Hawaii’s Gun Carry Laws and Constitutional Rights

Imagine a world where your freedom of speech hinges on a store owner’s approval or where your right to worship vanishes as soon as you step into a public park. This is effectively what a recent Hawaii law enforces, which prohibits carrying firearms in private properties and certain “sensitive places,” like restaurants and beaches.

This isn’t just hypothetical; it’s the reality in Hawaii. A new state law, upheld by the Ninth Circuit, reframes the Second Amendment into a privilege that requires prior permission. Under Act 52, individuals must seek authorization to exercise their constitutional rights in everyday places, such as parks or eateries.

Such a concept feels off. Constitutional rights shouldn’t be contingent on the whims of government or property owners. They are fundamental rights that government is meant to protect, not restrict. The right to carry arms, similar to rights related to free speech or worship, is inalienable and predates the Constitution itself. The Constitution’s purpose is to safeguard that right from government intrusion.

This situation is significant enough that Idaho and Montana are joining forces with 24 other states to request the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention.

To clarify, this isn’t an attack on Hawaii specifically. It’s not political posturing. We are involved because Hawaii’s Act 52 is a pivotal case in the struggle over whether states can effectively negate constitutional rights through regulatory means. Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, states were directed to align their gun laws with historical norms in America. Instead of complying, Hawaii crafted a law that, while not outright banning carry, makes it practically unfeasible.

When challenged, the Ninth Circuit upheld this statute, creating a direct contradiction with the Second Circuit, which had invalidated a similar law in Antonyuk v. James. Now, two federal appellate courts are at odds over this constitutional matter.

That’s why we submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. An amicus brief allows states not involved in the original lawsuit to express their viewpoints on issues with national implications. We are asking the Court to resolve this inconsistency because the interpretation of the Second Amendment should remain uniform across the United States, not differ based on state or circuit.

The Court in Bruen affirmed that firearm restrictions must be anchored in historical precedent, not legislative creativity. Hawaii’s law references obscure historical examples, such as anti-poaching regulations and post-Civil War disarmament laws, which do not align with America’s ongoing tradition of recognizing citizens’ right to publicly carry arms. These are exceptions rather than the rule.

Yet, the implications extend beyond this one piece of legislation. If states can use legislative assumptions to undermine constitutional rights, it places the entire Bill of Rights in jeopardy. Today, it’s the Second Amendment; tomorrow, it could involve rights related to speech, worship, or assembly.

The Constitution isn’t a green light for government; it’s a set of restrictions. It was crafted to ensure individual freedoms by outlining clear limits on government power. The Bill of Rights explicitly details these limits; it doesn’t offer suggestions for states to pick and choose from. It’s a binding guarantee applicable to all Americans, with protections that don’t fade at state lines or disappear at business entries.

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending the Constitution against any redefinitions brought forth by clever legislation. The Supreme Court must hear this case to reaffirm the original intentions of the Framers and the universal understanding that the right to bear arms belongs to the populace, and no state can assume otherwise.