Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii's Gun-Carry Law, Expanding Second Amendment Rights on Private Property
In another major expansion of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States has struck down a restrictive Hawaii handgun law, further consolidating gun-carry rights nationwide. The 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez (No. 24-1046), issued on June 25, 2026, invalidates a state measure that prohibited licensed concealed-carry holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public—such as stores, restaurants, and hotels—unless they had the property owner's explicit permission.
Striking Down the "Default Ban" on Public-Facing Businesses
Under the challenged Hawaii law, carrying a concealed weapon onto private property open to the public was treated as a crime by default, shifting the burden to gun owners to obtain affirmative consent.1 The conservative majority, applying the stringent legal test established in the landmark 2022 decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, ruled that this default ban violated the Second Amendment because it was inconsistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.2
Under the Bruen test, gun control measures must be rooted in Founding-era historical analogues to survive constitutional scrutiny. In its ruling, the court's conservative majority found no historical tradition of disarming "peaceable" citizens carrying concealed weapons in public-facing businesses, reinforcing its extreme skepticism toward modern state-level gun regulations.
Dissenting Voice: Privileging Guns Over Public Safety
In her written dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strongly criticized the majority's application of the Bruen standard, accusing the conservative bloc of manipulating history to override the democratic decisions of state legislatures:
"[The conservative majority has] manipulated [the Bruen test] into a free-for-all that lets the judiciary thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else."
Jackson argued that the ruling strips states of their traditional police powers to balance public safety with individual rights, elevating the Second Amendment "far above a first-class right" and creating a legal environment where common-sense safety regulations are nearly impossible to maintain.
Contextualizing the Decision
The Wolford decision follows closely on the heels of another major Second Amendment ruling, United States v. Hemani (decided June 18, 2026), in which the Supreme Court protected the gun rights of regular marijuana users by ruling that a federal ban on firearm possession by "unlawful drug users" was unconstitutional as applied. Together, these two June 2026 rulings demonstrate the Supreme Court's aggressive enforcement of the Bruen precedent, systematically dismantling both federal and state-level gun restrictions and signal a major victory for gun-rights advocacy groups like Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association (NRA).
-
An instance of Gun control restrictions cannot survive if they shift the legal burden of proof onto the citizen. — The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's carry law because it placed the burden of proof on the citizen, establishing a default criminal ban inconsistent with history. ↩︎
-
An instance of No gun control measure survives if it shifts the burden of proof onto the citizen. — This finding shows a federal court invalidating a firearm restriction because it created a default ban that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof onto the citizen. ↩︎