Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii’s Gun Law

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect Americans’ rights to carry handguns for self-defense outside their homes.

In response, Hawaii Democrats devised a workaround in 2023. They passed a law making it illegal to bring guns onto private property without the explicit consent of the property owner, either verbally or in writing. Those who defy this law face up to a year in prison.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome, noting, “Hawaii law does nothing to limit the right to bear arms,” complicating matters for concealed carry permit holders. A trio of residents and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition felt similarly and filed a lawsuit, asserting that the law contravenes their rights. Attorney General D. John Sauer noted last year that this default rule effectively acts as a near-total ban on public firearm carry since most property owners do not display any signs regarding firearm permission.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court decided, in a 6-3 verdict, that Hawaii’s so-called “vampire law” is unconstitutional. This ruling overturned a previous decision by the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court pointed out that law-abiding permit holders must take care to avoid areas where gun possession is completely banned, which can include everyday places like gas stations and restaurants.

The Court acknowledged the rights of private properties to dictate firearm ownership regulations within public spaces, yet expressed concern that Hawaii’s law undermines the common law principle that implies permission for entry onto open properties unless explicitly revoked by the owner.

Justice Samuel Alito remarked that the setup in Hawaii defeats the intentions of the Second Amendment, asserting it safeguards Americans’ rights to bear arms in day-to-day situations.

Jackson had a differing view from her more conservative colleagues regarding the interpretation of the “right to bear arms.” In her dissent, which was supported by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she framed Hawaii’s law as a misguided attempt to protect the rights of residents, including those who want to carry guns and those who prefer not to do so without permission.

She deemed the ruling a “serious mistake,” asserting that it prioritizes gun rights over consistent legal principles. Jackson ultimately argued that the Vampire Act does not restrict Second Amendment rights in any meaningful way, maintaining that it merely requires consent for the lawful exercise of those rights.

Her dissent discussed the weight given to state law and practices over federal law when it comes to gun issues, emphasizing that it’s particularly suitable given Hawaii’s lack of a tradition of carrying firearms. She closed her dissent with critiques of her colleagues, accusing the majority of selectively deciding which historical contexts are relevant.

Justice Elena Kagan also submitted a separate dissenting opinion.

This ruling will likely have implications for other liberal states, including New York, Maryland, and California, which have enacted similar regulations to Hawaii.

John Comerford, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Legislative Action Institute, remarked that law-abiding gun owners should no longer need to seek special permission to exercise their constitutional right to carry arms in public.