Early American lawmakers who restricted concealed carry frequently made an exception for the people Minnesota burdens today: travelers.
That history is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Jacobson, a challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to recognize valid carry permits issued by Florida and Georgia.
The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief on September 15, urging the justices to hear the case and reverse an Eighth Circuit decision that allowed Minnesota to force nonresidents through its own licensing process.
SAF was joined by the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
“The right to carry does not stop at state lines,” SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros said.
Two Permits Still Are Not Enough for Minnesota
As AmmoLand previously reported, Jeffrey M. Johnson Sr. is a Georgia resident and long-haul truck driver who carries a handgun for self-defense. He holds valid Georgia and Florida carry licenses and regularly drives through Minnesota while hauling freight.
Minnesota recognizes permits from some states, but not Georgia or Florida. Unless Johnson obtains another permit from Minnesota, he cannot lawfully carry his handgun openly or concealed while traveling through the state.
Johnson is not prohibited from possessing firearms. Minnesota does not claim he is dangerous or otherwise ineligible for one of its permits. The state simply demands that he complete another application, provide documentation, pay another fee, and appear personally at a Minnesota sheriff’s office.
The Eighth Circuit treated reciprocity as a convenience rather than part of the right itself. Because Johnson accepted for purposes of the case that Minnesota could constitutionally require a shall-issue permit, the court reasoned that Minnesota could require nonresidents to obtain one as well.
The new amicus brief attacks that conclusion with something the Eighth Circuit largely ignored: America’s extensive history of protecting armed travelers.
As in the Gardner brief, our first section focuses on the historical tradition of the traveler’s exception laws. We think this decides the reciprocity issue definitively. pic.twitter.com/NFmbZhepop
— SAF (@2AFDN) September 15, 2026
Early Carry Restrictions Exempted Travelers
The brief traces traveler exceptions back to a 1686 East Jersey law that restricted privately carrying certain weapons but exempted peaceful strangers traveling through the province.
Similar laws appeared after the Founding.
Kentucky’s 1813 concealed-carry law exempted anyone traveling on a journey. Indiana followed with an 1819 law declaring that its restriction should not apply to travelers. Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama adopted comparable exceptions before the Civil War.
Notably, Kentucky’s law was later struck down in Bliss v. Commonwealth, but not because its traveler exception was too broad. The Kentucky court held that the concealed-carry prohibition itself violated the state constitution’s right to bear arms.
Traveler protections continued after the Civil War. Nevada and California exempted travelers from concealed-carry restrictions during the 1860s. Texas provided a traveler exception to its broader 1871 weapon-carrying law.
Arizona Territory allowed people traveling between towns and settlements to carry firearms despite otherwise broad local restrictions. New Mexico Territory similarly allowed travelers to carry arms for protection while on their journeys and pass through settlements without disarming.
Municipal ordinances in Oakland, Sacramento, and Los Angeles also contained traveler exceptions. The brief points the Court to a separate lawsuit that compiled more than 80 historical examples.
That record matters under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers a person’s conduct, the government—not the gun owner—must demonstrate that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The amici argue that Minnesota cannot satisfy that burden. The historical regulations gave travelers more leeway than residents. Minnesota turns that tradition upside down by disarming travelers unless their permits appear on a list maintained by state officials.
Minnesota’s Law Is More Restrictive Than Its Historical Comparisons
The brief does not hide from a possible limitation in the historical evidence. Some traveler exceptions applied only while someone was actively on a journey, not after the traveler stopped in a town for an extended stay.
That distinction does not help Minnesota with Johnson. Interstate travel is his job. He drives through Minnesota as part of constantly changing commercial routes and may not know his next destination until he finishes his current delivery.
There is another major difference. Americans historically could generally carry openly even where concealed carry was restricted. Minnesota requires a recognized permit for either method. Without one, Johnson’s practical ability to carry a functional defensive handgun disappears entirely.
That same problem recently surfaced in Oregon, where GOA is challenging restrictions that leave many nonresidents unable to carry either openly or concealed.
The traveler exceptions therefore are not merely loose historical comparisons. They imposed a smaller burden on armed self-defense than Minnesota imposes today.
How Much Should Exercising One Right Cost?
The brief also documents what happens when Americans attempt to comply with the interstate permit maze.
It cites one husband and wife who reportedly spent $12,804.63 assembling enough permits to carry in 46 states and Washington, D.C. Even after spending that money and completing the associated applications and training, they still could not carry in Oregon, Colorado, or Hawaii.
California provides another example. Following litigation that ended its complete refusal to issue nonresident permits, applicants can face costs ranging from approximately $500 to $2,000, a 16-hour training requirement, possible psychological testing, and waits that the brief says can stretch as long as two years. The permit is then valid for only two years.
Minnesota’s process is less expensive, but it still requires a nonresident to appear personally at a sheriff’s office. The sheriff conducts the relevant criminal-record and eligibility checks electronically, raising an obvious question: What does appearing at a counter prove that Johnson’s existing permits and another background check cannot?
A right that requires thousands of dollars, repetitive training courses, interstate travel, fingerprinting, renewal deadlines, and a wallet full of government permission slips is no longer being treated as a right.
Permit Holders Are Not the Problem
Minnesota may invoke public safety, but Bruen does not permit courts to balance away the Second Amendment whenever a state claims its restriction is useful.
The numbers also undercut that argument.
According to Florida’s licensing records cited in the brief, the state issued 6,644,160 concealed weapon licenses between October 1987 and August 2026. Only 24,134 were revoked without later being reinstated—a revocation rate of approximately 0.36%.
That figure is not a violent-crime rate. Permits can be revoked for nonviolent disqualifying conduct, meaning the percentage of Florida licensees committing violent crimes would be smaller still.
The brief also recounts the case of Marine veteran and self-defense instructor Lloyd Muldrow. According to the filing, Muldrow stopped an armed attacker inside a Baltimore bar while carrying under a Virginia permit that Maryland refused to recognize. Police thanked him and then arrested him. He later received probation—and the Carnegie Medal for his actions.
That is what the reciprocity patchwork can produce: a man is recognized as a hero for stopping an armed attack and treated as a criminal because his permit came from the wrong state.
One National Right, Not 50 State Favors
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear Johnson’s case. The amicus brief asks the Court to grant the petition and argues that the traveler-exception history supports reversal. At minimum, the organizations want the case returned to the Eighth Circuit with instructions to consider that history properly.
This case does not ask the Court to establish nationwide constitutional carry or abolish every state permit requirement. It presents the narrower question of whether a state operating a licensing system may disregard permits issued by every state it considers insufficiently similar to its own.
Second Amendment absolutists should want the broader result. “Shall not be infringed” does not contain a permit, fee, training, or residency exception.
Still, Johnson v. Jacobson gives the Supreme Court a clean opportunity to end one obvious abuse. Minnesota cannot treat an American as trustworthy on one side of its border and presumptively unqualified the moment his truck crosses the state line.
The right to bear arms belongs to the people. It is not a local privilege that must be repurchased in every state.
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 covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
