Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii Gun Law Requiring Property Owner Permission
7 verified5 unconfirmed1 contested
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25 in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down a Hawaii law that required licensed concealed-carry permit holders to obtain express permission from a private business owner or manager before bringing a firearm onto that property. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The law, which effectively banned firearms from most private businesses open to the public unless affirmative consent was given, was challenged as a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court’s decision relied heavily on its 2022 precedent in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun laws to be “relevantly similar” to historical regulations from the founding era. Hawaii argued that its law was analogous to colonial-era laws prohibiting unauthorized hunting on private land and to an 1865 Louisiana statute that was part of the state’s Black Codes. The majority rejected those arguments, finding the historical analogues insufficiently similar and noting that the Louisiana law was “tainted” by its racist origins. Dissenting opinions were filed by Justice Elena Kagan and by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
What’s verified
The Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez struck down a Hawaii law requiring express permission from private property owners to carry firearms on their premises.
The vote was 6-3, with the six conservative justices in the majority and the three liberal justices dissenting.
Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, citing the Bruen precedent as the controlling standard.
Hawaii’s law was described as a “Vampire Rule” that banned guns unless a “Guns Welcome” sign or other affirmative consent was given.
The majority rejected historical analogues offered by Hawaii, including colonial hunting laws and an 1865 Louisiana Black Code provision.
Justice Kagan’s dissent argued that the historical laws cited by Hawaii were proper analogues.
Justice Jackson’s dissent reiterated her view that Bruen was wrongly decided.
Where accounts differ
Disagreement exists over whether the historical analogues cited by Hawaii were sufficient to justify the law. One account states that Hawaii identified four early American laws that were “exceedingly similar” to its own and that the majority brushed them aside. Another account maintains that the colonial laws were not “relevantly similar” because they prohibited unauthorized hunting on private land, which has no relation to carrying a handgun for self-defense on commercial property. No other conflicting reports identified across sources.
Not yet confirmed
One source reports that Justice Alito devoted only six pages of the opinion to the question of similarity to old laws and about three pages to Hawaii’s strongest argument; this detail is not mentioned by the other source.
Only one source notes that Justice Jackson, in a 2024 dissent, quoted a dozen lower court opinions warning that Bruen is unworkable.
Only one source reports that Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined in part by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.
Only one source mentions that Hawaii cited an 1833 law by King Kamehameha III prohibiting deadly weapons.
Only one source notes the Court’s hypothetical day in the life of “Ms. Caetano” to illustrate the impracticality of the consent requirement.
Key figures
Justice Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Sources: vox.com, reason.com
