{"id":212125,"date":"2026-07-19T08:12:48","date_gmt":"2026-07-19T15:12:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=212125"},"modified":"2026-09-17T07:12:19","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T14:12:19","slug":"scotus-strikes-hawaiis-private-property-carry-consent-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=212125","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Strikes Hawaii&#8217;s Private Property Carry Consent Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><b>Wolford v. Lopez<\/b><\/h1>\n<h2><strong>U.S. Supreme Court Holds Unconstitutional a Hawaii Law Prohibiting the Licensed Carry of Firearms on Private Property, Open to the Public, Without Express Consent<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h2><strong>Overview<\/strong><b><\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">In 2022, <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association, Inc. v.<\/span><\/i> <i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Bruen<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> affirmed the \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/armed-and-therefore-dangerous-rethinking-terry-in-light-of-bruen-rahimi\/\">Second Amendment<\/a> right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.\u201d<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Subsequently, five states including Hawaii adopted laws restricting the carry of firearms, including by licensed permit-holders, onto \u201cprivate property open to the public.\u201d<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> In June 2026, <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Wolford v. Lopez <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">held that the Second Amendment was violated by the \u201cHawaii law that prohibits firearms on private property open to the public without the express and affirmative consent of the property owner.\u201d<\/span><b><\/b><\/p>\n<h2><b>Hawaii\u2019s State Law at Issue<\/b><b><\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The challenged law \u201cgenerally prohibit[ed] licensed individuals from carrying a firearm, even if unloaded or inoperable . . . onto private property held open to the public\u201d except where \u201cthe owner, lessee, operator, or manager\u201d has given \u201cexpress authorization.\u201d Unless a store \u201chas posted a sign saying \u2018Guns Welcome\u2019 or something to that effect, each visit could expose [customers] to criminal liability.\u201d<\/span> <i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Wolford <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">reflected that even shopkeepers \u201cwho do not object to entry by carry permit-holders,\u201d may hesitate to hang such a sign, fearing alienation of other patrons.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Notably,wWithout this law, storeowners could still restrict carry permit-holders from entering.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Court described Hawaii\u2019s legislation as \u201cimpos[ing] a new burden on permit holders who will have to somehow obtain permission to carry a firearm on the property before stepping foot on it.\u201d<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><b><i>Bruen-Heller<\/i><\/b><b> Framework for Laws Challenged Under the Second Amendment<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Wolford <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">analyzed Hawaii\u2019s law under the following steps, established in <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Bruen <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">and<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Heller<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Court determines \u201cwhether the challenged law <\/span>falls within the plain text\u201d of the Second Amendment by asking if the legislation:\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400\">Applies to \u201cthe people,\u201d defined as \u201call members of the political community,\u201d<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400\">Concerns \u201carms,\u201d defined as \u201cweapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes,\u201d and<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400\">Restricts keeping (possessing) or bearing (carrying) arms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400\">If the above is answered yes, the law \u201cis presumptively unconstitutional, which means that it may violate the preexisting right that the [Second] Amendment codified.\u201d<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400\">The government may then argue the law\u2019s constitutionality by showing that it does \u201cnot infringe the historical understanding\u201d of \u201cthe right to keep and bear arms.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Based on this analysis, <i>Wolford<\/i> concluded: \u201cThe restrictions imposed by Hawaii\u2019s challenged law fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is presumptively unconstitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2><b>Analysis of Historical Analogues \u201cOld Legal Rules\u201d<\/b><\/h2>\n<p>Under the framework established for Second Amendment challenges, courts examine whether the law is consistency with historical analogues (\u201cold legal rules\u201d). \u201c[T]he \u2018how\u2019 and \u2018why\u2019 of the historical analogue and modern regulation must be close enough to enable a court to say: \u2018Because this historical law was understood to be compatible with the right codified by the Second Amendment, we can infer that the restriction imposed by the modern law is likewise consistent with that right.\u2019\u201d <i>Bruen <\/i>enumerated the following factors as relevant to this analysis:<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Number of Jurisdictions<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Courts hesitate to pin interpretations \u201con a [historical] law in effect in a single State.\u201d<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Level of Acceptance\u00a0of the Old Law<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Acceptance can be <\/span>express, where courts \u201cexplicitly acknowledged\u201d its legality, or implied, where the law was largely unchallenged.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Relevant Similarity<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Compares the old <\/span>restrictions (the how) and rationales<span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> (the why) to the new, challenged law.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2><b>Hawaii\u2019s Law was <\/b><b><i>Not<\/i><\/b><b> Proven Sufficiently Similar to Historical Analogues<\/b><b><\/b><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Wolford <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">held that the analogues (\u201cold legal rules\u201d) offered by the State, which \u201cprincipally targeted unauthorized hunting,\u201d were <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">not<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> similar enough to justify Hawaii\u2019s new legislation.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The historical laws sought to address \u201cthe firing of guns, which created a risk of inadvertently inflicting death or serious injury on the owner of the property, others who were authorized to use the property, and livestock.\u201d In contrast, \u201c[t]he conduct restricted by the Hawaii law has none of these effects. Others on the premises will not even notice a person peacefully carrying a concealed weapon in the manner [already] demanded by Hawaiian law.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">To determine whether the historical analogues are \u201c<\/span>relevantly similar<span style=\"font-weight: 400\">,\u201d the question in <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Wolford <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">became: \u201cBecause it was accepted that prohibiting unauthorized hunting on private land was consistent with the Second Amendment right, can we infer that it is also consistent with that right to ban a person who is lawfully carrying a concealed handgun for self-defense from entering a gas station, coffee shop, grocery store, or other private property open to the public without express and unambiguous consent?\u201d Alluding to a no, the Court concluded: \u201cThe question answers itself.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Finally, Hawaii\u2019s \u201cparticular customs and laws\u201d did <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">not<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> satisfy the analogue requirement, as \u201cthe Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States.\u201d<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Court enumerated that the Second Amendment \u201ccan<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">not<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> give way to \u2018the spirit of Aloha\u2019 in Hawaii . . . any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Bruen<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">) or the Windy City (<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">McDonald<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d<\/span><b><\/b><\/p>\n<h2><b>Summary<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Under the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Bruen-Heller <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Framework, a law challenged as violating the Second Amendment may be upheld as constitutional if \u201crelevantly similar\u201d historical analogues (\u201cold legal rules\u201d) show the new legislation is consistent with \u201cthe right to keep and bear arms.\u201d<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> In <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Wolford<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the Court<\/span> <span style=\"font-weight: 400\">observed that the analogues offered largely consisted \u201cof laws that prohibited unauthorized hunting of deer or small game on someone else\u2019s private property.\u201d The Court described the gap as \u201cwide\u201d between these historical regulations and Hawaii\u2019s law prohibiting carry permit-holders from entering private property, open to the public, without express consent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Held: <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cHawaii\u2019s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner\u2019s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><strong>References<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ol>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 2 (2022). Four years before <em>Wolford<\/em>, <em>Bruen<\/em> held &#8220;that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.&#8221; Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. ____ slip op. at 10 (2026).<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">After <em>Bruen<\/em>, the states of CA, HI, MD, NJ, and NY enacted &#8220;new laws provid[ing] that no one carrying a firearm may enter [private property open to the public] without express authorization.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 10.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">&#8220;This [Hawaii] law flips the default rule at common law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 1.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">Consent had to be communicated through &#8220;clear and conspicuous signage&#8221; or &#8220;&#8216;[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization&#8217; to carry a firearm on the premises from &#8216;the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property'&#8221; or his agent. <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 12, 14 (quoting Haw. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 134\u20139.5(b) (2023)).<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">Some storeowners may &#8220;only be willing to consent discreetly to the entry of permit holders who make the effort to inquire. This arrangement imposes a new burden on permit holders who will have to somehow obtain permission to carry a firearm on the property before stepping foot on it.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 3.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">&#8220;[O]wners of establishments that are open to the public can [already] admit or exclude persons who are carrying guns for self-defense under either the common-law rule or Hawaii&#8217;s law.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 2.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">The Court described that Hawaii&#8217;s &#8220;law severely hampers the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise the right <em>Bruen<\/em> recognized as they go about their daily lives.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 3.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\"><em>District of Colombia v.<\/em> &#8220;Heller explained, and later cases have reiterated, that the Second Amendment &#8216;codified a pre-existing right.'&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 4, 5 n.2.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">&#8220;No party disputes that petitioners are among &#8216;the people&#8217; protected by the Second Amendment or that they seek to &#8216;bear&#8217; &#8216;Arms.&#8217; Therefore, &#8216;the plain text of the Second Amendment protects&#8217; what petitioners want to do: carry handguns for self-defense.&#8221; Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. ___ slip op. at 2 (2026).<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">\u00b9&#8221;To satisfy <em>Bruen<\/em>, Hawaii must identify historical laws that pursued an analogous goal in an analogous way.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 5 (Barrett, J., concurring).<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">\u00b9&#8221;[T]he best evidence [of constitutionality] is often what <em>Bruen<\/em> called historical analogues, old legal rules from which a court may draw a strong inference that the . . . law at issue is consistent with the&#8221; 2nd Amendment <em>Id.<\/em> at 7.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">The State&#8217;s historical analogues &#8220;applied to land where [hunting] game could be found, not retail establishments that residents of cities and suburbs frequent as part of their daily routines.&#8221; Their &#8220;aim was to prevent the distinctive harms and risks associated with unauthorized hunting . . . They had little if any impact on the Second Amendment&#8217;s central objective: protecting the fundamental right to self-defense.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 21.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">&#8220;Those [historical] laws had little if any impact on the Second Amendment&#8217;s central objective of protecting the fundamental right to self-defense, and their obvious aim was to prevent the distinctive harms and risks associated with unauthorized hunting.&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 3.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">&#8220;Hawaii&#8217;s proffered historical analogues do <em>not<\/em> support the constitutionality of its new default rule.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em><\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">The &#8220;&#8216;overwhelming evidence&#8217; shows an &#8216;enduring American tradition permitting public carry.&#8217; Hawaii&#8217;s prohibitions on public carry represent a distinct outlier.&#8221; <em>Id.<\/em> at 19.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">&#8220;[T]he &#8216;how&#8217; and &#8216;why&#8217; of the historical analogue and modern regulation must be close enough to enable a court to say: &#8216;Because this historical law was understood to be compatible with the right codified by the Second Amendment, we can infer that the restriction imposed by the modern law is likewise consistent with that right.'&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 8.<\/li>\n<li class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" dir=\"auto\">&#8220;In order to be sufficiently similar to the modern law being challenged, a putative analogue need <em>not<\/em> be a &#8216;dead ringer&#8217; or &#8216;historical twin.'&#8221; <em>Wolford<\/em>, at 8 (quoting <em>Bruen<\/em>, 597 U.S., at 30).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h2>Related from Blue to Gold<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/us-v-hemani-marijuana-use-alone-doesnt-bar-gun-rights\/\">US v. Hemani: Marijuana Use Alone Doesn&#8217;t Bar Gun Rights<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/what-is-leosa\/\">What Is LEOSA? A Plain-English Guide for Active and Retired Officers<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/can-police-unload-disassemble-gun-traffic-stop\/\">Can Police Unload or Disassemble a Lawfully Carried Gun During a Traffic Stop?<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>This article is legal training, not legal advice. Check your state law and your agency policy, because both can be more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Wolford v. Lopez U.S. Supreme Court Holds Unconstitutional a Hawaii Law Prohibiting the Licensed Carry of Firearms on Private Property, Open to the Public, Without Express Consent Overview In 2022, New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen affirmed the \u201cSecond Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.\u201d Subsequently, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1010,"featured_media":224381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":[],"_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"wds_primary_category":618,"footnotes":""},"categories":[618],"tags":[785,775,786,787],"class_list":["post-212125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-personal-property","tag-gun-rights","tag-legal-deep-dive","tag-scotus","tag-second-amendment"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1010"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=212125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212125\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/224381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=212125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=212125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=212125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}