Expanded Carry Rights.
Supreme Court expands concealed carry rights, striking Hawaii’s private property gun law.
Anonymous
Key Points
1
The majority rejected the use of colonial-era anti-poaching analogues to justify Hawaii’s default ban on guns on private property, saying "The gap between the State’s anti-poaching analogues and its new rule is just too wide."
2
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent asserts the ruling tramples states’ authority to regulate gun ownership and property law, criticizing the majority for turning Bruen into "a free-for-all" that lets the judiciary thwart legislatures.
3
The decision has potential nationwide impact, affecting California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii, by striking down laws that bar carrying guns onto private property open to the public unless the owner expressly consents; the Los Angeles Times summarized the rule as prohibiting carrying onto private property open to the public without owner authorization.
4
The case featured a cross-ideological coalition, with Trump administration lawyers joining Hawaii gun owners in urging the Court to strike down the laws restricting carry in stores and other private spaces.
5
Analysts view the ruling as part of a Bruen-era trend toward expanding gun rights; CNN coverage notes experts like Steve Vladeck described the decision as a major setback for gun-safety advocates, signaling a broader shift in post-Bruen jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's gun law in a 6-3 decision on June 25, ruling that states cannot require concealed-carry permit holders to get a property owner's explicit permission before entering private businesses open to the public. The ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, immediately threatens similar laws in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. PBS called it a victory for gun-rights advocates and the Trump administration, which sided with Hawaii gun owners in urging the Court to act.
The case, known as Wolford v. Lopez, centers on Hawaii's Act 52, a 2023 law that made it a crime to carry a firearm into stores, hotels, or restaurants without the owner's express consent. Critics called it the "Vampire Rule" — because, like a vampire, a gun owner had to be invited in. The Court said that rule went too far.
Alito's Majority: Hawaii Flipped the Default Rule
Justice Alito wrote that the traditional American rule treats businesses open to the public as presumptively open to everyone — unless the owner posts a sign saying otherwise. Hawaii flipped that rule. Under Act 52, gun owners could only enter if the owner had posted a "Guns Welcome" sign or given direct permission. Alito said that "hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives," according to The Washington Post.
Hawaii tried to justify its law by pointing to colonial-era anti-poaching statutes and an 1865 Louisiana law. Alito rejected both. He noted the Louisiana law was part of the post-Civil War Black Codes — racist laws designed to disarm Black Americans. "The gap between the State's anti-poaching analogues and its new rule is just too wide," Alito wrote. The Reload reported that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote a concurrence also rejecting those historical comparisons.
Dissenters Say Court Is Protecting Guns, Not Principles
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Jackson argued the majority was trampling on states' authority over both property rights and public safety. "Today's decision makes one thing clear: The Court's objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law," she wrote, according to Newsweek.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a separate dissent. She argued that historical trespassing and hunting laws gave states enough legal cover to pass rules like Hawaii's. Jackson went further, warning the majority was turning the Court's 2022 Bruen framework — which requires gun laws to match historical traditions — into "a free-for-all" that lets judges overrule elected legislatures.
Four States Now Face Immediate Legal Challenges
The ruling's reach goes well beyond Hawaii. California's Senate Bill 2, passed in 2023, includes a nearly identical default ban on guns in private businesses. New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act has similar provisions now expected to fall in pending court cases, according to The Washington Post. New Jersey and Maryland face immediate legal challenges or pressure to repeal their own versions of the rule.
Businesses in all five states now face a new burden. If they want to keep their premises gun-free, they must post clear "No Guns" signage — or guns are allowed in by default. Legal analyst Steve Vladeck told CNN the decision is "a major setback for gun-safety advocates" and shows the Court is comfortable using Bruen to strike down state legislative compromises on guns.
A Cross-Party Coalition Pushed the Case to Victory
The petitioner, Jason Wolford, is a Maui resident who said Hawaii's law effectively wiped out his right to carry in daily life. The Trump administration backed him. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris called the Hawaii law "blatantly unconstitutional," according to PBS. It was a rare moment where the federal government and private gun owners aligned to challenge a blue state's firearm restrictions before the Court.
Gun control groups reacted sharply. Kris Brown, president of Brady, said the ruling "privileges guns over everything and all people in society," according to The Guardian. On the other side, attorney Alan Beck, who argued for Wolford, called the outcome a win for "uniform Second Amendment rights across all 50 states." Hawaii had just 3,764 valid concealed carry licenses as of December 31, 2025 — a 70.5% jump from the year before — but those holders can now carry freely into businesses statewide.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
29
Articles
156
Reach
185
A
AnonymousAuthor
