The United States Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that prohibited licensed firearm carry permit holders from bringing weapons onto private properties open to the public unless they received express authorization from the property owner.
In a 6–3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the majority found that the restriction violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The legal dispute arose after Hawaii modified its firearm permit laws in response to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which affirmed the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Hawaii’s revised statute made it a crime to enter any private property open to the public while armed unless the venue displayed clear signage or provided unambiguous verbal or written consent. This flipped the long-standing common-law rule, which presumes the public has an implied license to enter commercial spaces like gas stations, grocery stores, and restaurants unless the owner explicitly posts a notice to exclude them.
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito stated that the law “severely hampers the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise the right Bruen recognized as they go about their daily lives.” The majority opinion detailed how a permit holder could face routine criminal liability simply by stopping for groceries or gas if business owners were reluctant to post public welcoming signs for fear of alienating other customers.
The court rejected Hawaii’s historical arguments, which attempted to justify the law by pointing to colonial-era anti-poaching statutes and an 1865 Louisiana law. Alito noted that early colonial rules focused specifically on unauthorized hunting and livestock protection on land where game was found, rather than retail environments. He also dismissed the 1865 Louisiana statute, writing that the “tainted artifact from Louisiana’s Black Code illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously,” as its original purpose was to disarm vulnerable Black citizens.
Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined in part by Thomas and Gorsuch, reinforcing that state property regulations are not exempt from Bill of Rights protections. “Property laws, no less than other laws, are subject to constitutional limits,” Barrett wrote.
In her dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Justice Jackson argued that the case was fundamentally about property rights rather than firearm access. Jackson wrote that “Hawaii’s law does not implicate the Second Amendment because there is no right to carry a gun onto private property without consent,” leaving the form of that consent to state discretion. She argued that the majority’s application of the historical framework “lets the Judiciary thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else.”
Justice Kagan also filed a separate dissent, noting she would uphold the law because it is a modern analogue to founding-era regulations responding to the potential dangers someone with a gun can cause on another person’s property.
The Supreme Court has reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
READ: Supreme Court Blocks State Lawsuits Over Missing ‘Roundup’ Cancer Warnings
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
