A husband and wife say they spent $12,804.63 on permits, travel, training and other costs in an effort to legally carry firearms in as much of the United States as possible – and even after spending five figures, they still cannot carry everywhere.
Gun rights activist and YouTuber Colion Noir highlighted their experience while discussing Johnson v. Jacobson, a pending Supreme Court petition challenging Minnesota’s treatment of certain out-of-state carry permits.
The couple’s story came from Chad Albrecht, who said he and his wife pursued enough permits to cover 46 states plus Washington, D.C., while still falling short in several places.
“You might as well say it’s six grand apiece to exercise our constitutional right,” Albrecht said.
For Noir, that number illustrates his broader argument that the state-by-state system can turn public carry into an expensive administrative maze for people who regularly travel.
One New York City Permit Cost Nearly $1,500
Albrecht explained that the $12,804.63 figure was not simply the face value of permit fees.
He included travel expenses required to appear in person, training costs and other expenses associated with satisfying different state and local requirements.
One of the most expensive examples was New York City.
Albrecht said he alone spent $1,459 to obtain that permit, while his wife did not pursue it because of the cost.
He described the entire process as taking about a year from beginning the required training to traveling to One Police Plaza, being fingerprinted, completing an interview and eventually receiving the permit in the mail.
Albrecht also said Hawaii and Oregon were among the places where their permit collection still did not allow them to carry, citing limitations on nonresident permits.
His reason for going through all of this was not simply collecting licenses.
Albrecht said he holds a federal firearms license and operates a firearms-related business, so an unlawful carry arrest could threaten far more than a single trip.
“If I get locked up for carrying in a place that I’m not allowed to carry, my life will be ruined,” he said.
He described the money as “insurance.”
That comment stood out to Noir.
Noir Calls the Expense an ‘Insurance’ Policy Against Legal Trouble
“The line that got me was, ‘I view this as insurance,’” Noir said.
He argued that Albrecht was effectively spending thousands of dollars to protect himself from accidentally violating a patchwork of state laws while exercising what Noir considers a nationally protected constitutional right.
Noir’s position is openly pro-Second Amendment, but the underlying practical problem he points to is easy to see: crossing a state line can dramatically change which permits are recognized and what steps a gun owner must take.
Someone who travels frequently may therefore have to research different rules for every jurisdiction rather than assuming one permit follows them around the country.
Albrecht said he hoped documenting that burden might eventually get the Supreme Court’s attention.
That possibility has now become more concrete because his permit-cost example has been cited in an amicus brief filed in Johnson v. Jacobson.
The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case, however. As of September 2026, the petition is still pending, meaning the justices could take the case or simply decline review.
A Truck Driver Challenges Minnesota’s Rules
The central figure in Johnson v. Jacobson is Jeffrey Johnson, a long-haul truck driver who holds carry permits issued by Florida and Georgia.
Noir said Johnson must secure his handgun whenever his work route takes him into Minnesota because that state does not recognize either of those permits for him.
Johnson sued Minnesota officials, arguing that he should not have to obtain another state-specific permit simply to carry while traveling through the state.
The Eighth Circuit rejected his argument and upheld Minnesota’s requirement.
Noir quoted the court’s reasoning that if Minnesota may constitutionally condition public carry on obtaining a permit, it may also require nonresidents to obtain one.
Johnson has now asked the Supreme Court to review that decision.
Six gun rights organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, filed an amicus brief supporting him.
Noir emphasized that an amicus brief is not a court ruling.
“The court hasn’t taken the case,” he said. “An amicus brief is persuasion, not a ruling.”
That distinction matters because the dispute remains unresolved, and Minnesota would still have the opportunity to defend its approach if the Supreme Court takes up the case.
Gun Rights Groups Point to Historical Traveler Exceptions
A major part of the challengers’ argument focuses on history.
Noir, drawing from reporting he cited from USA Carry and the Second Amendment Foundation’s brief, said states and local governments sometimes adopted “traveler exceptions” during the colonial era and the 19th century.
Those laws, according to the gun rights groups, gave travelers more flexibility than residents under certain weapons restrictions.
Noir pointed to Kentucky in 1813 and Texas in 1871 as examples.
He argues that this history works against Minnesota because the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework requires governments defending firearms restrictions to identify a relevant historical tradition supporting them.
“The tradition says the guy on a journey got to pass,” Noir said. “Minnesota is doing the exact opposite.”
That is the challengers’ interpretation of the historical record, not yet a conclusion from the Supreme Court in this case.
The legal dispute is therefore larger than whether Minnesota should specifically recognize Florida or Georgia permits. It raises a broader question about how far one state can go in requiring an already licensed visitor to repeat its own permitting process.
In-Person Requirements Become Part of the Argument
Noir also focused heavily on the requirement that some applicants appear in person.
The gun rights groups argue that Johnson should not have to travel to Minnesota, physically appear at a sheriff’s office, pay additional fees and complete more training after already being vetted elsewhere.
Noir questioned what an in-person appearance actually proves when much of the underlying paperwork and background checking can be completed electronically.
“What does you standing at the counter prove?” he asked. “That you could afford the plane ticket.”
That framing is clearly argumentative, but it highlights one of the tangible burdens at issue.
A resident living nearby may view an in-person appointment as inconvenient.
For someone who works across the country, an extra flight, hotel stay, training session and application process can become much more expensive.
Albrecht’s $12,804.63 experience is being used by the gun rights organizations as an example of what happens when those burdens multiply across many jurisdictions.
Minnesota Points to Public Safety
Noir said Minnesota’s defense ultimately comes back to public safety and its authority to regulate who may carry firearms within the state.
He pushed back on that rationale by citing figures presented by the Second Amendment Foundation concerning Florida permit holders.
According to the figures Noir discussed, Florida revoked about 0.36% of more than 6.6 million permits issued since 1987.
Johnson is himself a Florida permit holder as well as a Georgia permit holder.
Noir’s argument is that requiring him to prove his eligibility again in Minnesota adds bureaucracy without meaningfully changing the underlying assessment that he has already passed elsewhere.
Minnesota’s legal position, by contrast, is that another state’s permit system does not automatically substitute for its own requirements.
That disagreement is at the center of the case.
Supreme Court Has Not Yet Decided Whether to Hear It
Noir ended by stressing that the Supreme Court has not yet accepted Johnson v. Jacobson.
The petition was docketed in August 2026, and the Second Amendment Foundation, NRA and four other groups filed their supporting brief on September 15.
For now, the Eighth Circuit’s decision remains in place.
Noir nevertheless sees the case as significant for anyone who travels across state lines with a firearm.
His argument is that a constitutional right should not require a stack of licenses, repeated background checks, expensive travel and thousands of dollars simply because someone drives from one state into another.
Minnesota and the lower court take a different legal view, maintaining that the state may apply its permitting requirements to nonresidents.
Albrecht’s experience gives that abstract constitutional dispute a very concrete price tag.
He and his wife spent $12,804.63 trying to remain compliant across most of the country, yet even that was not enough to make their ability to legally carry universal.
For Noir, that is the problem in one number.
“A right that costs five figures to exercise across the country,” he said, “is being run like a privilege.”
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
