Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to settle a familiar headache for traveling gun owners: A carry permit can be valid on one side of a state line and worthless on the other.
SAF filed an amicus brief in Johnson v. Jacobson on Tuesday. The organization wants the justices to hear the case and rule that states must recognize carry permits issued elsewhere.
The case involves Jeffrey M. Johnson Sr., a Georgia resident and long-haul truck driver. Johnson holds carry permits from Georgia and Florida. Minnesota does not recognize either one, however, so he must obtain a separate Minnesota permit before carrying there.
Minnesota does issue permits to nonresidents. The problem, according to Johnson and SAF, is the additional time, travel, training and expense required to secure another license.
The Eighth Circuit upheld Minnesota’s system in May. The court reasoned that Minnesota’s reciprocity law does not restrict carrying by itself. Instead, it simply excuses people with certain recognized permits from completing Minnesota’s application process.
Because Johnson conceded that Minnesota may generally require a shall-issue permit, the court found that the state could require him to get one.
SEE ALSO: Which Glock Slimline Should You Carry in 2026?
SAF sees the issue differently. Its brief argues that the constitutional right to carry for self-defense does not end when someone crosses a state line. SAF also points to historical “traveler’s exceptions,” which sometimes gave visitors more freedom from concealed-carry restrictions than local residents.
“The right to carry does not stop at state lines,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros.
The brief also highlights the cost of navigating America’s current permit patchwork. According to SAF, one couple spent more than $12,800 assembling permits that covered 46 states and Washington, D.C. The group says some states do not offer nonresident permits at all, while California permits can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
SAF was joined by the National Rifle Association, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The Supreme Court docketed Johnson’s petition on Aug. 27. The justices have not yet agreed to hear the case.
If they do, the dispute could answer a question the public’s wrestled with for years: Should a constitutionally protected right require a wallet full of permits before it can cross state lines?
The answer is obvious to me. Heck no!
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
i would like to point out that the people in the vid are from wash st and they have (ahem) some unique ways of looking at things……..they will swerve and run over several people just to avoid hitting a squirrel with their car.
again the government needs to look at cases where a gun owner is charged for a violation and if needed supply a funded lawyer to protect the gun owners rights,