SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN HAWAII’S LAW RESTRICTING FIREARM POSSESSION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
June 25, 2026 – Today, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant Second Amendment decision in Wolford v. Lopez, holding that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms onto private property open to the public without the property owner’s express permission violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that Hawaii’s law impermissibly burdened the right to bear arms by effectively preventing law abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense during the course of their ordinary daily activities.
The Hawaii statute created a “default rule” that prohibited concealed carry permit holders from entering virtually all privately owned businesses while carrying a firearm unless the property owner affirmatively granted permission for them to enter. Although property owners have the right to prohibit firearms on their property, the Court explained that Hawaii fundamentally reversed the traditional rule by presuming that firearms were prohibited absent express authorization. According to the Court, that “default rule” imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of the Second Amendment because citizens in lawful possession of a concealed firearm were required to obtain permission before entering businesses and other locations open to the public.
Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court easily concluded that the conduct at issue—carrying a firearm for self-defense—falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The burden therefore shifted to Hawaii to demonstrate that its law was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court found that Hawaii failed to satisfy that burden, concluding that the historical laws cited by Hawaii either regulated fundamentally different types of circumstances, such as restricting uninvited individuals from hunting on private property, or were otherwise clearly not analogous to Hawaii’s sweeping “default rule” law. The Court recognized that historical practice generally permitted individuals to carry firearms onto private property open to the public unless the property owner excluded them, and Hawaii’s “default rule” impermissibly did the opposite.
The decision has implications well beyond Hawaii. Following Bruen, several states, including California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York also adopted similar ”default rule” laws requiring affirmative permission before individuals could carry firearms onto private property open to the public. Those laws are now confirmed to be unconstitutional. Importantly, the Court’s decision does not prevent private property owners from prohibiting firearms on their premises. Rather, it confirms that the Second Amendment does not allow states to reverse the traditional rule that persons from entering private property open to the public while lawfully carrying a firearm, unless it is expressly prohibited.
Wolford represents the Supreme Court’s latest application of Bruen‘s historical tradition test and further explains the scope of permissible firearm regulations under the Second Amendment. The decision follows another Second Amendment decision issued this term, United States v. Hemani, which held that the federal government cannot prohibit occasional marijuana users from owning firearms. These cases reinforce that states may regulate the right to bear arms only where the restrictions are supported by a well-established historical regulations.
Renzulli Law Firm will continue to monitor Second Amendment related litigation, and potential impacts. If you have any questions about laws regulating firearms and ammunition, please contact Christopher Renzulli.