Supreme Court Overturns Hawaii Firearms Law
The U.S. Supreme Court has nullified a Hawaii law that restricted bringing firearms onto private property that is open to the public unless the gun owner received explicit permission to do so.
In a decision made on June 25, the justices voted 6-3 in the case Wolford vs. Lopez. They concluded that this law breached the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms.
This ruling could have significant implications for states like California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey, where similar regulations are in place regarding firearms.
Justice Samuel Alito articulated in a lengthy opinion that the law “interferes with what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to bear arms for self-defense in the course of their daily lives.”
Supporting Alito’s view were Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed that the law “fairly applies the first principle of property law, the right to exclude, and does not violate the Second Amendment.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan concurred, noting: “Hawaii’s law does not implicate the Second Amendment because (all agree) there is no right to bring guns onto private property without consent, and the Constitution does not specify the form of consent required.”
Jackson further stated, “Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The court’s purpose is to protect guns, not to consistently uphold the principles of the law.”
Justice Alito dismissed Hawaii’s argument based on an 1865 Louisiana law, which made it illegal to possess firearms on someone’s property without permission. He argued that this older law is “not widely popular or widely accepted” and has roots in discriminatory practices against formerly enslaved individuals after the Civil War.
In a concurring statement, Barrett presented a hypothetical where the state could legally ban the wearing of religious attire, like the hijab, on privately owned public property without permission. This, she suggested, illustrates that First Amendment limitations could evade constitutional scrutiny, even if they are framed in terms of property rights.
“Property law, like any other law, is subject to constitutional limitations,” she argued.
The NRA lauded the ruling, affirming that law-abiding gun owners will no longer need special permissions to exercise their constitutional rights. John Comerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, expressed that this decision is a win for firearm owners.
“Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to seek special permission just to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public,” said Comerford.
