military bases, Canada, NYC, along with some states, and other things. How in the world would you deal with those?
There's probably a 1000 trucks a day that get broken into, or stolen. Even if they wanted to do this, I see it having insurmountable issues, and our government for sure isn't going to make it happen.

**estimation made in my head and pulled out of the clear blue sky, meaning "a lot".
I also drive a commercial truck for a living, and do not ever use any drugs, or even alcohol. Never have. I believe that any driver who tests positive for any illegal drugs should receive a minimum of 10 years suspension of commercial driving privileges. Having said all of that, I would love to see nation wide right to carry for truckers (and everyone else, for that matter).
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Horrible that more people could carry across the country.
On the one hand, we might think that if we could add one group at a time, we'd eventually get everyone able to legally carry. It could be sen as a form of incrementalism; and incrementalism generally works well.

But reality seems to be that as a few special groups get added the pressure is reduced to add anyone else.

How long since retired and off duty cops got their nationwide carry? We haven't seen that translate into nationwide carry for other groups yet.

Sure, truckers should be able to carry nationwide. But so should everyone else. And at the end of the day, a big rig offers certain protections not afforded the single mom driving cross country in her mini-van.

Congress should exercise its constitutional power under the 14th amendment to protect all citizens' 2nd amendment rights to KBA nationwide. Our RKBA should be protected against local infringements every bit as vigorously as are our voting rights, our rights to counsel, and our 1st amendment rights.

Charles
 

Wstar425

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
560
Location
Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
On the one hand, we might think that if we could add one group at a time, we'd eventually get everyone able to legally carry. It could be sen as a form of incrementalism; and incrementalism generally works well.

But reality seems to be that as a few special groups get added the pressure is reduced to add anyone else.

How long since retired and off duty cops got their nationwide carry? We haven't seen that translate into nationwide carry for other groups yet.

Sure, truckers should be able to carry nationwide. But so should everyone else. And at the end of the day, a big rig offers certain protections not afforded the single mom driving cross country in her mini-van.

Congress should exercise its constitutional power under the 14th amendment to protect all citizens' 2nd amendment rights to KBA nationwide. Our RKBA should be protected against local infringements every bit as vigorously as are our voting rights, our rights to counsel, and our 1st amendment rights.

Charles

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but what kinds of protection does an aluminum or fiberglass sleeper offer me over Mom's mini van?

I never felt all that protected when I was contemplating sleeping 17 blocks from downtown Oakland, so I could be there for an 8 am delivery appt. I suppose I could blow my air horn?

Don't know the number, but a good portion of today's OTR truck drivers are not even US citizens, and quite a few more than are allowed (0) don't have a basic grasp of English. They punch the address on the BOL into their GPS and start driving. If it got clicked over onto walking directions, they just drove over the pedestrian bridge.......

I always figured when the Mexican gang wanted my truck I would hand them the keys and ask nicely if I could grab my duffle bag.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but what kinds of protection does an aluminum or fiberglass sleeper offer me over Mom's mini van?
For sleeping, almost none. Being a few feet higher off the ground offers some minimal advantage over looking up into the face of whomever is looking in the windows of the mini-van. Of course, if we are talking about sleeping, there are any number of motels where one isn't going to feel very safe.

I was thinking mostly of the protection while driving. I don't suspect very many are stupid enough to engage in road rage against an OTR truck, and those who are so stupid are probably good Darwin candidates.

But it continues to annoy me that when it comes to supposed "rights" not explicitly contained in the Constitution, the federal courts act with such directness to see that no State steps out of line, even as rulings on black letter, explicit rights are narrow, and infringements are allowed to continue. Despite nothing in the constitution about having to tell people their rights, heaven help us if a cop doesn't tell a murderer to shut up and ask for an attorney before asking him any questions. 1000 years of English/American jurisprudence on family law and marriage is completely up-ended in a single ruling. An entire nation is forced to tolerate elective abortion on demand based on an un-ripe case out of one State. But despite the black letter language of the 2nd amendment and the guarantees of the 14th amendment, simply having a usable gun with me as I drive into NJ, NYC, Illinois, and other such cesspits will get a felony conviction with its prison sentence and lifetime loss of rights.

And then its bad enough to have the dishonest power mongers on the left fighting against my rights. We've got how many gun owners who think that some kind of universal, nationwide carry enforced at the federal level would be a bad idea? As I've posted here, special benefits for select groups is probably a bad idea. But to protect all of ours RKBA, nationwide, is exactly what congress should do under the 2nd and 14th.


Charles
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
--snipped-- We've got how many gun owners who think that some kind of universal, nationwide carry enforced at the federal level would be a bad idea? As I've posted here, special benefits for select groups is probably a bad idea. But to protect all of ours RKBA, nationwide, is exactly what congress should do under the 2nd and 14th.


Charles
What the government gives, the government can take way. I'm not so much in a hurry - though national legal, loaded OC would be a tasty morsel indeed.

For CC, I prefer the system of reciprocity as is working for driving licenses.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,338
Location
Nevada
I also drive a commercial truck for a living, and do not ever use any drugs, or even alcohol. Never have. I believe that any driver who tests positive for any illegal drugs should receive a minimum of 10 years suspension of commercial driving privileges. Having said all of that, I would love to see nation wide right to carry for truckers (and everyone else, for that matter).
That's an easy thing for a teetotaler to say, except that many "illegal drugs" shouldn't be illegal to use when not working. Banning marijuana in your system makes as much moral sense as banning alcohol or tobacco, except that it's illegal because its harder to tax.

10-year suspension, for a 20-30-year career? Why don't you just come out and say it should be a lifetime ban?
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
What the government gives, the government can take way. I'm not so much in a hurry - though national legal, loaded OC would be a tasty morsel indeed.

For CC, I prefer the system of reciprocity as is working for driving licenses.
I keep hearing this concern about "what the government gives, the government can take away" and yet I've yet to have anyone tell me what constitutional or civil rights the federal government has moved to protect that has later resulted in the loss of such rights. Besides which, what makes a right protected by SCOTUS ruling any better than a right protected by congressional action per the 14th amendment?

Has the court prohibition on inter-racial marriage bans resulted in anyone losing his ability to get married? In theory we could reverse Roe at some point, but after 40 years, if the ruling were reversed tomorrow, would we end up with more or fewer State where elective abortion is legal than we had pre-Roe? How about federal anti-discrimination laws? Or federal civil rights laws? Which of these have resulted in the federal government first giving something and then taking away more than was there before?

More importantly, on what basis do you think that lack of a nationwide respect for RKBA acts as any kind of a bulwark against gun grabbers in congress taking everything they want anyway? We didn't have any kind of national carry/possession protection when we got the '94 gun ban.

I don't much care whether congress acts to protect OC nationally, or CC. They could chose to require States to recognize all permits. There are a lot of ways congress could act to extend some semblance of protection to RKBA that would not be harmful. Some might offend those who think that shouting "P4P" amounts to intelligent and informed political discussion. But for the thoughtful and sane what is the offense so long as congress didn't presume to make permits more difficult to get?

Or, depending on the outcome of the election, congress could act to ban entire classes of guns, outlaw possession in most public places just by extending the 1000' federal GFSZ to something like the 5,000 feet for which a bullet is credibly dangerous, and odds are that the courts would not overturn them. That they've never protected RKBA nationwide in any form would have zero effect on congress' ability to act if the gun grabbers get the votes in November.

As for voluntary recognition "working", that clearly isn't so when a half dozen States will readily impose felony level penalties for the crime of being on the wrong side of a line on a map with a gun on your hip.

What is the point of a federal constitution with specific protections for our rights, and specific power for congress to secure those rights against State and local infringement, if we are too scared of some boogeyman that nobody can point to materializing in the past to make use of such provisions?

Where is the objective evidence that congress exercising duly delegated 14th amendment powers would create any more risk to the 2nd amendment than exists today and will exist tomorrow and henceforth for so long as evil men desire to enslave others?

Charles
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
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.

To read the signs w/o bias, it is necessary to not impose what one desires as the criteria - there are always others that want the opposite. Example the libs/antis were given the assault weapon ban, then had it taken away. Conservatives/pro gun people were allowed to buy new full auto guns, then had that taken away. There are volumes of similar, some minor, some major. 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.

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.

"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.

Accept no pretty Trojan Horses within the walls.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,824
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 
Top