Federal judge upholds Minnesota gun permit reciprocity law

Listen to this article

Truckers who do not hail from Minnesota, but who sought to carry firearms across state lines, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Minnesota’s firearm law deprived them of their Second Amendment rights. Applying the two-step Bruen test laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, the district court dismissed the lawsuit after deeming Minnesota’s permitting regime and reciprocity provision constitutional.

David McCoy and Jeffrey Johnson, full-time long-haul truck drivers who reside in Texas and Florida respectively, possess carry licenses from their home states. Despite their licenses, neither McCoy nor Johnson is legally permitted to carry firearms for self-defense while in Minnesota without obtaining a Minnesota permit due to the state’s firearm regulations.

Under Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subds. 1a, 16, one who “carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or boat, or on or about the person’s clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place” has to have a Minnesota permit to carry or else a permit issued by a state with reciprocity with Minnesota.

Minnesota recognizes firearm permits from 15 other states but does not honor permits from 33 states, including Texas, Florida, and Georgia. The 15 states as of August 2025 that Minnesota does not have reciprocity with are ones that have dissimilar permitting regimes. However, plaintiffs contended that the annual determination of which out-of-state permits are recognized is “not based on objective standards.”

McCoy and Johnson could obtain a Minnesota permit, but they would need to apply in person, pay a fee, and wait 30 days, with the permit expiring after five years. The truckers argued that the process of getting firearm permits from all contiguous states was “too costly, time consuming, and burdensome,” especially because they spend most of the year on the road and would have to make a special trip to Minnesota.

Without a Minnesota permit or a recognized out-of-state permit, they must store unloaded firearms in a closed, fastened container. Both Johnson and McCoy asserted that they were aware of the incidence of violent crimes against truckers and reasonably feared for their safety, relying on firearms for self-defense. They claimed that they were forced to choose between following the law and protecting themselves. A first offense in Minnesota is a misdemeanor, and a second offense is a felony.

In the suit against Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson, plaintiff Johnson sought a judgment declaring that Minnesota’s refusal to recognize the lawfully issued out-of-state permits violates the Second Amendment. Additionally, Johnson sought an order that Minnesota must recognize and honor lawfully issued firearms permits issued from all other states. Plaintiff McCoy voluntarily dismissed his claim.

In its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court promulgated a two-step test for gun regulations: (1) Does the Second Amendment’s text cover the regulated conduct? (2) If yes, the government must show the regulation aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm laws.

U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim presided over the matter. Applying Bruen, Tunheim disagreed with the commissioner’s position, finding that the Second Amendment’s plain text did cover Johnson’s conduct. However, the court concluded that Johnson’s argument failed under step 2 of Bruen, that the regulations be in the historical tradition of firearm regulation” in the United States.

Previously, Loren Seehase, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, explained that case law research supported the law’s failure under Bruen. “The most interesting part was that I actually found case law looking at historical records, and it was actually a requirement for travelers going out of state—now, think like, Oregon Trail, covered-wagons—and the government was saying, ‘If you’re traveling, you must carry a firearm,’” Seehase said.

Tunheim disagreed, noting that “[u]nder Step Two of Bruen, the Supreme Court directs courts to assess ‘how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.’ … This requires examining whether ‘modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified.’”

Tunheim first found that Minnesota’s law supported the “how” part of Bruen‘s historical analysis. “Minnesota’s permitting regime is designed to prevent violence before it occurs by screening individuals for responsibility and lawfulness, much like surety laws which ‘provided a mechanism for preventing violence before it occurred,’” Tunheim wrote. “Minnesota’s reciprocity provision is an extension of these preventative measures. By conditioning out-of-state permits on whether permitting standards are substantially similar to Minnesota’s, Minnesota ensures that its public safety standards are not circumvented.”

Additionally, Tunheim concluded that the law satisfied the “why” part of the analysis, finding that the licensing process served the legitimate governmental interest of ensuring public safety.

Regarding the reciprocity provision, Tunheim disagreed that it was not historically supported. Rather than burdening Second Amendment rights, Tunheim determined that the reciprocity provision “makes it easier” for Johnson and others to carry firearms in Minnesota. “Nothing in Bruen or the Constitution requires states to adopt or defer to the licensing standards of other states,” Tunheim reasoned. “Indeed, states retain authority under their police powers to regulate who may carry firearms within their borders.”