Supreme Court Invalidates Hawaii Gun Restriction on Private Property

Why it matters locally: This Supreme Court ruling could influence how concealed carry laws are interpreted and enforced in Missouri, particularly concerning private property open to the public without explicit owner permission. Given Missouri's strong Second Amendment protections, this decision provides further clarity on the scope of gun rights nationwide.

---

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that criminalized carrying firearms onto private property open to the public without explicit owner permission, voting 6-3 in Wolford v. Lopez. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that the law imposed a significant burden on Second Amendment rights. Alito found the statute fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and was therefore presumptively unconstitutional. Three Maui residents holding concealed-carry permits and a gun-rights advocacy group challenged the law before it took effect. A federal appeals court had upheld the ban, finding a national tradition of prohibiting armed carry on private property without owner consent. The Supreme Court reversed that decision. Alito rejected Hawaii's argument that the state could apply different rules than other parts of the country. He cited "overwhelming evidence" of an "enduring American tradition permitting public carry," stating the Second Amendment has the same meaning nationwide. The state pointed to 18th-century hunting regulations and an 1865 Louisiana statute as historical precedent for its law. Alito distinguished the hunting laws as addressing a different harm and characterized the Louisiana statute as part of post-Civil War Black Codes enacted to discriminate against formerly enslaved people. He wrote the Louisiana law was neither widespread nor widely accepted. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Jackson argued Hawaii's law concerns property rights rather than Second Amendment protections. She contended property owners retain the fundamental right to exclude others from their land, including armed individuals. The Second Amendment, Jackson wrote, does not determine how states regulate private property access. Jackson also disputed whether early American laws demonstrated the tradition Alito identified. She argued colonial and founding-era statutes requiring consent for armed entry onto private property open to the public supported Hawaii's position. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion joined in part by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Barrett countered Jackson's contention that property law, not the Second Amendment, provides the legal foundation. When states enact property laws regulating arms-bearing, Barrett wrote, those laws implicate the Second Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan dissented separately, contending the court could have upheld Hawaii's law as a modern analogue of colonial and founding-era restrictions on armed entry to private property. The ruling affects carry permit laws in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey, which contain similar provisions. Thursday's decision follows the court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which invalidated New York's handgun-licensing requirement and established that gun restrictions must align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Hawaii enacted its law roughly one year after Bruen.