The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law that bars people from carrying firearms in specific public venues and on private property unless the owner grants permission.
The decision, rendered by a 6‑3 vote, sees Justice Samuel Alito authoring the majority opinion with the court’s conservative bloc in support, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes the dissent.
The case weighs whether the state’s statute conforms to the Second Amendment, which protects the right of individuals to bear arms.
“This regime curtails the very protection the Second Amendment affirms—the right of Americans to carry for self‑defense throughout their daily activities,” Justice Alito wrote. “The law is therefore unconstitutional.”
The challenged 2023 law barred firearms on private property without the owner’s approval and listed more than a dozen “sensitive” locations—such as beaches and liquor‑serving restaurants—where guns are prohibited.
Three Maui residents who were allowed to carry concealed firearms, along with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, brought the suit and received support from the former Trump administration.
The plaintiffs argued that Hawaii’s policy violates the Second Amendment and fails to meet the standard set by the 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun regulations to mirror historical federal norms.
They also contended that the definition of “sensitive places” is too broad, effectively covering virtually every public gathering spot.
This ruling follows the Bruen precedent, which may invalidate a range of state restrictions—from limits on public carry to lifetime bans for those convicted of violent or non‑violent crimes.
“One of the core principles underlying the Second Amendment is the right to carry in public for self‑defense,” said Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Despite initial optimism among gun‑rights advocates, the ruling has not led to a wholesale repeal of all gun measures lacking a historical analogue. In the 2024 Rahimi case—an early follow‑up—the conservative majority upheld a 30‑year‑old federal prohibition against allowing people subject to domestic‑violence restraining orders to possess firearms.
That same term, the Court addressed Garland v. Cargill, reversing a crackdown on bump‑stock devices that allow rifles to fire at machine‑gun speeds; these devices had been banned after the 2017 Las Vegas shoot‑out that killed 60 people.
Unlike Rahimi, the Cargill case questioned whether ATF exceeded its authority in interpreting the federal machine‑gun ban rather than challenging the ban directly on Second Amendment grounds.
