The Supreme Court has shown an increasing willingness to take up Second Amendment cases over the last couple of terms, but there are still some major aspects of our right to keep and bear arms that the justices have left untouched. One of them is our ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights outside of the state where we live.
Last term, SCOTUS denied cert to a pair of cases that dealt with that issue. As my colleague Tom Knighton noted earlier today, the Court will have another opportunity to take up reciprocity this fall in a case out of Minnesota. Johnson v. Jacobson features an over-the-road truck driver as the main plaintiff. Jeffrey Johnson has concealed carry licenses issued by Georgia and Florida, but since Minnesota does not recognize permits issued by either state, unless he obtains a Minnesota permit or Minnesota adds Georgia and Florida to its reciprocity list he cannot exercise his Second Amendment rights in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.
Right now Johnson is scheduled for discussion in the first conference of the fall term, and Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros says that's not a great sign.
Urgent note to those who prepare amicus brief in 2A cases:
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 9, 2026
The cert petition for Johnson v. Jacobson (the carry reciprocity case out of the 8th Circuit) has been scheduled for the long conference of September 28.
That means that even though amicus briefs in support of the…
Urgent note to those who prepare amicus brief in 2A cases:
The cert petition for Johnson v. Jacobson (the carry reciprocity case out of the 8th Circuit) has been scheduled for the long conference of September 28. That means that even though amicus briefs in support of the petition are not due until that same day, if you actually want the Court or its clerks to notice the brief, you better get it submitted early, preferably in the next week or so.
The long conference is, in all likelihood, a death sentence for a petition like this. But we are going to try anyway in hopes it spurs a judge to at least request a response from Minnesota, which would reopen the opportunity for more amicus briefs to be submitted.
I see reciprocity as the next AWBs in terms of importance. No matter how long it takes, we have to keep banging on the Court's door on this issue, just as we did with hardware cases. You can "call your representatives," reciprocity is not happening legislatively due to the Senate filibuster, unless someone can break Everytown's deathgrip on Democrats. Any House vote would be nice, but ultimately only a moral victory.
The historical tradition case for reciprocity is strong, if the Court ever agrees to hear it. We have to keep pushing them to do so. SAF has no shortage of amicus briefs, I've written 20 in the last thirteen months or so, and we've joined several others. But the more the merrier.
New York City tried the same tactic with the challenge to its ban on stun guns, but as we reported on Tuesday, at least one justice has requested a reply from the Big Apple's attorneys, so that will push consideration of the Calce case past the September 28 long conference.
Will the same happen with Johnson? All it takes is for one justice to decide they want to hear what Minnesota has to say about the cert petition, and I would hope that among the six justices who struck down "may issue" permits in Bruen there's at least one who sees the problem with requiring folks to obtain a non-resident permit before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights in certain states.
At the very least, we're talking about thousands of dollars in extra expenses to apply for all of the permits necessary to carry in every state, but we also have to factor in the time it takes to obtain the training for various permits. Some states, like Massachusetts, even require an in-person visit before a non-resident license is issued, which adds even more time and money to the process.
No other right is treated this way. We don't give up our freedom of speech when we cross state lines. Police in the states we're visiting aren't allowed to violate our Fourth Amendment rights just because we're not residents. Why, then, should our Second Amendment rights become null and void just because politicians in states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Hawaii say so?
I wish we had the votes in Congress to adopt a national right to carry reciprocity law, but that's not a viable option at the moment. SCOTUS is the best vehicle to extend the right to carry to all 50 states, or at least it will be if there are four justices willing to wade into the issue.
