The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case from Hawaii that could influence gun rights across the country. The case, Wolford v. Lopez, focuses on whether states can prohibit individuals with concealed carry permits from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public without explicit permission.
This legal dispute follows the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which broadened the right to carry firearms in public. In June 2023, three Maui County residents challenged a new Hawaii law that makes it a crime for permit holders to bring handguns onto 15 types of properties unless owners give clear consent or post signs allowing firearms. Previously, state law allowed permit holders to carry on such properties unless explicitly forbidden by the owner.
The Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law in September 2024.
During oral arguments on January 20, attorneys Alan Beck and Sarah Harris represented the plaintiffs while Neal Katyal argued for Hawaii. One major issue discussed was whether the presumption should be that guns are banned on public-facing private property unless allowed—a reversal of previous norms.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Beck about how Bruen defined gun rights: “Well, in Bruen, the court said that there’s a general right to carry,” Beck responded. Jackson replied, “A general right to carry on public property.” Beck clarified: “No. It — it’s a right to carry in public, your honor. Not a right to carry on public property.”
Jackson also asked Harris about what Second Amendment rights were at stake if property owners or states require explicit consent for carrying firearms: “[C]an we just be a little bit more specific about the Second Amendment right that you say is being infringed on here?” she asked. “I think the United States is on board with this — that the Second Amendment yields to the property interests of a private property owner such that the private property owner gets to consent as to whether or not you can carry a gun on his property…”
Harris responded: “I think, when you collapse the whole inquiry into a specific question of what happens vis-a-vis property rights, you’re backing away from the Bruen framework… So what we’re answering here is what is the scope of the right to publicly carry under the Second Amendment… [W]hen a restriction parts ways… it redefines… trespass…”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor referenced historical precedent regarding weapons and owner consent: “most property owners for 200 years didn’t carry weapons in this state without an owner’s consent.” Harris countered: “[Y]ou can’t use local customs to say that each state gets its own Second Amendment.”
Sotomayor continued questioning who should have authority over access: “But the presumption is that you’re trespassing,” Harris replied. “It treats — just for one class of people — it turns essentially property open to the public… into … someone’s house…”
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about singling out firearms compared with other activities: “There’s been suggestion this is just flipping a presumption about implied license… But how do we think about that… given it flips … only with respect to firearms — not knives, not solicitation…” Harris agreed and emphasized broader implications.
Harris added practical concerns about everyday life under Hawaii’s law: “…as a practical matter … you have to run … knowing you’re not trespassing … pick up your dry-cleaning and catch coffee…. Now Hawaii is trying to say it’s easier than that but … entering … without permission is a crime.”
Justice Samuel Alito compared firearm restrictions with hypothetical limits on political expression and highlighted constitutional issues: “It’s a violation of First Amendment,” he told Katyal defending Hawaii’s law. “…a violation of … First Amendment … and … protected by Second Amendment in Bruen…”
The full audio and transcript are available at supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1046.
Buckeye Firearms Association provides news updates and legislative alerts related to gun rights through its official website. The organization operates as an Ohio-based grassroots group focused on protecting firearm ownership for self-defense, hunting, competition and recreation (https://www.buckeyefirearms.org). It also offers information about training opportunities and events while concentrating efforts within Ohio (https://www.buckeyefirearms.org).
