Wolford v Lopez (Hawaii)

After NYSRPA v Bruen negated several strategies that had been used by New York State to neuter our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights, New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) was enacted by our Democrat legislature and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul.  It contained numerous parts that are abhorrent to the U S Constitution.  We are not alone in being so poorly treated by our state government.  California, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii also enacted similar restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms.  Especially popular by these states was designating almost all private property as gun-free zones unless otherwise posted.  (A gun is of limited use if you can’t carry it anywhere but in your house.)

Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepted a private lawsuit, Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s gun carry restrictions in which the high court will answer: “Whether the Second Amendment allows a State 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.”

Now, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted an amicus brief (otherwise known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief) to the Supreme Court that pointedly argues that, citing the Bruen (2022) decision, the “government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry.”

The DOJ’s amicus brief explains that Bruen invalidated Hawaii’s prior firearm-licensing regime, “under which Hawaiians could virtually never obtain public-carry licenses. Hawaii responded by loosening its licensing restrictions, yet it simultaneously enacted a new restriction that effectively nullifies those licenses and prevents public carry. Specifically, Hawaii made it a crime for licensees to carry firearms on private property open to the public—the very places where licensees would go in their daily lives—unless those establishments provide ‘[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization’ or post ‘clear and conspicuous signage’ allowing firearms.”

After stating that the “United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms …” the DOJ’s brief points out that the “‘right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home’ ranks among the Second Amendment’s most basic guarantees. Bruen thus held that the government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry. Nor, more broadly, may the government restrict firearms without showing that the restriction fits within a discernible tradition of firearm regulation.”

If Hawaii’s law is declared unconstitutional, that should take down similar laws in states like…New York, where a lawsuit mounts a similar challenge.  Under normal circumstances, when it is a private citizen challenging the state, New York might try to ignore the SCOTUS ruling, basically saying “sue me” and forcing the private citizen to pay for the lawsuit.  But since the federal government has taken an interest – and has even deeper pockets than NY State – NY State might be less apt to ignore SCOTUS.