Key Takeaways
- Six gun rights organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up Johnson v. Jacobson.
- The case addresses Minnesota’s refusal to honor concealed carry permits from other states, impacting those like trucker Jeffrey Johnson.
- SAF argues historical traditions support more leeway for travelers than residents regarding concealed carry rights.
- The brief argues that costly and lengthy permit processes violate citizens’ rights to carry across state lines.
- The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case, but the implications could be significant.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
WASHINGTON, DC — Six gun rights organizations led by the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on September 15, 2026, urging the justices to take up Johnson v. Jacobson and hold that Minnesota must honor concealed carry permits issued by other states. An amicus brief is a filing from an outside party that is not a litigant, giving the Court arguments and evidence the parties themselves may not present. SAF was joined by the National Rifle Association of America, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos T. Moros is counsel of record.
Last week I covered Jeffrey Johnson’s petition, the long-haul trucker with Florida and Georgia carry permits who has to unload and lock up his handgun every time his route crosses into Minnesota, and who asked the Court to strike down that scheme after the Eighth Circuit sided with the state. The case is now docketed as No. 26-255, and this brief puts six organizations on the record behind him.
The reciprocity piece is simple. Some states sign formal agreements to honor each other’s permits. Others honor out-of-state permits on their own, with no agreement at all. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show which states do what. Minnesota does neither for Johnson’s permits. According to SAF, the only way he can legally carry there is to obtain a separate Minnesota permit, and my Minnesota concealed carry page lays out what that state demands of anyone who wants one.
The brief makes three arguments, and the first is the one that matters most under Bruen. From the colonial era through the 19th century, according to SAF, states and localities routinely passed “traveler’s exception” laws that exempted visitors from the concealed carry restrictions that applied to locals. That inverts the usual posture in these cases. Bruen requires a state defending a carry restriction to show the rule fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The amici say the tradition here ran the opposite direction: travelers got more leeway than residents, not less. On that basis they argue the Court should summarily reverse the Eighth Circuit, meaning reverse it without full briefing and oral argument.
“The right to carry does not stop at state lines,” Moros said in SAF’s announcement. “A truck driver who already holds permits from Florida and Georgia should not have to fly to Minnesota, appear in person at a sheriff’s office, pay another set of fees and complete another training course just to exercise the same constitutional right he already has. Our historical tradition offered travelers more leeway than residents when it came to the right to carry. Minnesota’s scheme turns that tradition on its head.”
The second argument puts numbers on the burden. Per SAF, California nonresident permits can cost $500 to $2,000 and take months or years to obtain. Some states still refuse nonresident applications outright. One couple documented more than $12,800 in fees to assemble permits covering 46 states and the District of Columbia. That figure is the whole problem in one receipt. A right that costs five figures and a stack of applications to exercise across the country is being treated like a privilege each state hands out at its own discretion.
More from USA Carry:
The third argument goes to who these permit holders actually are. SAF points to Florida, which has revoked only 0.36% of the more than 6.6 million permits it has issued since 1987. Johnson himself cleared the background and competency requirements of two states. Minnesota’s position is that his fitness to carry has to be re-proven at its border anyway.
“Americans should not need a stack of state licenses and thousands of dollars to exercise a constitutional right just because they cross an imaginary line,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Supreme Court should grant this petition and make clear that shall-issue permitting, even if a state may require it of its own residents, does not authorize a state to ignore the permits of every other state.”
To be clear, the Court has not decided whether to hear the case, and an amicus brief is persuasion, not a ruling. Minnesota will get its chance to defend the Eighth Circuit’s decision.
I will continue tracking Johnson v. Jacobson as the Court decides whether to take the case.
Read the full article here
