The US Supreme Court handed down a ruling on Thursday in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down a Hawaii law that banned carrying firearms on private property without the owner's permission. The 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, marks another victory for gun rights advocates and signals the conservative majority's willingness to roll back firearm restrictions they view as burdensome on legal gun owners.
Ruling Details and Immediate Impact
Before the ruling, only five states—Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey—required express permission to carry a gun onto private property. Those laws are now void. The default rule now permits carrying firearms on private property unless the owner explicitly bans them. However, the ruling does not affect designated sensitive places such as parks, libraries, and schools, which remain under state or local regulation.
Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, explained: "It has no bearing on sensitive-places law. That is still the status quo. Homeowners and business owners still have the right to stop people from bringing firearms to their property. But the state can't set the default rule."
Burden on Business Owners
Legal experts warn that the decision places an extraordinary burden on private property owners, particularly businesses open to the public like malls and hardware stores. Jeffrey Fagan, a law professor at Columbia Law School, noted that business owners must now explicitly post their stance on firearms, risking alienating customers on both sides of the issue. "The Wolford decision creates an extraordinary burden on private property owners. They're going to have to take new steps now because the rules about carrying in private property are thrown into question," he said.
Second Amendment Precedent
This is the second time this month the Supreme Court has struck down a firearms policy based on the 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun laws to have a historical analogue. In the recent Hemani decision, the court sided with a Texas gun owner challenging a federal ban on gun ownership for illegal drug users. The Wolford ruling flips Hawaii's default from guns banned on private property unless permitted, to guns permitted unless explicitly banned.
Gun rights groups praised the decision as a crucial step toward challenging restrictions inconsistent with founding-era laws. Gun control advocates condemned it as a dangerous prioritization of gun owners' rights over public safety.
Future Implications
Lawrence expects the court to tackle more cases easing gun ownership and carry, potentially striking down bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, or undoing laws on who can possess a gun and where. "It certainly gives a look at where the court is going," she said, referencing Justice Alito's discussion of the cumulative burden of Hawaii's firearms law. "The extensive references reflect that the court is thinking about this in a cumulative sense. So if there is an undue burden on Second Amendment rights it will be struck down."
