Hawaii’s Default Gun-Carry Ban on Private Property Open to the Public Is Unconstitutional

[UPDATE] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, June 25, that Hawaii’s default ban on carrying firearms on private property that’s open to the public violates the Second Amendment. Hawaii had designated all privately owned but public-facing property, as well as parks, beaches, and other locations, as “sensitive places” where even gun owners with a permit were banned from carrying a firearm unless they received express permission from the property owner.

Hawaii passed its law in 2023 despite that fact that the Supreme Court had ruled the year prior in New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen that state laws creating burdensome hurdles to obtain a permit are unconstitutional. The landmark ruling reaffirmed that Americans have the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense and that in order to justify any restriction on that right, a state or local government must show that the restriction is in keeping with widely accepted historical tradition or firearm laws contemporary to the passing of the Second Amendment.

Following the Bruen ruling, many blue states opted to pass similar “sensitive places” laws, making it effectively illegal for gun owners to carry a firearm anywhere outside their own home. These statutes, sometimes referred to as “vampire laws,” brought about a wave of new lawsuits claiming they were unconstitutional under the Bruen precedent.

Three Hawaii residents and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition challenged Hawaii’s sensitive places law, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the law. The case, known as Wolford v. Lopez, was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed last year to hear it.

Their 6-3 decision finding the law to be “presumptively unconstitutional” is now expected to spur a blitz of new court challenges against “sensitive places” laws in other states.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated, 

“The restrictions imposed by Hawaii’s challenged law fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is presumptively unconstitutional. No party disputes that petitioners are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment or that they seek to ‘bear’ ‘Arms.’ Therefore, ‘the plain text of the Second Amendment protects’ what petitioners want to do: carry handguns for self-defense.”

Alito argued that while private property owners may choose to restrict gun possession on their property, the state’s default ban created a burden on both property owners and gun owners.

“For example, proprietors who do not object to entry by carry-permit holders may be reluctant to post welcoming signs for fear of alienating customers,” he explained. “So under Hawaii’s new default rule, a proprietor in this category may 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. The law severely hampers the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise the right Bruen recognized as they go about their daily lives.”

The Court soundly rejected Hawaii’s proposed historical comparisons, including an unconstitutional 1865 Louisiana law — initially enacted as part of post-Civil War Black Codes in former Confederate states — that banned black Americans from owning guns. It also dismissed the state’s novel defense that the law was in keeping with Hawaii customs and its “spirit of Aloha,” which, they claimed, made the law uniquely immune to the constitutional protections afforded to the rest of the country.

Alito took them to school on this latter point by noting that “the Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States. The Second Amendment cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). 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.” 

The Hawaii Firearms Coalition praised the ruling, writing in a post on X,

“Today is a historic day for the people of Hawaii and for everyone who believes the Constitution applies equally in every state…. The Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms for self-defense and that states cannot evade that right simply by rewriting property law defaults. Applying the historical test established in Bruen, the Court concluded that Hawaii failed to identify any historical tradition that justified its sweeping restriction.”

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

SCOTUS to Weigh 2nd Amendment case on Hawaii’s Default Gun-Free Property Law

{Published on October 9, 2025}  In a case that could have far-reaching implications for gun owners nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Hawaii’s strict firearms law that bans carrying guns on private property unless the owner specifically allows it.

At issue is whether states can presume private property to be gun-free zones unless owners post signs allowing firearms. This is a reversal of the traditional standard in which citizens have the right to bear arms unless a property owner objects.

Hawaii’s law, signed by Gov. Josh Green, D, in 2023, also restricts firearms from being carried in other “sensitive places” including beaches, parks, bars, and restaurants. While the justices declined to take up that portion of the law, they agreed to review the section dealing with private property, setting up a major Second Amendment battle that could clarify how far states can go in limiting the lawful carry of guns.

The Trump administration has filed a brief in support of the challenge. It argues that Hawaii’s restrictions on firearms violate the Court’s 2022 decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that recognized the right of law-abiding Americans to carry handguns in public for self-defense.

“From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise,” the administration’s brief reads. “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. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot.”

The brief went further, saying, “The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms.”

The case, which will be argued later this term, is expected to be decided by June 2026. Three Hawaii residents, joined by a Honolulu-based gun rights group, brought the challenge, arguing that the law makes it “impossible as a practical matter to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense in Hawaii.”

A federal judge initially blocked parts of the law, siding with the plaintiffs. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed much of that decision, prompting an appeal to the nation’s highest court. In his dissent from the appellate ruling, Judge Lawrence VanDyke warned that Hawaii’s approach “effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians.”

Hawaiian state officials argue that the law is consistent with property rights and limits on where weapons may be carried. Gun rights advocates say that the case marks a defining moment for constitutional freedoms. They warn that allowing Hawaii’s law to stand would open the door for state governments to create widespread gun-free zones across both private and public spaces.

Many conservatives view the dispute as a continuation of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, in which the justices struck down New York’s restrictive concealed-carry permitting system. Writing for the 6-3 majority at the time, Justice Clarence Thomas declared, “In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

Supporters of the challenge also point out the practical implications of Hawaii’s rule, which would make lawful carry virtually impossible in daily life. Because most businesses post no signs either permitting or banning firearms, the default assumption under the law would essentially turn the entire island state into a patchwork of gun-free zones.

Legal scholars expect the Hawaii case to clarify whether the law is a reasonable regulation or open defiance of the Court’s 2022 ruling. If the justices strike down Hawaii’s law, it will reaffirm that the right to bear arms extends onto the private property of others unless a property owner explicitly says otherwise.

The Supreme Court’s decision will determine not only how Hawaii enforces its gun laws but how the rest of the nation defines the boundaries of the Second Amendment in daily life. The ruling could be one of the most consequential in a generation concerning the personal freedoms of Americans.

The fight over Hawaii’s gun law is a question of fundamental freedom. The right to self-defense is deeply rooted in both constitutional and biblical principles, involving the duty to protect one’s life, family, property, and neighbor.

This duty is part of good stewardship. God asks us to care for what He places in our hands. When government assumes that citizens cannot be trusted with liberty, it denies both the worth of the individual and the authority of the One who grants that freedom in the first place.

Personal freedom requires personal responsibility. The same Scripture that upholds peace also affirms the right to defend against evil. Luke 11:21 reminds us, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.” That verse does not glorify violence; it affirms that order and protection are moral goods.

Surrendering freedom in the name of security often leads to the loss of both. History repeatedly shows that when people trade liberty for control, it results in neither safety nor peace. Christians are called to live wisely, preserving freedom so that truth can flourish and the Gospel can be proclaimed.

Freedom cannot survive if the right to self-defense is stripped away. The Second Amendment is not a preference but a cornerstone of the liberty that defines America. It affirms that the power to protect life, family, and property belongs first to the citizen, not the state. When government presumes to decide who may exercise that right and where, it undermines every other freedom built upon it.

The Founders understood that disarmed citizens are dependent citizens. Dependent citizens are never truly free. As the Supreme Court weighs Hawaii’s gun control law, Americans should remember that the right to bear arms is inseparable from the right to live free.

Every generation needs clear voices lighting the path toward truth, liberty, and biblical conviction. If this article helped you see today’s legal and cultural battles through a biblical worldview, please consider supporting the Standing for Freedom Center’s work today.