The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hawaii cannot broadly prohibit licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto private property open to the public unless businesses explicitly grant permission, handing Second Amendment advocates a major legal victory.
In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the court struck down portions of Hawaii’s Act 52, concluding the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by placing sweeping restrictions on lawful concealed carry permit holders.
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 case centered on a Hawaii law that made it a crime for licensed concealed-carry permit holders to bring firearms onto private property open to the public — including businesses such as restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores and retail shops — unless the property owner gave express authorization.
Supporters of the law argued it protected private property rights by allowing business owners to control whether firearms could be carried on their premises.
Gun rights advocates challenged the measure, arguing it effectively made most public places off-limits to lawful concealed carry because businesses rarely provide explicit authorization.
Writing for the majority, Alito said the law imposed a substantial burden on the constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense in public.
“The regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Alito wrote.
The majority concluded Hawaii had reversed the traditional common-law rule governing access to private property open to the public. Historically, customers could generally enter businesses unless owners specifically prohibited entry. Under Hawaii’s law, licensed gun owners instead needed affirmative permission before carrying firearms inside.
Alito said that framework conflicted with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
The opinion rejected several historical examples cited by Hawaii, including colonial hunting restrictions and an 1865 Louisiana law enacted during Reconstruction, finding they did not provide sufficient historical support for the modern statute.
“The Second Amendment cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii,” Alito wrote, adding that constitutional protections cannot vary based on local attitudes.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion joined in part by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing the law properly respected private property rights.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented, contending the statute simply established a default rule allowing property owners to determine whether firearms could be carried on their premises without violating the Constitution, per the Conservative Brief.
The Trump administration supported the challengers during the case, filing an amicus brief and participating in oral arguments urging the court to invalidate the law.
The ruling reverses a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and sends the case back for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
The decision is expected to affect similar firearm restrictions adopted in several states following the court’s Bruen decision by limiting how states regulate concealed carry in businesses and other private property that is open to the public.
