On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would review Hawaii’s 2023 law that restricts where firearms may be carried, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown over the reach of the Second Amendment and the rights of property owners. The case, Wolford v. Lopez, has drawn national attention and could reshape how states and cities regulate guns in everyday life.
The law at the heart of the controversy forbids gun owners from bringing firearms onto private property without the explicit permission of the property owner. That permission can take the form of “express oral or written authorization” or be indicated by clear and conspicuous signage. Otherwise, carrying a firearm onto such property is unlawful. Hawaii’s statute also identifies a wide range of “sensitive locations”—including parks, playgrounds, and establishments serving alcohol—where guns are outright banned, regardless of owner consent.
Hawaii’s 2023 law was enacted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which significantly expanded public-carry rights and introduced a new “history-and-tradition” test for evaluating firearm restrictions. According to Scripps News, the Hawaii case is now backed by the Trump administration, which argues the law violates the Second Amendment rights recognized by the high court in Bruen.
The legal journey to the Supreme Court began when a group of individual gun owners and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition challenged the law, claiming it effectively nullifies the right to carry firearms for self-defense in most of the state. As they wrote in their petition for review, “The net result is that Hawaiians, including [the plaintiffs], no longer may carry firearms for lawful self-defense in tens of thousands of private property locations in Hawaii. That result is impossible to square with the ‘general right’ to carry in public Bruen recognized.”
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with Hawaii, upholding the law earlier this year. The divided panel pointed to historical analogues, such as 18th-century laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania that restricted bringing guns onto plantations without the owner’s permission, as well as broader statutes from the 1770s and 1860s. The court concluded that Hawaii’s restrictions were consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and that private property owners have always had the right to exclude firearms from their premises. “There can be no dispute that a private property owner has the right to exclude a person from her property because the person is carrying a gun, even if she has otherwise opened her property to the public,” the state argued in legal filings cited by JURIST.
The challengers, however, assert that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court’s own test from Bruen. They argue the appellate court improperly relied on post-Reconstruction-era laws, rather than late 18th-century analogues, to justify Hawaii’s restrictions. In their Supreme Court brief, they warned that by excluding most private property open to the public, the law “renders illusory the right to carry in public.”
President Donald Trump’s administration entered the fray with an unsolicited amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court to take up the case and overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Hawaii’s default rule “functions as a near-complete ban on public carry,” since most property owners do not post signs explicitly allowing firearms. Sauer further warned that similar “Bruen-nullifying rules” have been adopted by at least five other states, affecting more than a fifth of the U.S. population. According to the brief, “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.”
Hawaii officials have vigorously defended the law, emphasizing both historical precedent and the fundamental rights of property owners. The state’s filings point out that open carry has never been the default in Hawaii, which has regulated weapons in public spaces since at least 1852—long before the islands became part of the United States in 1898. Hawaii also highlights its unique history as a former sovereign nation, suggesting its traditions merit special consideration under the “history-and-tradition” test. “That may be true in other states, but in Hawaii, open carry has never been the default,” the state told the court, as reported by The Atlantic.
For gun rights advocates, the stakes could not be higher. They see Hawaii’s law as a blueprint for other states seeking to sidestep the Supreme Court’s expansion of gun rights in Bruen. For gun control supporters, the case is a crucial test of whether states can continue to regulate where guns may be carried in the interest of public safety and property rights.
Legal observers note that the Supreme Court’s approach to Second Amendment cases has shifted dramatically over the past two decades. In 2008, the court recognized an individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller, and then applied it to the states in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. But for years after, lower courts largely left existing gun regulations intact, citing language in Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion that preserved many longstanding restrictions.
It wasn’t until the court’s rightward shift during President Trump’s term that the justices revisited the Second Amendment in earnest. In Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This test, deeply rooted in originalism, has proven challenging for lower courts to apply consistently.
Last year, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify the test in United States v. Rahimi, ruling that courts need not find an exact historical analogue to uphold a gun restriction—only that it “comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment.” Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, explained that supporting examples did not have to be a “dead ringer” or a “historical twin.”
Now, in Wolford v. Lopez, the justices are being asked to decide whether Hawaii’s default prohibition on carrying guns onto private property without explicit permission is a lawful effort to protect property rights—or an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms. Oral arguments are expected in spring 2026, with a decision likely by the end of the court’s term in June.
While only five other states have similar laws, the outcome could set a precedent affecting millions. As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh the balance between gun rights and property rights, the eyes of the nation—and both sides of the gun debate—are watching closely.
