SCOTUS Reaffirms That the Right to Bear Arms Cannot Be Treated as a Second-Class Right
via Michael D. McCoy, Director of the Center to Keep and Bear Arms
Mountain States Legal Foundation
The United States Supreme Court has once again stepped in to remind states that the Second Amendment means what it says.
Today, the Court ruled in Wolford v. Lopez that Hawaii violated the Constitution when it enacted a law which prohibited concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.
What Was This Case About?
To understand Wolford, we first need to go back to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In Bruen, the Court held that ordinary, law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. Prior to that decision, states like Hawaii made it extraordinarily difficult (sometimes virtually impossible) for citizens to obtain permits to carry firearms in public. In fact, between 2000 to 2018, Hawaii issued only four “firearms carry” licenses.
After Bruen, Hawaii could no longer deny permits simply because government officials believed an applicant lacked a sufficiently special reason to carry a firearm. As a result, the state was forced to begin issuing concealed-carry permits to qualified citizens.
But instead of accepting the Supreme Court’s ruling, Hawaii enacted a series of new restrictions that dramatically limited where permit holders could actually carry.
One of those restrictions became the focus of Wolford.
The law prohibited licensed concealed-carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto any private property that was open to the public unless the property owner had first given express permission.
Imagine a law-abiding citizen leaving home with a lawfully carried firearm for self-defense. Under Hawaii’s law, that person could not stop at a grocery store, eat at a restaurant, pump gas, visit a shopping center, or enter countless other businesses unless the owners of each business gave their specific consent to do so. Just walking into those businesses to ask for that consent would have amounted to a violation of the law.
In other words, a person could possess a carry permit yet be prohibited from carrying in much of everyday life for fear of committing a crime.
The practical effect was simple: Hawaii transformed the right recognized in Bruen into a right that largely existed only on paper.
Why Did SCOTUS Strike Down the Law?
The Supreme Court concluded that Hawaii’s law imposed a “significant burden” on the constitutional right to bear arms.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, explained that the state had effectively flipped the traditional American rule governing private property.
Historically, businesses and establishments open to the public have generally been presumed open to all lawful visitors. Property owners have always retained the right to exclude individuals or prohibit firearms if they choose to do so. A store owner may post a sign saying “No Firearms Allowed,” and patrons must respect that decision. Hawaii reversed that longstanding presumption. Instead of requiring property owners to opt out of allowing firearms, the state required them to opt in.
The result was that carrying a firearm became illegal almost everywhere unless a business owner had affirmatively announced otherwise. The Court held that such a sweeping restriction cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment.
The Historical Question
Since Bruen, courts evaluating firearm regulations must ask a fundamental question: Is the challenged law consistent with the United States of America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?
Hawaii argued that historical laws supported its restrictions. Specifically, the state pointed to laws from the eighteenth century that prohibited hunting on another person’s land without permission. AND – most astoundingly – a post-Civil War law out of Louisiana enacted as part of the notorious Black Codes to disarm blacks and leave them defenseless against attacks.
The Supreme Court was unpersuaded by the state’s eighteenth century analogues, and outright flabbergasted by their galling reliance on a racist regime intended to make a vulnerable group even more vulnerable by disarming them.
Constitutional rights, the Court explained, cannot be defined by a handful of outlier and even racist laws.
Perhaps most importantly, the Court rejected Hawaii’s argument that the state’s unique customs and traditions justified its restrictions. Rejecting Hawaii’s past assertion that firearm possession is anathema to the “Aloha Spirit,” the majority made clear that the Constitution has the same meaning everywhere in the United States – whether on tropical islands in the Pacific or on the crowded streets of New York City.
What Does This Decision Mean Going Forward?
The Court’s decision does not prevent private property owners from prohibiting firearms on their property.
A business owner remains entirely free to decide that firearms are not permitted inside his or her establishment.
What the decision does prevent is a state imposing a blanket rule that effectively presumes all private property is automatically off-limits to lawful carry.
The choice belongs to the property owner—not the government.
More broadly, Wolford sends a clear message to states across the country: governments may not respond to Bruen by creating new obstacles that make exercising Second Amendment rights practically impossible.
Why This Matters to MSLF
At Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, we have long argued that the Second Amendment must be treated with the same respect afforded to every other constitutional guarantee.
Unfortunately, many states and federal agencies continue searching for new ways to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans, even after repeated guidance from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford is encouraging, but the fight is far from over.
Rights endure only when citizens are willing to defend them.