Tale Lites Issue 52

Book Parking | List your Property 

Take this Location Survey and get another $25 off truck parking!

🚨 Truck Driver Keeps Second Amendment Fight Alive

This story caught my eye because this has always been a topic of conversation amongst drivers, especially on Tiktok. One trucker is moving forward with a constitutional challenge that could reshape how states treat concealed carry permits issued elsewhere.

For truckers who lawfully carry firearms, crossing state lines starts to blur the lines of legality. Concealed carry reciprocity laws vary widely: some states recognize out of state permits, others do not. A driver can be fully legal in one state and face serious criminal charges after crossing a border.

Congress has attempted, unsuccessfully, to establish nationwide concealed carry reciprocity several times over the past decade. After those efforts stalled, two interstate truck drivers took the issue to federal court.

The Lawsuit

In January 2025, truck drivers David McCoy II and Jeffrey Johnson Sr. filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Minnesota, arguing that its concealed carry reciprocity law violates the Second Amendment.

McCoy holds a Texas concealed carry permit while Johnson holds permits from Florida and Georgia. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Minnesota did not recognize any of those permits, forcing the drivers to lock up their firearms before entering the state or risk criminal prosecution.

The lawsuit argued that Minnesota’s refusal to honor lawfully issued permits from other states placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to bear arms.

Case Narrowed, Then Dismissed

In April 2025, Minnesota began recognizing Texas concealed carry permits. As a result, McCoy voluntarily dismissed his claim.

In September, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim dismissed the remaining case, ruling that Minnesota’s law does not violate the Second Amendment. The decision relied heavily on the fact that Minnesota operates under a shall issue permitting system, unlike New York’s former may issue system, which the Supreme Court struck down for granting excessive discretion.

The Appeal

Johnson is now asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to revive the case. His appeal challenges the district court’s ruling on three main grounds.

1. Historical Tradition Argument

Because the plain text of the Second Amendment covers Johnson’s conduct, he argues Minnesota must show that its reciprocity law is consistent with historical firearm regulations.

Minnesota defended its law by citing historical surety laws, which required individuals deemed dangerous to post a bond before carrying firearms. Johnson argues that comparison fails.

Surety laws applied only after individualized findings of danger and presumed a general right to carry. Minnesota’s reciprocity law, by contrast, applies broadly and presumes that permit holders from unrecognized states have no right to carry at all.

Because of that mismatch, Johnson argues Minnesota failed to meet its historical burden and the issue must be reconsidered.

2. Proof of Endangerment Argument

Johnson also argues that Minnesota can’t restrict Second Amendment rights without demonstrating a public safety risk.

He contends that the state effectively labels all unrecognized permit holders as “dangerous” without evidence. Every state Minnesota refuses to recognize requires background checks, and most require firearms training or education.

The appeal cites federal precedent warning against blanket, status based assumptions of dangerousness. In United States v. Veasley and later United States v. Cooper, courts emphasized that sweeping firearm prohibitions based solely on status can raise constitutional problems and may require individualized assessments.

As Johnson’s brief puts it: “if disarming all drug users simply because of who they are can violate the Second Amendment, then disarming all unrecognized permit holders raises the same concern.”

3. Arbitrary and Vague Law Argument

Finally, Johnson argues Minnesota’s reciprocity law is unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary.

Minnesota recognizes concealed carry permits from states with “similar” laws, but has never clearly defined what “similar” means. During court proceedings, the state offered no concrete standards beyond repeating the statute itself.

Johnson points to Texas as evidence of inconsistency. When the lawsuit was filed, Minnesota did not recognize Texas permits. Now it does, despite no changes to Texas law, including its lack of mandatory training requirements.

Johnson argues this shifting recognition proves Minnesota’s discretion is unchecked, echoing the Supreme Court’s concerns when it struck down New York’s discretionary permitting scheme.

What’s Next?

Appellate decisions can take a year or longer. If the Eighth Circuit revives the case, it could be some good news for drivers, and for the broader debate over concealed carry reciprocity nationwide.

Personally, this shouldn’t even have to happen. Truckers are in one of the Top 10 most dangerous jobs. Cargo theft is some of the worst it has been, and it took the murder of Jason Rivenburg for safe truck parking to reach the ears of Congress. Truckers have every right to defend themselves if they have a legally registered firearm.

What are your thoughts? For Driver Submissions, questions, and comments contact me at: [email protected] or Text me directly at 423-275-2444

Tale Lites Throwback

Check out this “How To” Paper Log from Tale Lites in 1966

DOT’s Latest Enforcement Targets North Carolina

The day after after pulling $160 million in federal funding from California, the U.S. Department of Transportation has turned its attention to North Carolina

The DOT is threatening to withhold nearly $50 million in federal funds unless the state addresses what federal officials describe as “serious failures” in how it issued non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses.

According to the DOT, a federal review found that 54% of North Carolina’s non-domiciled CDLs examined were issued illegally.

Federal Ultimatum

The FMCSA has formally warned North Carolina that it must revoke all illegally issued non-domiciled CDLs or risk losing the funding.

In a letter sent to Gov. Josh Stein, FMCSA outlined the steps required to avoid the funding penalty:

• Immediately halt issuance of non-domiciled CDLs

• Identify all unexpired non-domiciled CDLs that do not comply with federal regulations

• Revoke and re-issue non-compliant licenses only if they meet federal requirements

• Conduct a comprehensive internal audit to uncover procedural failures, programming errors, training gaps, quality-assurance breakdowns, and policy deficiencies

California Set the Precedent

The warning to North Carolina follows a major enforcement action announced Jan. 7, when the DOT revoked roughly $160 million in federal funding from California for failing to rescind approximately 17,000 unlawfully issued CDLs.

Duffy accused California leadership of prioritizing immigration policy over highway safety, adding that the administration would not allow federal transportation dollars to support states that ignore CDL enforcement standards.

Going Forward

With California already penalized and North Carolina next in line, the DOT appears poised to escalate enforcement nationwide. Critics call these measures “unprecedented,” but the truth is the Federal Government has done similar witholdings like this before. A little known fact is there is no federal law for the drinking age, it’s 21 because every state passed that law. Every state was coerced to raise their drinking age to 21, or forfeit Federal funds for highways/transportation. This may the first time this level of enforcement has been levied since then!

📩 What are your thoughts?
Reply to this email or text (423) 275-2444 

🩺 Health Tip of the Week: Should I Fear Carbohydrates

With a new year upon us, this is a time of year where motivation is high, and people are ready to make some lifestyle changes, but as I talked about these last few weeks, the power of building small habits is our best way to succeed for a healthy lifestyle. One of the things people will try to do is an extreme/fad diet for weight loss, one of them being to “cut carbs.” Here I’ll breakdown what carbohydrates are and how it’s not the carbs that are the enemy, it’s simply the calories that come with them:

Carbohydrates are one of the body’s primary sources of energy. They’re found in foods like fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, and even sweets, and they break down into glucose, which fuels your brain, muscles, and nervous system,especially during physical activity.

Carbs themselves aren’t bad for you. In fact, they’re essential for performance, recovery, and overall health. Problems arise not from carbohydrates, but from excess calories and highly processed carb sources that are easy to overeat. Whole food carbs like potatoes, rice, oats, fruit, and vegetables also come packaged with fiber, vitamins, and minerals that support digestion and metabolic health.

What matters most is total calorie intake and food quality, not the presence of carbs. You can gain fat eating too many calories from any source—carbs, fats, or protein. Being mindful of portion sizes, choosing less processed carb sources, and matching carb intake to activity level is what keeps carbohydrates working for you, not against you.

Be weary of predatory marketing. Things like Nature Valley and Clif Bars “look healthy” but read the nutrition label. Yes they have a lot of carbohydrates(40+ grams), but it’s the calorie number that is what will lead to weight gain. Switch it out for the protein bar, you’ll see it still has carbs, likely 20-25g, but far less calories, and has protein.

Partner Post of the Week

Trucker Todd breaks down his thoughts on Truck Parking Club! Use the promo code truckertodd for $20 off your next booking!

Truck Parking Club Partner Program

Do you create content for truckers, want to help solve the truck parking crisis, and an opportunity to give drivers FREE parking? Let’s work together! Click below to apply for Truck Parking Club’s Partner Program today!