Does Constitutional Carry Now Count as a “License” Under the Federal School Zone Law? A Ninth Circuit Ruling Just Shook Things Up

More than half of U.S. states now recognize what’s commonly called Constitutional Carry (or Permitless Carry): a state law that allows law-abiding adults to carry a concealed handgun in public without applying for or holding a concealed carry permit.

That’s a win for freedom. But for years, there’s been an asterisk that responsible gun owners and instructors keep bringing up: the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

We’ve covered the basics before here: Defining the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

The Federal Problem Constitutional Carry Doesn’t Automatically Solve

Under the Gun-Free School Zones Act (18 U.S.C. § 922(q)), it’s generally illegal to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a K–12 school (public, private, or parochial), unless an exception applies.

The exception that matters most for everyday concealed carriers is the “licensed by the state” exception. In plain English, the federal law carves out an exception for people who are licensed to posses the gun by the state where the school zone exists.

That’s why, among other reasons, that for years the gun community has often recommended getting a permit even in permitless carry states. Not because you need the state’s permission to carry, but because a permit has been a practical layer of legal protection under federal law when you inevitably pass within 1,000 feet of a school.

A Montana Case Put That Warning to the Test

Montana passed a constitutional carry law in 2021. After that, a Billings, Montana resident named Gabriel Metcalf drew significant attention by routinely carrying near a local elementary school, including at times carrying a shotgun outside his home and along the sidewalk.

Local police repeatedly responded to calls, but they didn’t arrest him for violating state law. Eventually, the situation escalated into a federal case, and Metcalf was indicted under the Gun-Free School Zones Act for possessing firearms within 1,000 feet of the school.

To many gun owners, this looked like the exact nightmare scenario we’ve warned about: you follow your state’s constitutional carry rules, but federal law still bites you.

The Ninth Circuit Reversed the Case — But the “Why” Matters

In United States v. Metcalf, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the indictment dismissed. But here’s the key point: the court’s reasoning wasn’t a simple nationwide proclamation that “constitutional carry equals a permit.”

The Ninth Circuit focused on Montana’s specific statute (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-360), which was written to confer a form of “license” by statute and expressly referenced compliance with the federal school zone framework. The court concluded that, under the unique convergence of factors in this case, Metcalf lacked fair notice that his conduct was criminal, and the statute’s exception contained enough ambiguity that the rule of lenity applied.

Translation: The Ninth Circuit treated the situation as legally ambiguous in a way that must be resolved in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, especially where the state had told its citizens (by statute) that they were “licensed” for federal purposes.

So What Does This Mean for You?

If You Live in Montana

This ruling is very good news for Montana gun owners — but keep it grounded in what the court actually said. The Ninth Circuit did not issue a broad, simple rule that applies to every permitless carry statute. It emphasized Montana’s unusual approach and the lack of prior court decisions addressing it. In doing so the court created a precident.

Even so, the practical outcome is clear: the federal indictment against Metcalf under the Gun-Free School Zones Act did not stand, and Montana’s statutory “license” framework mattered.

If You Live in Alaska, Arizona, or Idaho (Also Ninth Circuit States)

It’s tempting to assume this instantly settles the issue across the entire Ninth Circuit for all constitutional carry states.

But be careful. The Ninth Circuit itself stressed that Montana’s approach is unique and that it was not trying to provide an “authoritative exposition” on the full scope of the federal licensing exception. In other words: this decision is helpful, but it’s not a blanket guarantee for every permitless carry statute.

If you live in Alaska, Arizona, or Idaho, the smart play is to push for clarity at the state level. A formal Attorney General opinion (or legislative language that mirrors what Montana did) could matter a lot if a case ever arises.

If You Live Outside the Ninth Circuit

Nothing about this decision automatically changes the law in other federal circuits. Other appellate courts are not bound by Ninth Circuit rulings.

So if you’re in a constitutional carry state outside the Ninth Circuit, and you want the lowest-risk, most defensible position regarding federal school zones, a state-issued permit still has value.

Bottom Line

This Ninth Circuit decision is a meaningful development — and one worth celebrating — because it chips away at a long-standing tension between state permitless carry laws and the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

But don’t oversell it. The ruling is explicitly narrow, tied closely to Montana’s unusual statutory framework, and grounded in criminal “fair notice” principles. If you want to stay out of trouble everywhere you travel and carry, a permit can still be a smart tool in the toolbox.

Want the deeper background? Start here: Defining the Gun-Free School Zones Act.