UPDATE: The Supreme Court is set to hear urgent arguments today, October 10, 2023, regarding Hawaii’s controversial law that prohibits carrying firearms onto private property open to the public without explicit owner consent. This case, known as Wolford v. Lopez, is pivotal in the ongoing national debate over gun rights, following the high court’s significant 2022 ruling that reinforced the right to bear arms outside the home.
The law aims to reduce gun presence in retail stores and public businesses, requiring licensed gun owners to obtain express permission from property owners to carry firearms. Gun control advocates argue that property rights should allow owners to set rules about what is carried onto their premises. “Since our founding as a nation, private property rights have been foundational to American identity,” stated Douglas Letter, chief legal officer at the Brady gun control group.
Four other states—California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland—have similar laws. However, challengers claim Hawaii’s is the most extreme, asserting it effectively bans firearms in most public spaces. The law is currently on hold as it awaits Supreme Court review, following a lower court’s decision to block it. An appeals court sided with Hawaii, affirming that the law aligns with the Supreme Court’s previous rulings, despite dissent from some judges.
Gun rights advocates, including individuals with concealed carry permits and a prominent gun rights group, argue that Hawaii’s law defies the 2022 Bruen ruling, which limits government authority to impose firearm restrictions. They contend that the “default” rule in Hawaii unjustly prohibits firearms in privately owned public areas, making it virtually impossible to carry a gun in public.
“The right to prohibit firearms belongs to the property owner, not the State,” the challengers argue in court filings. They emphasize that the law transforms the presumption of carrying firearms into a presumption of prohibition, significantly infringing on Second Amendment rights.
Hawaii’s officials counter that their law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights and complies with the Bruen decision. Attorney General Anne Lopez asserts that historical precedents support regulations barring firearms on private property without owner consent. “Both at the time of the Founding and in the Reconstruction Era, numerous state laws prohibited armed entry onto private property without the owner’s express consent,” she stated in court documents.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this case could reshape gun laws nationwide, with significant implications for property rights and Second Amendment interpretations. As the court grapples with historical contexts influencing current regulations, the debate intensifies over the balance between public safety and individual rights.
As this case unfolds, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court, where a ruling could not only affect Hawaii’s law but set a precedent for similar legislation across the United States. Stay tuned for further updates as this critical legal battle develops.
