The Supreme Court of the United States handed down one of the most significant Second Amendment victories in years today, ruling 6-3 in Wolford v. Lopez that Hawaii's law banning licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying on private property open to the public — without the express permission of each individual property owner — is unconstitutional.
The decision is a major win for law-abiding gun owners everywhere, and a clear message to state legislatures that creative end-runs around Bruen will not stand.
What Hawaii Tried to Do
After the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen struck down Hawaii's near-total prohibition on public carry, the state didn't give up. It got creative.
Rather than openly banning carry, Hawaii flipped the common-law default rule. Under centuries of established property law, opening your business to the public implies a license for anyone to enter — including those lawfully carrying a firearm. Hawaii reversed that presumption entirely: unless a property owner posts a "Guns Welcome" sign or gives unambiguous written or verbal permission, any licensed carrier who steps foot on that property commits a crime.
The practical effect was devastating. As the Court described, a licensed permit holder leaving home on an ordinary weekday — stopping for gas, grabbing lunch, picking up dry cleaning, shopping for groceries — could be a criminal six times over before dinner, simply for exercising a right the Constitution explicitly protects.
What the Court Decided
Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Alito was direct: Hawaii's law "hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives."
The majority applied the two-step Bruen framework and found Hawaii's law unconstitutional at both steps.
First, the law plainly falls within the Second Amendment's text — petitioners are "the people," they sought to "bear" "arms," and the law burdened exactly that. Second, Hawaii failed to produce historical analogues sufficient to justify its new default rule. Its best efforts — a handful of colonial-era anti-poaching statutes and a single 1865 Louisiana law enacted as part of that state's notorious Black Codes — fell far short.
On the anti-poaching laws, the Court was pointed: those statutes targeted unauthorized hunting on rural farmland, not the everyday activities of citizens visiting gas stations, restaurants, and grocery stores. "The gap between the State's anti-poaching analogues and its new rule is just too wide," the majority wrote.
On the Louisiana Black Code, the Court was appropriately blunt — Hawaii's reliance on a law designed to disarm and subjugate newly freed Black Americans "cannot be taken seriously."
Critically, the Court also reaffirmed what it said in McDonald v. Chicago: the Second Amendment means the same thing in all 50 states. The "spirit of Aloha" — however genuine — cannot shrink a fundamental constitutional right. Neither can local public opinion. As Justice Barrett wrote in her concurrence: "A majority's opposition to a constitutional right is not a permissible basis for restricting it."
Why This Matters Beyond Hawaii
Hawaii was not alone in adopting this strategy. After Bruen, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York all enacted nearly identical default rules. Today's decision puts all of them on notice.
The logic of Wolford is straightforward and far-reaching: states cannot use property-law mechanics to accomplish what the Second Amendment forbids them from doing directly. If a state cannot ban carry outright, it cannot engineer a system that makes carry practically impossible by requiring permit holders to affirmatively seek permission before entering every business, restaurant, and shop they visit in the course of a normal day.
For the millions of law-abiding Americans who have gone through the time, expense, and rigorous process of obtaining a concealed-carry permit, today's ruling affirms what they always knew: that permit means something. It protects their right to defend themselves not just at home, but in the world where they actually live.
What Comes Next
The case is remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the majority opinion. We expect similar challenges to the copycat laws in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York to advance quickly in the wake of today's ruling.
The Second Amendment Law Center will be monitoring all of these cases closely and is prepared to support litigation efforts to hold every state to the constitutional standard the Supreme Court reaffirmed today.
Wolford v. Lopez is a landmark decision. It reaffirms that the right to keep and bear arms is not a second-class right — not in Hawaii, not in New York, not anywhere in this country.
Support 2ALC’s ongoing efforts to provide amicus brief support to critical cases like this! With this win, other unconstitutional restrictions on gun rights are now in peril and we MUST keep the pressure on!