The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up a case challenging a Hawaii law that bans concealed carry almost everywhere.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!
In 2022, when it handed down its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court settled one of the most important constitutional questions of our time: The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is protected under the Second Amendment.
That should have been the end of the matter. In Hawaii, however, lawmakers responded with defiance instead of compliance with their so-called carry law (Act 52). Even if you don’t live in Hawaii, be aware that it is doing what anti-gunners in your state would love to do.
Under this law, permit holders — people who have undergone mandatory training, passed background checks and followed every rule — are effectively barred from carrying a firearm almost anywhere. Parks, sidewalks, beaches, government property, banks and even most private property are all off-limits. A carry permit in Hawaii may as well be used to discard chewed-up gum.
Hawaii points out the problem with permits in general. It simply can’t be left to politicians and bureaucrats to decide when and where lawful citizens can carry. That’s why constitutional (permitless) carry is so important, and that’s why in 2023 Gun Owners of America filed an amicus brief in this case, Wolford v. Lopez, urging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down this law.
For years, courts tried to water down the Second Amendment by “balancing” it against the government’s supposed public safety interests. Bruen, along with other landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as Heller and McDonald, should have ended that game. The court was clear: When the Second Amendment’s text covers an activity such as carrying a gun for self-defense, the government must show that its restrictions are consistent with our nation’s history and tradition of gun laws.
Hawaii can’t do that. These sweeping bans are brand new. They have no roots in the Founding era or in American history. In fact, they directly contradict the purpose of the Second Amendment: to ensure ordinary Americans can defend themselves, their loved ones and their property from threats, no matter the source.
The court left the door cracked open by acknowledging certain “sensitive places” where guns can be restricted, such as courthouses or schools. Hawaii busted down the door and instead came up with what amounts to a blanket ban on carrying. If nearly every public area is “sensitive,” then the right to carry isn’t a right at all. In hearing this case, the court can shut the door again on unconstitutional restrictions.
The court can reiterate that the Second Amendment is not a privilege the government can revoke whenever it wants. We would never accept this thinking with free speech. You don’t have First Amendment rights only on your own property or in a few places where the government allows it. That would never be tolerated, and we shouldn’t tolerate it with the Second Amendment either.
One of the worst parts of Hawaii’s law is what we call in our brief the “vampire rule.” On private property open to the public, carrying a gun is banned unless the owner puts up a sign saying otherwise. That turns centuries of property law on its head.
In some states, if a business owner doesn’t want firearms and the owner wants to lay out a welcome mat to criminals, they post a “no guns” sign. Hawaii has reversed that, forcing business owners to take action just to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights. It’s a sleazy move designed to make lawful carry virtually impossible.
Hawaii also bans guns in banks. Where’s the historical precedent for that? There isn’t any. Hawaii wants to invent a tradition that doesn’t exist, and Bruen doesn’t allow it.
The state also argues that because it owns public land, it can ban guns there too. Still, constitutional rights don’t disappear on government property. The First Amendment doesn’t vanish in a park, and neither does the Second.
The truth is, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in America. Study after study shows they commit crimes at rates far lower than the general population. Hawaii’s attempt to paint lawful gun owners as a safety risk is unconstitutional and will endanger lives by restricting the most effective means of self-defense.
What’s happening in Hawaii matters for the entire country. If states can gut the right to carry by declaring nearly every place off-limits, then the Second Amendment becomes meaningless.
Gun Owners of America’s amicus brief to the 9th Circuit stated plainly that the Constitution doesn’t allow states to play games with fundamental rights. The 9th Circuit ignored what the Supreme Court already made clear: The right to bear arms is not a second-class right.
If Hawaii gets away with this scheme, other anti-gun states will follow. That’s why this case matters so much. The court has a choice: Uphold the Second Amendment and its own ruling in Bruen, or watch our rights be regulated out of existence.
Originally published by John Velleco for the Washington Times. Read the full story ›
