The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Wolford v. Lopez, which could restore concealed carry rights for millions of residents in blue states. The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, argues that Hawaii’s new law, which prohibits licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on private property without explicit permission, is unconstitutional. The case has significant implications for the interpretation of the Second Amendment and could affect similar laws in other states like California, Maryland, and New York.
The core issue of Wolford v. Lopez is whether the Second Amendment allows states to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization. The Justice Department’s brief filed with the Supreme Court states that Hawaii’s law is in direct conflict with the 2022 Bruen decision, which struck down strict permitting rules for concealed carry licenses in New York. This decision was a major shift in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, emphasizing the importance of historical tradition in evaluating gun laws.
According to the Justice Department, Hawaii’s law effectively nullifies newly available concealed carry licenses, as the law restricts where licensed gun owners can carry firearms. The law requires individuals to obtain unambiguous written or verbal authorization from the property owner before carrying a firearm in certain areas, such as gas stations, restaurants, and grocery stores. This is seen as an attempt by the state to continue limiting lawful gun ownership despite the Bruen decision.
Legal experts, including David Katz of Global Security Group, have pointed out that these laws are a common strategy among states with anti-Second Amendment policies. They argue that by making it illegal to carry firearms in certain areas, these states can continue to restrict gun ownership while appearing to comply with federal constitutional standards. The Justice Department has taken notice of these tactics, and its brief emphasizes that Hawaii’s law represents an indirect way to evade the Bruen decision.
Republican lawmakers, including those from blue states, have supported the case, with New York City Councilwoman Irina Vernikov calling for an end to states acting as if they are separate from federal law. Vernikov, who was previously charged with unlawful firearm possession for bringing a gun to a pro-Israel rally, praised the DOJ’s actions in the Hawaii case, arguing that states should not be allowed to ignore the Constitution in the name of public safety.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision could lead to the restoration of concealed carry rights for millions of Americans. However, the outcome of the case remains uncertain, and the implications could be far-reaching for gun rights across the country. As the court prepares to hear arguments, the case has become a focal point in the ongoing national debate over the Second Amendment and its interpretation in modern America.