Supreme Court hears Hawaii gun case on business gun bans

The Supreme Court announced Oct. 3, 2025, it will review Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to 🌺Hawaii's handgun restrictions. The case is set for oral arguments early in the 2026 term, with a ruling expected by Jun. 2026. The Court will decide whether Hawaii's law banning guns on private property unless owners explicitly allow them violates the Second Amendment. The case follows the Court's 2022 decision in 🗽New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with "historical tradition" of firearm regulation. This is the first major Second Amendment case since Bruen.

🌺Hawaii's law, enacted in 2023 after the Bruen decision, bans guns on private property, including businesses like stores, hotels, malls, gas stations, and restaurants, unless the owner has specifically allowed them verbally or with a sign. The law requires concealed carry permit holders to seek permission to bring weapons onto private properties that are otherwise open to the public unless the owner already allows it. Because most property owners don't post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii's default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry, according to challengers. They argue the law makes it "impossible as a practical matter" to exercise Second Amendment rights.

The law also restricts guns in certain "sensitive places," including beaches, parks, bars, restaurants, government buildings, schools, and hospitals. However, the Supreme Court chose to focus only on the private property aspect when accepting the case for review, not the sensitive places restrictions. The Court's narrow focus suggests it may issue a limited ruling on private property rules without addressing the broader sensitive places doctrine established in Bruen. The Court's decision to limit review may reflect concerns about issuing a sweeping ruling that upends gun laws nationwide. Or it may signal the justices aren't ready to expand gun rights as broadly as challengers hoped.

Plaintiffs argued the Ninth Circuit's ruling upholding 🌺Hawaii's law made it "impossible as a practical matter to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense in Hawaii." They contend the law forces permit holders to either avoid most public places or risk criminal prosecution. Hawaii issues concealed carry permits under a "shall issue" standard after Bruen struck down its prior "may issue" system, but the law makes carrying practically useless. Challengers say the default ban flips the historical presumption that people could carry guns on private property unless owners objected. They argue Hawaii put the burden on gun owners to get permission, when history shows the burden was on property owners to say no.

The Trump administration filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers. The brief argues that "from the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise." It states that "because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, 🌺Hawaii's default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry." The brief argues a person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering "a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot." The Trump DOJ argues this violates the Second Amendment's text and history.

🌺Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, a Democrat, defends the law as "a permissible effort to vindicate the rights of Hawai'i's citizens to exclude armed individuals from their private property." Lopez argues the law protects property owners' rights to control who enters their premises armed. Five states—Hawaii, 🌴California, 🦀Maryland, 🏖️New Jersey, and 🗽New York—enacted similar restrictions after Bruen. The Second Circuit struck down New York's version. The Third Circuit struck down New Jersey's in an NRA case. The Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii's law, creating a circuit split the Supreme Court will now resolve. The split forced the Court's hand.

The case could determine whether states can require gun owners to obtain explicit permission before entering private businesses, or whether the default rule must allow carry unless owners affirmatively prohibit it. A ruling favoring 🌺Hawaii would give states broad authority to regulate guns on private commercial property. A ruling favoring challengers would invalidate laws in Hawaii, 🌴California, 🦀Maryland, and similar states, effectively requiring property owners to post "no guns" signs or verbally prohibit firearms to exclude armed individuals. The decision will shape gun policy nationwide and could affect millions of concealed carry permit holders and thousands of businesses.