By Jacob Sullum | 9.8.2026
(Reason Magazine)
Meanwhile, the top court of Massachusetts considers whether the state can deny carry permits to applicants who are deemed “unsuitable.”
Four years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment precludes states from requiring that people demonstrate a “special need” before they are allowed to carry handguns in public for self-defense. But it added that “nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality” of licensing regimes “designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'”
Two pending cases raise interesting questions about the constraints that Bruen imposes on state carry-permit policies. In Johnson v. Jacobson, a long-haul trucker with carry permits issued by Florida and Georgia is asking the Supreme Court to reject Minnesota’s insistence that he also obtain a license from that state if he wants to bear arms there. And in Pratt v. Westbrook, an unsuccessful carry permit applicant is asking the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to hold that the state’s “suitability” requirement violates the Second Amendment.
Jeffrey Johnson, who is represented by the Liberty Justice Center (LJC), hauls cargo “across the United States and makes regular, annual trips to or through Minnesota,” according to the Supreme Court petition he filed on Tuesday. “Because of the dangers posed to long-haul truck drivers, Johnson always carries a handgun with him for self-defense. But when he travels to Minnesota, state law requires him to unload his weapon and secure it in a container because Minnesota does not grant firearm license reciprocity to fifteen states, including Florida and Georgia.”
That situation, the LJC argues, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. “Once a person proves he is a law-abiding citizen, he is entitled to carry a gun in public for self-defense,” says LJC Senior Counsel Ryan Morrison. “Constitutional rights, the Second Amendment included, do not require someone to prove their worthiness to exercise their civil liberties over and over again. Forcing someone to carry a Rolodex of firearm licenses to maintain his constitutional rights across the nation reduces the Second Amendment to second-class status and subjects it to an entirely different body of rules than the other rights secured by the Constitution.”
Florida and Georgia both allow legal gun owners to publicly carry firearms without a license. But they issue carry permits to people who want to bear arms in other states with different requirements. To qualify for a Florida concealed weapon license, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident who is at least 21 years old (18 for honorably discharged military veterans), has no disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records, and is not subject to a domestic violence restraining order. He also must “demonstrate competency with a firearm.” Georgia has similar requirements, although it issues carry permits only to state residents.
As Minnesota sees it, those criteria are not strict enough: Although Minnesota recognizes carry permits issued by 33 other states, neither Florida nor Georgia made the cut. And according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, that is Minnesota’s call to make.
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” the Supreme Court held in Bruen. The government then “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”
Johnson’s Second Amendment challenge “fails at Bruen step one because Minnesota’s reciprocity statute, standing alone, does not regulate arms-bearing conduct,” the 8th Circuit ruled last May. “Though publicly carrying a firearm in Minnesota is covered by the Second Amendment’s text, that conduct is regulated by Minnesota’s permitting requirement, and Johnson repeatedly concedes that Minnesota’s shall-issue permitting requirement does not violate the Second Amendment.”
Minnesota’s reciprocity policy, by contrast, “does not regulate any conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s text, which says nothing about permitting reciprocity,” the appeals court said. “By allowing permitholders from recognized states to use their out-of-state permits as if they were Minnesota permits, the reciprocity statute exempts qualified individuals from Minnesota’s permit application process. And because the reciprocity statute merely creates an exemption from the permitting process, it does not restrict any arms-bearing conduct.”
That reasoning is erroneous, Johnson’s petition argues, because “Minnesota’s licensing regime and its reciprocity statute are separate laws that can grant or deny Second Amendment rights independent of one another.” Johnson “could carry his firearm in Minnesota if he obtained a Minnesota license,” but he also could do so if “his Florida or Georgia license [were] recognized by the reciprocity statute.” Each law therefore “independently restricts Johnson’s right to bear arms, which is conduct that ‘falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment.'”…
Continue reading this article here.
To learn more about this case, click here.
The Liberty Justice Center is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that never charges its clients a dime. Support its work here.