The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 struck down a Hawaii law that barred licensed concealed-carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public without a property owner's express permission, finding the measure violated the Second Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision, the court held that Act 52, a Hawaii law enacted in 2023, unconstitutionally required gun owners to obtain affirmative consent before carrying firearms into businesses such as grocery stores, restaurants, shopping centers, and gas stations, reversing a Ninth Circuit ruling that had upheld the restriction.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law imposed a substantial burden on the right to bear arms recognized in the court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Rather than following the traditional common-law rule that members of the public are generally permitted to enter businesses unless told otherwise, Hawaii's law presumed firearms were prohibited unless a property owner expressly authorized them.
"The law severely hampers the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise the right Bruen recognized as they go about their daily lives," Alito wrote.
The case was brought by Hawaii residents Jason and Alison Wolford, Maui resident Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition after Hawaii enacted Act 52, a law that prohibited licensed concealed-carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public without a property owner's express consent, following the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. A federal district court initially blocked the provision before the Ninth Circuit reversed it. The Supreme Court granted review only of the law's default prohibition on carrying firearms on private property open to the public, leaving other portions of Hawaii's post-Bruen gun regulations untouched.
The majority concluded Hawaii failed to identify a historical tradition supporting such a broad restriction. The state relied primarily on colonial-era hunting and anti-poaching laws, a late-19th century Oregon armed-trespass statute, and an 1865 Louisiana law enacted during Reconstruction. The court found those examples either addressed different conduct, applied in materially different circumstances, or carried little constitutional weight.
The opinion also rejected Hawaii's argument that local customs or the state's "spirit of Aloha" supported the restriction, stating that the Second Amendment guarantees a national constitutional right that does not vary by state.
The court emphasized that private property owners remain free to prohibit firearms by posting signs or otherwise notifying visitors that guns are not permitted.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion discussing aspects of the historical analysis.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing Hawaii's law appropriately balanced Second Amendment protections with longstanding property rights by allowing owners to decide whether firearms could be carried on their premises.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, separately dissented, writing that the law respected the traditional authority of private property owners to control access to their land and was consistent with historical consent-based rules.