Over the past few years, the United States Supreme Court has confounded left-wing efforts to diminish the Second Amendment by handing down rulings that effectively gutted certain state-level attempts to restrict gun rights. During the Court’s January 2026 session, it may well do so again when it hears oral arguments in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii law that makes it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to lawfully carry firearms in public. Should the Court side with the plaintiff in this case, several blue states will need to rethink similar restrictions. In terms of the impact on Second Amendment rights, one could say this case ranks up there with Heller and Bruen.
In May of 2025, the Department of Justice filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, urging the Supreme Court to hear the case and strike down the Hawaii law. On October 3, the justices voted to hear oral arguments on Jan. 20, 2026.
The Bruen Blowback
The Supreme Court in 2022 ruled that the state of New York could not require citizens to prove they had a specific need, or “proper cause,” to carry a concealed firearm in public. The majority opinion held that the Second Amendment guarantees a “general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” That case was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and the decision prompted several states controlled by Democrats who are mostly hostile toward gun rights to find ways of circumventing it.
Hawaii’s response to Bruen was to pass a law in 2023 that made it unlawful for a person to go onto any private property with a firearm. To legally do so, the property’s “owner, lessee, operator, or manager” must give their express permission or clearly display a sign showing that firearms are permitted.
This includes private property that is generally open to the public. In other words, retail stores, shopping malls, restaurants, parking lots, gas stations, and the like. And this isn’t just about the carrying of a functioning, loaded pistol or rifle. The law covers firearms in any state, as the Justice Department’s filing points out, “operable or not,” “loaded or unloaded,” and “concealed or unconcealed.”
In fact, the law as it is written does not specify that the weapon must be on the person, only that no one can enter onto private property with a firearm. Technically, then, an individual is in breach of this law if they stop at a drive-thru with an unloaded and disassembled pistol in a locked case in the trunk of their vehicle.
Blatant Attack on Gun Rights
The central objection the DOJ raised in its petition is that the Hawaii law appears to have been crafted not to respect private property rights or promote public safety, but specifically to restrict citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The petition observed: “The rule in a range of contexts is that laws regulating constitutionally protected conduct must serve legitimate purposes and may not seek simply to inhibit the exercise of constitutional rights.”
The law was initially challenged by three residents of Maui and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. A district judge granted a temporary injunction, but a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then upheld the law. The court voted against reviewing the appeal en banc (a review conducted by the full court), with seven judges dissenting from that decision.
Though a few exceptions can be found throughout American history, it has generally always been accepted that property owners can prohibit certain items from being carried onto their property. If they do not do so, the petition notes, “a person who enters private property open to the public does not need specific permission from the owner to carry a gun—or, for that matter, to carry anything else… “
The petition describes several aspects of the law – officially, Act 52 – that expose it as a blatant attack on gun rights. The law requires that the property owner must give “[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization” for the carrying of a firearm. “If a person asks an owner whether he may carry a gun, and the owner nods his head in approval,” the DOJ argues, “the person still may not bring his gun inside.”
Further, Act 52 applies exclusively to firearms and not to any other types of weapons or items that could easily be used as weapons.
A Property Rights Strawman
The DOJ also points out that the Law exempts off-duty law enforcement officers, federal, state, and local government employees – if their jobs require them to be armed – and even certain retired law enforcement personnel who may be visiting the islands from out of state.
These exemptions contravene any arguments that the law is intended to respect the rights of property owners who may object to guns being carried on their property. As the petition puts it, “Hawaii does not explain why off-duty police officers, state employees stopping for coffee on their way to work, or out-of-state retired police officers could override property rights that everyone else must respect… “
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Alan Alexander Beck, points out that, if the law is struck down, property owners retain the option of banning firearms. “Historically, businesses have a right to put up a sign that says guns are not allowed and we want to go back to that historical standard.”
For the Justice Department, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “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.”
Many a Supreme Court decision has relied at least in part on historical precedent or what has traditionally been accepted. In the case of property rights, where the property is open to the public, the onus has almost always been on the property owner to set the rules for what cannot be brought onto the property. Hawaii has turned that upside down – but only for firearms.
Unfairly Compelled
Another point not raised by the DOJ is that Hawaiian property owners who are okay with people carrying guns are compelled to put up clear and conspicuous signs (and Act 52 does stipulate the clear and conspicuous part) indicating that firearms are permitted. In a heavily Democrat state, many people who support gun rights may not want to do that. Owners of convenience stores or gas stations might be concerned that their businesses could be targeted with boycotts, their staff subjected to abuse or even threats, considering the heightened animosity left-wingers are exhibiting toward anyone who does not conform to their values.
A similar law in New York has already been tossed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. While astute Court-watchers are often reluctant to predict how the nine justices will vote, it seems quite likely that Act 52 will die in the Supreme Court. The law goes against almost all historical precedents. And in so many ways, it appears to have been written for the sole purpose of making it practically impossible to legally carry a gun in public. The DOJ pointedly observes that, under this law, “only ‘those who aimlessly wander the streets,’ may exercise their right to bear arms.”
Whichever way the court goes on this, gun rights in at least five states – impacting “more than a fifth of the Nation’s population,” according to the DOJ petition – will be profoundly affected. And, of course, if the justices side with Hawaii, several additional states are likely to follow its lead.
-2.png&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
