Democrats won’t like this one bit.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed supporters of the Second Amendment another major legal victory Thursday, striking down a Hawaii gun law that limited where lawful concealed carry permit holders could carry firearms.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court concluded that Hawaii’s restrictions violated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms by making it unlawful for licensed gun owners to carry handguns on most private property open to the public unless they first obtained the property owner’s express permission.
The decision marks another significant Second Amendment victory during President Donald Trump’s second term, as the Court continues applying its history-and-tradition standard to modern firearm regulations.
Supreme Court Rules Hawaii’s Gun Law Is Unconstitutional
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court’s majority, said Hawaii’s law placed an unconstitutional restriction on Americans seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense.
“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Alito wrote. “We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”
The Court found that Hawaii’s law effectively treated nearly all privately owned businesses as gun-free zones unless owners specifically authorized concealed carry.
Court Rejects Hawaii’s Historical Arguments
To defend the law, Hawaii argued that similar restrictions existed throughout American history.
State attorneys pointed to anti-poaching laws from the nation’s founding era as well as firearm restrictions enacted during the post-Civil War period.
The majority rejected those comparisons.
Justice Alito wrote that many of the historical examples relied upon by Hawaii were either unrelated to the Second Amendment or rooted in discriminatory laws that could not serve as legitimate constitutional precedent.
The Court reaffirmed that modern firearm regulations must remain consistent with the nation’s historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms.
Liberal Justices Issue Strong Dissents
All three liberal justices disagreed with the ruling.
Justice Elena Kagan argued that Hawaii’s law simply established a default rule allowing private property owners to decide whether firearms would be permitted on their property.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to carry a firearm onto private property without the owner’s consent.
According to Jackson, the dispute centered on how consent is communicated rather than on the Second Amendment itself.
What Was Hawaii’s Act 52?
Hawaii enacted Act 52 after the Supreme Court’s landmark expansion of Second Amendment protections in recent years.
The law required concealed carry permit holders to receive explicit permission before carrying a handgun onto private property that is open to the public.
Permission could be granted verbally, in writing, or through clearly posted signage.
Without that permission, carrying a firearm was prohibited in countless everyday locations, including:
- Shopping centers
- Restaurants
- Banks
- Bowling alleys
- Retail stores
- Other privately owned businesses open to the public
Gun rights advocates argued the law effectively turned much of Hawaii into a default gun-free zone despite citizens holding valid concealed carry permits.
Gun Owners Took The Case To The Supreme Court
The lawsuit was filed by Hawaii residents Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford, Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition.
After winning in federal district court, the plaintiffs saw the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reverse that decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit drew backing from several prominent Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the National Association for Gun Rights.
The Trump administration also urged the Court to strike down Hawaii’s law, joined by approximately 25 Republican-led states.
Meanwhile, gun-control organizations—including the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety—supported Hawaii, along with more than a dozen Democratic-led states and several cities.
Another Major Second Amendment Victory
Thursday’s decision is the second major Supreme Court ruling this term favoring gun rights advocates.
Earlier this month, the Court also limited the federal government’s ability to prosecute certain firearm owners based solely on occasional marijuana use.
Several additional Second Amendment cases are already waiting for review, including challenges involving state bans on AR-15-style rifles and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.
Those cases could produce even more significant constitutional rulings in the months ahead.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling reinforces the Court’s continued willingness to closely scrutinize firearm restrictions under the Second Amendment. For supporters of gun rights, the decision represents another important victory that limits how far states can go in restricting lawful concealed carry. With additional gun cases still pending, the national debate over the Second Amendment is far from over.