The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear Johnson v. Jacobson, a challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to recognize concealed carry permits issued to law-abiding Americans in other states. The Court offered no explanation for denying the petition, leaving intact a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejecting plaintiff Jeffrey Johnson’s Second Amendment challenge to Minnesota’s concealed carry reciprocity law.
The positive is that it wasn’t the Supreme Court ruling that Minnesota’s policy is constitutional. A denial of certiorari doesn’t decide the merits of the case. It does, however, leave law-abiding Americans traveling across state lines facing an ever-changing patchwork of state laws that can turn the exercise of a constitutional right into a legal obstacle course. In other words, lawful concealed carry permit holders are in the same patchwork of laws as they were before when traveling from state-to-state.
A Lawful Citizen, Another Permit
The plaintiff, Jeffrey M. Johnson Sr., is a long-haul truck driver who regularly travels through Minnesota for work. He possesses valid carry permits from Georgia and Florida and is not prohibited from possessing a firearm. Minnesota does not recognize either permit.
Minnesota law allows non-residents to obtain a state permit and recognizes permits from states whose licensing requirements meet Minnesota’s reciprocity standards, but Johnson doesn’t possess a non-resident Minnesota permit due to the burdensome and costly requirements of the state’s shall-issue permit scheme.
The Eighth Circuit reasoned that because Johnson conceded Minnesota’s underlying shall-issue permitting system was constitutional, the state could require him to go through that process. The Court characterized reciprocity as an exemption from that requirement rather than something independently required by the Second Amendment.
Importantly, the Eighth Circuit also recognized limits to its ruling. The Court noted that a different constitutional question could arise if a state both refused to issue permits to nonresidents and refused to recognize permits issued elsewhere. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Johnson’s case leaves that larger interstate question unresolved.
For law-abiding gun owners who lawfully obtain concealed carrier permits, though, the practical problem is already obvious. Americans frequently cross state lines for work, while visiting family and during vacations. Flights are diverted. Highways wind through multiple jurisdictions. Cars break down.
A citizen who has lawfully qualified to carry a firearm at home should not need a law degree and a collection of several different state permits to determine whether crossing an invisible state boundary suddenly places him or her at risk of criminal liability.
That is why NSSF has long supported enactment of The National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced in the U.S. Senate as S. 65 by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) as H.R. 38, to address exactly that problem. The current collection of differing carry laws and state reciprocity agreements creates unnecessary uncertainty for law-abiding citizens who are actively trying to follow the law.
Safe Passage Isn’t the Same as the Right to Carry
Federal law already recognizes that lawful firearm owners need protections when traveling between states. Under 18 U.S.C. § 926A, commonly known as the federal safe-passage provision, a person who may lawfully possess and carry a firearm at the beginning and end destination of a trip may transport it interstate when the firearm is unloaded and not readily accessible.
Fortunately, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives made improvements when it proposed a rule earlier this year to clarify that reasonably necessary travel activities, including overnight lodging, fuel stops, vehicle maintenance, medical treatment and emergencies, can remain within that interstate transportation protection.
That clarification is useful. But it isn’t permanent and could be changed again during a future antigun administration. The other lingering problem is that it doesn’t address lawful concealed carry reciprocity.
Safe passage only protects interstate transportation of an unloaded and inaccessible firearm under specified conditions. It doesn’t allow a lawful concealed carrier to keep a handgun available for self-defense when traveling through a state that refuses to recognize that citizen’s permit.
The distinction is especially clear for someone like Johnson, whose workplace is the cab of a truck moving across state lines. It matters just as much to the parent driving to see family or the traveler whose vehicle breaks down unexpectedly in a jurisdiction with different — and antagonistic — carry laws. No other constitutional right changes or is eliminated altogether when a citizen crosses state lines.
Congress Has the Solution in Front of It
Congress doesn’t need to invent a solution. The solution already exists; it’s the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025 that is pending in Congress. In fact, in the House, H.R. 38 was approved (18-9) by the House Judiciary Committee in March 2025. The amended bill was formally reported to the full House on Oct. 3, 2025, where it awaits further House action.
The reported legislation would establish federal reciprocity for individuals who are not federally prohibited from possessing firearms, have valid photo identification and either possess a qualifying state carry permit or are entitled to carry concealed in their state of residence. The measure applies in states that allow their own residents to carry concealed firearms and preserves specified private-property and state and local government-property restrictions.
Time is running out, though.
The 119th Congress is approaching its end. There is no guarantee the political makeup or priorities of the next Congress will offer the same opportunity, especially if either the House or Senate flips to a staunchly anti-Second Amendment majority. The Supreme Court’s refusal to take Johnson’s case makes clear that lawful concealed carriers cannot simply count on the judiciary to untangle this state-by-state mess anytime soon.
That makes the elections determining the next Congress as consequential as ever. There are just 27 days left until the Nov. 3 elections and NSSF’s Protect Liberty PAC supports federal candidates committed to protecting the firearm and ammunition industry and Americans’ constitutional freedoms, especially the Second Amendment. Whether Congress advances national concealed carry reciprocity or allows it to languish depends in no small part on who voters send to Washington.
Congress does not have to wait. Voters shouldn’t risk their rights; they should #GUNVOTE to ensure the right people are there to act to protect their Second Amendment rights.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.