Supreme Court Invalidates Hawaii Concealed Carry Law

Posted in 2nd Amendment,Constitutional Rights on June 27, 2026

Supreme Court Invalidates Gun Carry Restrictions on Business Property Open to Public

In a significant Second Amendment decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms onto private property open to the public—unless the property owner expressly authorized it—is unconstitutional. In Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (U.S. June 25, 2026), the Court held that Hawaii’s law imposed an unconstitutional burden on the right to carry firearms for self-defense recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The Hawaii Firearm Law

Hawaii passed a law making it a crime for a carry concealed permit holders to carry a firearm onto virtually any private property open to the public unless the owner gave express authorization. A person could enter private property while carrying concealed only if there was: 1) clearly posted signage allowing firearms; OR 2) explicit verbal or written permission from the owner or authorized manager. The law effectively prohibited permit holders from carrying firearms into many everyday businesses, including: grocery stores; restaurants; gas stations; pharmacies; retail stores; coffee shops.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court applied the historical test established in Bruen. First, it found there was no dispute that licensed concealed carry permit holders are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that carrying a handgun for self-defense falls within the Amendment’s plain text. As a result, Hawaii’s restriction was presumed unconstitutional unless supported by the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court concluded Hawaii could not satisfy that burden.

Hawaii Reversed the Traditional Rule

Historically, private property open to the public carries an implied invitation for customers to enter unless the owner chooses to exclude them. The Supreme Court explained that Hawaii turned this rule upside down by requiring affirmative permission before a licensed firearm owner could enter while carrying a firearm. The Court concluded that this shift substantially burdened the exercise of the constitutional right recognized in Bruen.

The majority observed that even business owners who had no objection to lawful concealed carry might decline to post “guns welcome” signs out of concern for public perception. As a result, permit holders would be forced to locate someone with authority to grant permission before entering ordinary businesses, creating significant practical obstacles to exercising their constitutional rights.

What the Decision Means

Wolford v. Lopez represents another significant Supreme Court decision expanding upon the framework established in Bruen. It limits states’ ability to enact indirect restrictions that substantially burden the exercise of Second Amendment rights while reaffirming that constitutional protections must be interpreted consistently throughout the United States. For individuals who lawfully possess concealed carry permits, the decision confirms that states cannot make exercising that right practically impossible by requiring advance permission before entering ordinary businesses open to the public.

Importantly, the decision does not prevent private property owners from prohibiting firearms on their property. Business owners remain free to exclude firearms if they choose. The Court held only that the government cannot presume every business prohibits firearms unless the owner affirmatively says otherwise.