Why it matters: Hawaii basically turned carrying a gun into a game of "Mother May I?" with every single business owner—and the Supreme Court justices weren't having it during oral arguments Tuesday in Wolford v. Lopez.

The legal reality: Hawaii's law flips the script on traditional carry restrictions. Instead of banning guns in specific places, they made it illegal to carry anywhere open to the public unless you get explicit written permission first. That means your carry permit is worthless at the gas station, grocery store, or anywhere else unless there's a sign saying guns are welcome.

This isn't your typical "gun-free zone" nonsense. This is assuming every private business owner wants you disarmed unless they jump through hoops to say otherwise.

The Justices Weren't Buying Hawaii's History Lesson

Between the lines: Under the Court's 2022 Bruen decision, gun laws have to match America's historical tradition of firearms regulation. Hawaii's lawyers tried to justify their scheme by pointing to colonial anti-poaching laws and a couple of old statutes from New Jersey (1771) and Louisiana (1865).

That historical argument got torched faster than cheap range ammo. Justice Neil Gorsuch called Hawaii's reliance on that 1865 Louisiana law "quite an astonishing claim"—because it was part of the Black Codes designed to keep guns away from freed slaves. Justice Samuel Alito noted the "height of irony" in using a law written specifically to gut Second Amendment rights as justification for modern restrictions.

Alan Beck, representing the gun owners, pointed out the obvious: those anti-poaching laws only applied to "enclosed lands" and included exceptions for self-defense. Nothing like Hawaii's blanket ban on exercising your rights.

Property Rights Don't Trump Constitutional Rights

Hawaii's attorney Neal Katyal tried a different angle, arguing this was just about property rights. "The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms," he told the Court. "It doesn't create implied consent to bring those arms onto another's property."

What this means for you: That logic didn't fly with most justices. Chief Justice Roberts pointed out you could use the same reasoning to silence political candidates going door-to-door. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered if states could ban leafleting by "flipping the default" on property consent.

Justice Gorsuch was direct—governments can't "redefine property rights" to gut constitutional rights in other contexts. Alito was blunter: "You're just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status."

The Founding Generation Would Be Pissed

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris backed the challenge, arguing this restriction would have "profoundly disturbed" the founding generation. Colonial Americans routinely carried while traveling and stopping at taverns or businesses—you know, like normal people exercising their rights.

The bottom line: Based on oral arguments, six justices looked skeptical of Hawaii's position. Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed supportive of the state's argument.

This case represents what happens when anti-gun states get creative after Bruen killed their "may issue" permit schemes. Can't stop people from getting permits? Just make everywhere off-limits by default.

A ruling is expected by summer, and it could establish crucial precedent about presumed access to private businesses open to the public. For carry permit holders nationwide, this could mean the difference between your permit actually meaning something or being reduced to fancy wallet decoration.

Because apparently, even in paradise, someone's always trying to make your constitutional rights as complicated as possible.

Read the original article in The Handbook | By BGC Staff

Join the Discussion

If SCOTUS does strike this down, how do you think Idaho businesses should handle signage and policies—full "no guns" signs, specific caliber restrictions, or something else entirely?