SAF Urges Supreme Court to Force States to Honor Out-of-State Carry Permits

What Happened

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step into Johnson v. Jacobson, a case challenging Minnesota’s refusal to honor concealed-carry permits issued by other states. The Court has not yet decided whether it will take the case, but SAF’s amicus brief argues that the Second Amendment’s right to carry arms in public for self-defense is national in scope and cannot be made to depend on a costly, state-by-state licensing gauntlet.

Background

The case originated when Johnson, a long-haul truck driver licensed to carry in Florida and Georgia, found he could not legally carry in Minnesota without obtaining a separate Minnesota permit. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Minnesota’s requirement. SAF’s brief documents a historical tradition—from the colonial era through the 19th century—where “traveler’s exception” laws routinely exempted visitors from concealed-carry restrictions that applied to locals. The brief argues that this history demands summary reversal of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in favor of recognizing out-of-state permits.

What the Ruling Means for Gun Owners

If the Supreme Court grants the petition and rules in line with SAF’s arguments, it would mean that states would be required to recognize valid carry permits issued by other states, much like they recognize driver’s licenses. For everyday gun owners, this would eliminate the need to carry a stack of state licenses or pay thousands of dollars in fees simply to cross state lines. The brief points out that licensed carriers are overwhelmingly law-abiding—for example, Florida has revoked only 0.36% of more than 6.6 million permits issued since 1987—suggesting that recognizing out-of-state permits would not compromise public safety.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court will decide in its next conference whether to grant certiorari (hear the case). If the Court takes the case, oral arguments would be scheduled, and a ruling could come by the following term. Gun owners should watch for the Court’s order list, as a grant of certiorari in this case could have immediate implications for reciprocity agreements and state-by-state permitting burdens.

The Bigger Picture

This case fits into the broader landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence following District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Those decisions established that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, but they left questions about state licensing and reciprocity largely open. Johnson v. Jacobson could be the next step in clarifying whether that right is truly national or remains a patchwork of state-by-state permissions.