Coalition Presses SCOTUS On Reciprocity

[admin]

Reciprocity has been the unfinished business of Second Amendment law since Bruen came down, and this case puts it directly in front of SCOTUS in a way that's hard to dismiss as abstract.

"A truck driver who already holds permits from Florida and Georgia should not have to fly to Minnesota, appear in person at a sheriff's office, pay another set of fees and complete another training course just to exercise the same constitutional right he already has. Minnesota's scheme turns that tradition on its head."

That's not a hypothetical. That's a guy whose job requires him to cross state lines, legally armed in two states, and suddenly disarmed the moment he rolls into a third. The burden here isn't just inconvenient — it's designed to be prohibitive enough that most people don't bother.

The historical angle Moros is working is worth paying attention to. Founding-era states gave travelers more latitude, not less. If that argument gets traction with even a couple of justices, it reframes the whole reciprocity debate — not as a policy preference but as a constitutional baseline that states have been ignoring.

The problem is the Court's track record on reciprocity cases. They've passed on similar petitions before, and the article notes no justice has even asked Minnesota to respond yet. That silence is the part that concerns me more than anything else in here.

For those of you who carry across state lines regularly — whether that's commercial driving, road trips, or just commuting through a neighboring state — what does your current patchwork of permits look like, and how many hoops did you jump through to make it work?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett