SUPREME COURT SET TO TAKE UP LANDMARK CASE ON THE RIGHT TO CARRY FIREARMS

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could significantly affect how states regulate concealed firearms on private property that is open to the public. The dispute centers on whether states can impose broad restrictions on where concealed carry permit holders may lawfully bring their firearms.

The case, Wolford v. Lopez, challenges a Hawaii law that bars individuals with concealed carry permits from bringing handguns onto certain types of private property—such as beaches, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, and gas stations—unless the property owner gives explicit permission. Opponents of the law argue that it effectively turns large portions of public life into gun-free zones by default.

Hawaii’s statute was enacted following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate a special need to carry a firearm in public. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” He also emphasized that firearm regulations must align with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

In response to Bruen, Hawaii passed a law in 2023 making it a misdemeanor for concealed carry holders to bring firearms onto private property without express consent. Several Hawaii residents with concealed carry permits, joined by a gun-rights organization, filed suit, arguing that the state overstepped its authority. They contend that the government lacks the constitutional power to impose a default ban on carrying firearms in public-facing private spaces.

“There is no comparable historical – or even modern-day – tradition of allowing the government to create a no-carry default rule for private property open to the public,” attorneys for the residents told the Supreme Court in their filing.

The gun-rights group also argued that the law disproportionately impacts rural communities, where access to beaches, parks, and open land is essential to daily life. “These bans are applicable to hundreds of thousands of acres of public land throughout Hawaii, even though the State allows hunting with firearms in many areas of these parks and forests,” the group’s lawyers wrote in a petition to the court.

Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez defended the law, asserting that it is designed to protect property owners and the public from being compelled to host armed individuals. She argued that the state’s approach is consistent with historical practices in Hawaii that limited weapons in public spaces. “Property owners in Hawai’i could assume that – unless they made express arrangements to the contrary – firearms would not be carried onto their property, even if it was open to the public,” Lopez wrote in a brief to the court.

State attorneys further argued that the Second Amendment, as understood at the time of the nation’s founding, did not guarantee a right to carry firearms onto private property. “The Founders recognized a property owner’s right to exclude,” Hawaii’s lawyers wrote. “Accordingly, at the Founding, a person had no right to enter private property with a gun unless he had the owner’s express consent or an implied license based on local law or custom.”

To support its position, Hawaii cited historical laws, including a 1771 New Jersey statute and an 1865 Louisiana law, both of which required permission to enter private property with a firearm. Lower courts accepted these examples and ruled in the state’s favor. “The overall purpose of all the laws was plainly to protect a property owner’s right to exclude firearms,” Hawaii’s attorneys argued. “Variation in the specific reasons why owners might wish to preclude guns – from preventing unwanted hunting to promoting safety, comfort or self-defense – does not undermine the basic fact that laws that vindicate the fundamental right to exclude are well within the tradition of American firearm regulation.”

Lawyers for the concealed carry permit holders pushed back, saying Hawaii relied on flawed historical comparisons. They argued that many modern public spaces, such as beaches and public parks, were not contemplated in the historical laws the state cited. Applying those precedents too broadly, they warned, would permanently limit constitutional protections as society evolves.

“Under that approach, ‘the original understanding of the Second Amendment,’” the lawyers wrote, quoting a lower court judge, “‘Would not apply to any new types of public spaces that would develop in the future.’”

Both gun rights supporters and gun control advocates are closely watching the case, which is expected to be one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential Second Amendment rulings of the year. A final decision is anticipated by July.

COMMENTARY:

This case goes to the very heart of what government is supposed to do in the United States. Our system was not designed for the government to decide when, where, and how citizens may exercise their rights. It was designed so government exists to protect those rights, not ration them away through regulatory schemes that invert the Constitution’s meaning.

The Second Amendment is not a grant of permission from the state. It is a recognition of a pre-existing right. The Founders were explicit about this. The right to keep and bear arms was understood as a natural right tied directly to self-defense, resistance to tyranny, and the preservation of liberty. When Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” he reaffirmed what the Founding generation already believed and practiced.

Hawaii’s law turns this principle upside down by creating a default rule that strips citizens of their right to bear arms in vast areas of everyday life unless the government or a property owner affirmatively allows it. That is not rights protection — it is rights suppression by default. Under this framework, the citizen must seek permission to exercise a constitutional right, rather than the government being required to justify any restriction. That is fundamentally unconstitutional.

Historically, this approach would have been unrecognizable at the Founding. In late 18th-century America, carrying arms in public was common, ordinary, and lawful. There were no sweeping “sensitive place” bans covering entire categories of locations like beaches, taverns, or general stores. In fact, many colonial and early American laws required able-bodied men to carry arms in public, especially when traveling or attending public gatherings. A society that mandates armed citizens cannot logically be said to support blanket bans on public carry.

The historical laws Hawaii relies on do not support its position. Isolated statutes from New Jersey or Louisiana concerning entry onto private property do not establish a broad national tradition of government-imposed no-carry defaults. At most, they reflect narrow rules about trespass or specific local concerns, not a sweeping prohibition imposed by the state across entire categories of public-facing spaces. The Supreme Court has made clear that selective or outlier laws cannot override the general historical understanding of a constitutional right.

More importantly, Hawaii’s argument ignores a critical distinction: property rights do not belong to the government. If a private property owner wishes to prohibit firearms, that decision belongs to the owner, not the state. When the government imposes a default ban on behalf of all property owners, it is no longer protecting property rights — it is commandeering them to restrict a separate constitutional right. The Founders recognized property rights and the right to bear arms as complementary freedoms, not tools for the state to play one against the other.

The danger of Hawaii’s approach extends far beyond firearms. If the government can declare that constitutional rights do not apply unless explicitly permitted in “new” or evolving public spaces, then no right is safe. The same logic could be used to limit free speech in modern forums, restrict religious exercise in new forms of public accommodation, or curb assembly wherever the government finds it inconvenient. A right that only applies where the government says it does is not a right at all — it is a privilege.

The Constitution does not allow states to evade Supreme Court rulings through legislative creativity. After Bruen, states were told they could regulate firearms only in ways consistent with America’s historical tradition. Hawaii’s law appears designed not to comply with that instruction, but to circumvent it by redefining normal public life as off-limits. That is open defiance of constitutional boundaries.

At its core, this case asks whether Americans still live under a government of limited powers or one that believes it can manage rights out of existence through defaults and fine print. The Founders warned against exactly this kind of creeping control. As James Madison wrote, the Constitution’s purpose is to restrain government power, not expand it.

If the Supreme Court is serious about preserving the Constitution as it was written and understood, Hawaii’s law cannot stand. The government’s job is not to decide where rights apply — it is to protect them everywhere they lawfully exist. Any ruling that allows the state to reverse that relationship would represent not just a Second Amendment failure, but a broader constitutional one.

ARTICLE:

https://thelibertydaily.com/u-s-supreme-court-hear-important-second-amendment/