Supreme Court Considers Concealed Carry Reciprocity Fight

A long-haul truck driver is asking the Supreme Court whether Minnesota can deny his right to carry because the state refuses to recognize his valid Georgia and Florida permits.

---

The Johnson v. Jacobson petition asks the Supreme Court whether Minnesota can refuse to recognize Jeffrey Johnson’s valid Florida and Georgia carry licenses. Composite image by AmmoLand News using an original AI-generated illustration and the public court filing in Johnson v. Jacobson.

A long-haul truck driver is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Minnesota can shut off his right to bear arms the moment his rig crosses the state line—even though he holds valid carry permits from two other states.

The case, Johnson v. Jacobson, Supreme Court No. 26-255, goes directly at the nationwide patchwork of carry-permit reciprocity laws that forces armed citizens to navigate changing rules, buy multiple permits, or surrender access to a defensive handgun while traveling.

Jeffrey M. Johnson Sr. filed his petition for a writ of certiorari on August 24, 2026, asking the justices to review an Eighth Circuit decision upholding Minnesota’s selective recognition of out-of-state carry permits.

The case presents a simple constitutional question with enormous consequences: Does the right to bear arms belong to the American citizen, or does it exist only within the borders of whichever state issued his permit?

Two Permits, but Minnesota Demands Another

Johnson is a Georgia resident who drives commercially throughout the country. He holds valid firearm licenses from Georgia and Florida and regularly carries a handgun because of the dangers long-haul truckers can face while transporting cargo and living out of their rigs.

According to the petition, Johnson makes several trips to or through Minnesota each year. His routes change constantly, and he may not know that his next load will take him into Minnesota until he completes the previous delivery.

Minnesota does not recognize his Georgia or Florida permits.

Unless Johnson obtains a separate Minnesota permit, state law requires him to unload his handgun and secure it in a closed container when he enters Minnesota. A defensive firearm locked away and unloaded is hardly ready when a criminal decides to attack.

Johnson is not prohibited from possessing firearms. The petition describes him as an undisputed law-abiding citizen with no history of violent behavior and no disqualification that would prevent him from receiving a Minnesota permit. Minnesota still requires him to submit to another licensing process.

A nonresident may apply for a Minnesota permit, but the application must be submitted in person to a county sheriff. The fee can reach $100, and the sheriff generally has up to 30 days to issue or deny the permit. The permit is then sent to the applicant’s home address.

That is not a minor inconvenience for a long-haul driver who spends much of his life on the road. More importantly, constitutional rights are not supposed to depend on how many fees a citizen has paid or how many plastic permission cards he can fit in his wallet.

Eighth Circuit Calls Reciprocity a “Convenience”

Johnson originally challenged Minnesota’s law in federal district court. The district judge agreed that his proposed conduct, carrying a handgun publicly for self-defense, fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment.

The court nevertheless upheld Minnesota’s law at the second stage of the Bruen analysis, accepting historical surety laws as a sufficient analogue for the state’s licensing and reciprocity system. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in May, but it took a different route.

The appeals court held that Minnesota’s reciprocity statute, considered separately from the state’s general permit requirement, does not regulate conduct protected by the Second Amendment. In the panel’s view, the reciprocity statute merely exempts some visitors from obtaining Minnesota permits.

Because Johnson had conceded for purposes of the case that Minnesota’s shall-issue permitting system is constitutional, the court concluded that Minnesota could require every nonresident to obtain a Minnesota permit. Recognizing another state’s permit was merely a “convenience” based on interstate comity.

The court even compared firearm permits to professional licenses, observing that states generally do not have to recognize professional credentials issued elsewhere. That comparison misses the target completely.

Working in a state-regulated profession is not an enumerated constitutional right. Carrying a firearm for self-defense is. The Second Amendment does not say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless a citizen crosses into a state that dislikes the standards used by his home state.

A Right Cannot Become an Exemption

The petition argues that Minnesota’s reciprocity statute does affect protected conduct because it independently determines whether Johnson may carry his handgun.

Before entering Minnesota, Johnson can carry. After crossing the border, he must unload and secure the handgun. When he leaves Minnesota, he can resume carrying it.

Calling reciprocity an exemption does not change what the law does to the person standing on the receiving end of it.

The Eighth Circuit’s reasoning allows a state to define the constitutional right out of the case. First, the state prohibits public carry without its permission. Then it calls recognition of another state’s permit a discretionary benefit. Finally, it argues that withholding that benefit does not burden the right because the traveler can always apply, pay, wait, and obtain another permit.

Under that logic, states could turn the Second Amendment into what the petition calls a “state-line lottery.”

The petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which declared that the Second Amendment has the “same meaning in all parts” of the country. AmmoLand has previously examined how Wolford may support national carry reciprocity and why states cannot use administrative workarounds to reduce carry rights to government permission.

Johnson is asking the Court to apply that national constitutional standard to the moment an armed citizen crosses a state boundary.

Minnesota’s Surety-Law Argument Falls Apart

The petition also challenges the district court’s reliance on historical surety laws.

Those laws did not presume that every traveler was dangerous. They generally required an accusation that a particular person posed a threat, a hearing before a judicial officer, and a finding of cause before requiring that individual to post a bond. Even then, the person was not necessarily prohibited from carrying.

Minnesota’s law works in the opposite direction. It strips ready access to a firearm from an entire class of licensed, law-abiding travelers without any accusation, hearing, or individualized finding of dangerousness.

Johnson has already passed the requirements imposed by Georgia and Florida. Minnesota is not responding to anything he has done. It is rejecting the permits he holds because state officials do not consider the issuing states’ licensing laws sufficiently “similar” to Minnesota’s standards.

That is the government presuming danger from paperwork, not from the citizen’s conduct.

A Narrow Case With Nationwide Consequences

This petition does not ask the Supreme Court to establish nationwide constitutional carry or abolish state permit requirements. Johnson conceded Minnesota’s shall-issue system during the litigation and instead argues that a state operating a permit system must recognize valid licenses issued by every other state.

However, this case shows exactly why Congress should pass national Constitutional Carry. Gun owners should not have to wait years for the courts to dismantle the state-by-state permit trap one lawsuit at a time. Passing legislation before the midterm elections would protect lawful travelers now and give voters a clear record of which candidates will defend the Second Amendment when it counts.

Second Amendment absolutists should be clear: The right to bear arms should not require any government license. The constitutional command is “shall not be infringed,” not “shall issue after payment, training, paperwork, and approval.”

Still, Johnson v. Jacobson gives the Court a clean opportunity to stop states from forcing lawful travelers to assemble a collection of carry permits to exercise one constitutional right.

Minnesota may prefer its own licensing rules, but constitutional rights are not local favors handed out by state officials. A law-abiding American does not lose the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, or right to due process when crossing from one state into another. The Second Amendment deserves no less.

The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case. The justices must first decide whether to grant the petition. But the question is now squarely before them: Can a state make a citizen’s right to armed self-defense disappear at the border simply because his permit came from somewhere else?

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not cover