by Robert Kalebra, ©2025
(Jan. 26, 2025) — The recent lawsuit filed by truck drivers to assert their Second Amendment rights, as discussed in The Federalist, has brought attention to the critical issue of whether Americans can be prosecuted for carrying firearms for self-defense while crossing state lines.
This legal battle, highlighting the rights of over-the-road Americans, underscores a fundamental constitutional question: Should individuals lose their right to carry firearms simply because they travel across state borders? The merit of this claim is not only rooted in constitutional law but also speaks to the broader issue of the states’ duty to support and defend the rights enshrined in both their own constitutions and the U.S. Constitution.
The argument for this right is clear when examined through the lens of constitutional principles, historical precedent, and judicial rulings. It is evident that Americans, including those traveling interstate, should not be prosecuted for carrying firearms within reach for self-defense.
The legal frameworks supporting this argument include the Second and Ninth Amendments, key Supreme Court decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), and Nordyke v. King (2009), as well as historical cases such as The Passenger Cases (1849) and The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873). Furthermore, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) and the Tenth Amendment reinforce the federal government’s authority and prohibit states from infringing upon constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment and the Right to Self-Defense
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The term “infringed” in the Second Amendment plays a critical role in defining the scope and protection of the right to keep and bear arms. It signifies that the right to bear arms is fundamental and should not be violated or excessively restricted by the government.
The word “infringed” suggests that this right is absolute in nature, with only limited and reasonable regulations allowed—such as restrictions on firearm possession by convicted felons or the prohibition of certain types of weapons. Courts have interpreted this term to emphasize that laws which substantially interfere with the ability of individuals to own or carry firearms may be unconstitutional.
The broad protection afforded by the word “infringed” ensures that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense, both in the home and in public, and extends to the right to travel with firearms. Ultimately, the term “infringed” reinforces the idea that the government cannot unduly interfere with the constitutional right to bear arms.
At its core, this amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) reinforced that this right extends beyond militia service, affirming that Americans have the right to possess firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This ruling clarified that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms not only in the home but also in public places, including while traveling. This understanding underpins the argument that individuals, whether at home or on the road, should be allowed to carry firearms for protection.
It logically follows that over-the-road Americans should be allowed to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling across state lines, just as they would within their home states. Whether driving across the country or stopping for a break, this right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Bruen and the Historical Tradition of Self-Defense
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the individual right to carry firearms for self-defense, striking down restrictive state laws that limited the ability of citizens to bear arms in public. The Court emphasized that the historical understanding of the Second Amendment allows individuals to carry firearms for self-defense in public places.
Historically, Americans have always traveled with firearms for self-defense, particularly in a nation with vast, unsettled territories. The ability to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling was a widely accepted practice in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In the context of Bruen, this historical tradition must be considered when evaluating modern laws regulating the carrying of firearms while traveling across state lines. As the right to bear arms for self-defense in public is a long-standing tradition, it should extend seamlessly to those traveling across state borders.
The Ninth Amendment and Unenumerated Rights
While the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, the Ninth Amendment reinforces the broader concept that there are unenumerated rights retained by the people. The Ninth Amendment reads:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the people retain rights beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution. The right to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling may be inferred as one of these unenumerated rights. Just as the Second Amendment guarantees the right to self-defense within the home, the broader right to self-defense should extend to carrying firearms while traveling. This right is fundamental and as protected as any other enumerated right, such as the right to free speech or religion.
Interstate Travel and the Right to Move Freely
The Constitution guarantees the right to travel freely between states. The Passenger Cases (1849) affirmed that individuals cannot be subject to arbitrary restrictions when traveling between states. This includes the right to carry personal property—such as firearms—necessary for self-defense. Prohibiting the carrying of firearms across state lines would not only infringe upon the Second Amendment but also violate the broader constitutional right to free movement and personal protection.
Given that the right to travel is constitutionally protected, any state law that restricts the ability of individuals to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling should be examined under strict scrutiny. Citizens should not be subjected to a confusing maze of state laws that limit their ability to protect themselves when moving from one state to another.
The Slaughterhouse Cases and Privileges or Immunities
Although often criticized for its narrow interpretation, the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) illustrate the federal government’s duty to protect citizens’ fundamental rights from state interference.
The Court’s reasoning suggested that states cannot arbitrarily restrict essential rights like self-defense. This principle is crucial for understanding why individuals should not be prevented from carrying firearms while traveling. If the federal government is responsible for upholding fundamental rights, no state law should be allowed to undermine or restrict these rights—especially the right to self-defense.
Article VI, Clause 2 and the Supremacy of Federal Law
Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, establishes that the Constitution and federal laws are the “supreme Law of the Land,” binding on judges in every state. This clause ensures that federal rights, including the right to bear arms, take precedence over state laws. State laws that conflict with federal protections, such as the right to carry firearms for self-defense, are preempted by the Constitution.
Thus, any state law that restricts the right to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling across state lines violates the Supremacy Clause. This clause makes it clear that the states cannot enact laws that undermine or contradict federal constitutional protections.
The Tenth Amendment and the Limits of State Authority
The Tenth Amendment limits the powers of state governments, reserving only those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. The right to carry firearms for self-defense is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, and as such, states do not have the authority to infringe upon it under the Tenth Amendment. States cannot use the Tenth Amendment to justify restricting rights that the federal government guarantees under the Constitution.
Thus, the Tenth Amendment does not grant states the power to undermine the Second Amendment or other constitutional rights. This prohibition ensures that states cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals traveling across state lines.
The Spirit of the Declaration of Independence and Statehood Acts
The spirit of the Declaration of Independence underscores the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration’s emphasis on personal freedom and the inherent right to self-defense is a core principle of American identity. Moreover, the Statehood Acts governing the entry of states into the Union affirm that states are bound by the U.S. Constitution and its protections for individual rights.
The Statehood Acts reflect the understanding that no state, upon joining the Union, can deprive its citizens of their fundamental constitutional rights. These rights include the right to bear arms for self-defense, ensuring that this right is protected regardless of state boundaries.
States’ Duty to Defend the Constitutional Right to Carry
Each state has a duty not only to uphold its own constitution but also to support and defend the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The obligation to protect individual rights is not optional—it is a responsibility that all states bear as part of their role in the Union. States cannot pass laws that undermine or limit the constitutional rights guaranteed to their citizens under federal law. This duty extends to the right of citizens to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling across state lines.
Just as states are bound by the Constitution to respect the rights of citizens within their borders, they must also respect those rights when citizens travel from one state to another. If states are allowed to restrict the right to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling, they would be violating their duty to support the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
Author’s Opinion
The Constitution clearly guarantees the right of Americans to carry firearms for self-defense, and this right extends to individuals traveling across state lines. Based on the Second and Ninth Amendments, judicial precedents like Heller and Bruen, and broader constitutional protections, it is clear that over-the-road Americans should not be prosecuted for carrying firearms within reach for self-defense while crossing state borders.
Moreover, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the Tenth Amendment prevent states from undermining federal constitutional rights. States cannot enact laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment or override the unalienable rights protected by the Declaration of Independence and upheld in the Statehood Acts. States have a duty to support and defend the constitutional rights of their citizens, including the right to carry firearms for self-defense while traveling.
In affirming these rights, we ensure that all Americans, whether at home or on the road, can exercise their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and self-defense, without the arbitrary interference of state laws that attempt to undermine their constitutional freedoms.
It is important to understand the Definition of “infringe” at the time our Constitution was written. Sadly Definitions are steadily being changed in an effort to infringe on Our Rights. In 1820 Websters defined Infringe this way:
Infringe
INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj’. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
This definition originates back to the very first Webster’s dictionary. There is precedence from SCOTUS that fully supports the use of this definition due to when the Constitution was written and when this definition was established. Unfortunately, judges and legislators have either forgotten their place, and therefore do as they wish. Until We the People return to America’s founding principles, infringements most likely will continue to occur. Constitutional fundamentalists are who We the People need to vote into office.
Did not read full article. I read enough to know that the Second Amendment is a Federal issue and that issue is that all laws legislated designed to infringe on the natural right to “keep and bear arms” are unconstitutional.
So too are the laws instituted by any state that further infringes on this natural right to keep and bear arms, because all those states that do so are prohibited by the words of the 10th Amendment.
You and Mr. Burke above are both correct in your assessments. But until Americans come full circle and return to the fundamental founding principles which our Republic was built upon, I fear that the unconstitutional restrictions and deprivations will continued to be implemented to subjugate everyone. And that is the only purpose such infringements serve.