Today (January 20), the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Hawaii’s ban on carrying guns on private property that is open to the public—at least unless the property owner has given express consent for the carrying of guns.
The case is known as Wolford v. Lopez. It could potentially result in the definitive end to similar restrictions in other jurisdictions.
In this case, the Court is poised to answer: “Whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.”
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted an amicus brief (otherwise known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief) to the Supreme Court citing the Bruen (2022) decision to argue the “government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry.”
“Hawaii’s law plainly violates the Second Amendment,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.
After stating that the “United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms …” the DOJ’s brief points out that the “‘right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home’ ranks among the Second Amendment’s most basic guarantees. Bruen thus held that the government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry. Nor, more broadly, may the government restrict firearms without showing that the restriction fits within a discernible tradition of firearm regulation.”
Indeed, the NRA’s amicus brief points out what should now be obvious in these debates: “Hawaii is not addressing an unprecedented societal concern posed by permitholders. Data show the opposite: carry-license revocations are exceedingly rare—typically between 0.01% and 0.32% annually—and often unrelated to criminal conduct. Texas conviction statistics show that permitholders are nearly seven times less likely to be convicted of a crime than the general population. Colorado’s arrest-based revocation system shows that permitholders are more than eight times less likely to be arrested. Independent research, from RAND to the Chicago Tribune, and even data collected by the Violence Policy Center, confirm that permitholders offend at far lower rates than ordinary citizens. Concealed carry permitholders are exceptionally law-abiding, and Hawaii’s treatment of them as predatory actors has no empirical or historical foundation.”
Prior to the NRA-backed Bruen (2022) case, Hawaii effectively banned all concealed carry by denying law-abiding citizens licenses. After Bruen, Hawaii amended its licensing restrictions, but at the same time the state enacted a new restrictive regime that effectively nullifies those licenses. As previously noted, Hawaii made it a crime for licensees to carry firearms on private property open to the public unless those restaurants, stores and so on provide “[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization” or post “clear and conspicuous signage” allowing firearms. This makes it all but impossible for citizens to make use of this civil right.
Meanwhile, a handful of other states whose public-carry laws were also invalidated by Bruen—California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York—also enacted similar restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms.
This, as the DOJ pointed out, is “blatantly unconstitutional.” Indeed, similar default swap rules on private property have so far fared poorly in the courts of their respective jurisdictions.
Clearly, New York and these other states—including Hawaii—responded to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen by thumbing their figurative noses at the high court.
Now, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have the opportunity to respond. We’ll let you know what they said as soon as the hearing is complete.
