California does not recognize any out-of-state concealed-carry permit, and no other state has to recognize a California one. On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to that rule, so nothing changes today: carrying a gun while traveling still means meeting each state’s own permit requirements.
Sources checked October 7, 2026. Educational information only, not legal advice.
| What changed | The Supreme Court declined to review whether states must honor concealed-carry permits issued by other states. |
| Effective | Order issued October 5, 2026. No new law; a denial of certiorari is not a decision on the merits and changes nothing in California. |
| Applies to | California CCW holders who travel to states that do not recognize California permits, and out-of-state permit holders visiting California. |
| Statutory basis | Johnson v. Jacobson, No. 26-255 (U.S. cert. denied Oct. 5, 2026), reviewing 8th Cir. No. 25-3036; NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). California licensing: Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155. |
What happened
On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear Johnson v. Jacobson, No. 26-255, a Second Amendment challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to recognize concealed-carry permits issued by Georgia and Florida. The petitioner, Jeffrey Johnson, is a Georgia resident and long-haul truck driver who holds Georgia and Florida carry licenses and wanted to carry while driving through Minnesota. Minnesota recognizes permits only from states it has selected, and it did not recognize his. The Eighth Circuit had upheld the state’s scheme, reasoning that Minnesota lets nonresidents apply for a Minnesota permit, so recognizing certain other states’ permits is an added exemption rather than a restriction on the right. The justices denied review without comment. A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits: it lets the Eighth Circuit decision stand within that circuit and leaves the underlying constitutional question undecided for the rest of the country.
What it means for you
California has no carry reciprocity either way. It does not recognize a concealed-carry license from any other state, and no other state is constitutionally required to recognize a California permit. So a California CCW holder who travels must check the destination state’s rules; in a state that does not honor California permits, the California license does not authorize carrying there, and in some states a nonresident may apply for a local permit. The same works in reverse for a visitor carrying a permit from another state: California will not accept it. Since January 1, 2026, non-California residents may apply for a California CCW under AB 1078, but they must satisfy California’s own eligibility, training and background requirements through a California licensing authority. Read the order for what it is: the Court chose not to settle whether the Second Amendment requires interstate recognition of carry permits. Nothing in California’s licensing, training, fee or prohibited-place rules changes, and this order creates no new right or duty. The Eighth Circuit noted that a different question could arise if a state both refused to issue permits to nonresidents and refused to recognize all out-of-state permits; that was not Minnesota’s system, because nonresidents there can apply.
The official source
Read the primary sources rather than a summary of them, including this one.
- Supreme Court Order List, October 5, 2026 The Court’s orders of October 5, 2026, listing the denial of review in No. 26-255.
- Docket for No. 26-255, Johnson v. Jacobson Docket sheet recording the August 24, 2026 petition and the October 5, 2026 denial.
Discuss
Update log
- October 7, 2026Published from the Supreme Court’s October 5, 2026 order list and the No. 26-255 docket by CA2A Newsroom.
The Docket, by email
Skip the forums. Get the change and the statute behind it.
A bill passes, a case turns, the roster changes. No weekly filler, no sales. Unsubscribe in one click.
Only when something changes. Your address is never shared.