Challenge to state laws restricting firearm carry
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear a case that could reshape how states regulate the carrying of firearms on private property that is open to the public. The dispute centers on whether states may prohibit people from carrying handguns in such locations unless the property owner explicitly gives consent.
The case arises from a Hawaii law that establishes a strict default rule: firearms are not allowed on privately owned property open to the public unless the owner affirmatively permits them. Similar laws exist in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. These measures apply to places such as stores, shopping malls, restaurants, bars, theaters, arenas, farms, and private beaches. Public property is governed by separate rules.
Plaintiffs argue law effectively bans public carry
Attorneys challenging the Hawaii statute argue that the law is excessively restrictive and undermines the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense. According to the plaintiffs, the measure effectively bans carrying firearms across the vast majority of publicly accessible private land.
The challengers contend that individuals should be able to presume they may carry a firearm into private businesses open to the public unless the owner clearly objects. They argue that shifting the burden onto property owners to post signs or give notice aligns with how most states handle the issue.
Currently, 45 states allow licensed handgun owners to carry firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner explicitly prohibits guns through posted signage or direct instruction.
States defend property owners’ right to exclude
Hawaii officials counter that there has never been a historical right to enter private property with a firearm without the owner’s consent. They argue the law protects property owners by allowing them to exclude guns without requiring additional steps, such as posting signs or confronting visitors.
Supporters of the law say it reflects a reasonable balance between Second Amendment rights and private property rights, emphasizing that visitors can still carry firearms if they receive permission from the property owner.
Historical test will guide the Court’s decision
The Supreme Court is expected to evaluate the law under the framework established in its 2022 decision recognizing an individual right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. That ruling requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Hawaii has pointed to historical laws from the 18th and 19th centuries that imposed similar restrictions on carrying firearms on private property. The challengers argue those examples are outliers and do not represent a broader national tradition.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld Hawaii’s law, finding a likely historical tradition of prohibiting firearms on private property without owner consent. The plaintiffs believe the Supreme Court will overturn that ruling.
Decision expected by summer
The outcome of the case could have significant implications for gun policy nationwide, particularly in states that have adopted similar default prohibitions. A ruling is expected by the end of June.