5 Killer Quotes From Alito’s Takedown Of Hawaii’s Gun Control Law
Justice Samuel Alito has had a notable year,including a major decision invalidating race-based redistricting and a recent ruling affirming Second Amendment rights. In the case Wolford v. Lopez,Alito and the conservative majority struck down Hawaii’s law that restricted concealed carry on private property open to the public,deeming it unconstitutional as it unlawfully burdened Second and 14th Amendment rights. Alito emphasized that Hawaii’s restrictions impose a new burden by requiring permit holders to obtain permission from property owners before entering, which hampers their rights. He also reaffirmed that the Second Amendment’s protections apply equally across all states, regardless of local attitudes towards firearms. Alito highlighted that carrying firearms in public is a longstanding American tradition and criticized Hawaii’s reliance on historical analogues-such as laws targeting hunting-that do not align with modern firearm rights. Additionally, he condemned Hawaii’s attempt to justify the law using Civil War-era Black Codes, arguing that such outdated references are irrelevant and inappropriate given the importance of firearm rights for vulnerable populations during that period. the decision reaffirmed that foundational constitutional protections and historical practices support the right to carry firearms in public.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is having quite the year. After authoring a major decision nuking race-based redistricting earlier a few months ago, the senior justice just released a new ruling protecting Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Writing for the 6-3 majority in Wolford v. Lopez, Alito and his fellow conservative justices found Hawaii’s law restricting concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property that’s open to the public to be unconstitutional. The majority more specifically determined that this “vampire rule” unlawfully burdened Americans’ Second and 14th Amendment rights.
Like many of his opinions, Alito’s Wolford decision contained everything one would expect from a strong, originalist justice. From its reliance on the Constitution’s text and history to its overall practicality, here are the best lines from the court’s ruling.
A ‘New Burden’ on Permit Holders
Alito noted how Hawaii’s restriction imposes a “new burden” on permit holders by forcing them to acquire permission from the property owner or manager before entering the premises.
Some proprietors who do not themselves object to entry by carry-permit holders may be reluctant to post a sign welcoming such individuals for fear of alienating other customers. So under Hawaii’s new default rule, a proprietor in this category may only be willing to consent discreetly to the entry of permit holders who make the effort to inquire. This arrangement imposes a new burden on permit holders who will have to somehow obtain permission to carry a firearm on the property before stepping foot on it.
The Constitution Applies to All
The Bush appointee underscored that Hawaii’s history of “antipathy” to residents owning firearms is irrelevant because the Constitution applies equally to all states.
[T]he Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States. … It cannot give way to “the spirit of Aloha” in Hawaii … any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). It applies in the same way to our 50th State (where about 8% of adults possess guns) and our 49th State (where the figure is roughly 59%). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
An American Tradition
Alito highlighted how carrying firearms in public is a longstanding American tradition.
[A]s we have explained, “overwhelming evidence” shows an “enduring American tradition permitting public carry.” … Hawaii’s prohibitions on public carry represent a distinct outlier.
Hawaii’s Historical Analogues Don’t Work
Alito detailed how Hawaii’s reliance on founding-era gun restrictions to defend its unconstitutional law doesn’t pass the smell test.
In sum, the State’s analogues principally targeted unauthorized hunting. Their coverage differed sharply from that of the Hawaii law now before us. They applied to land where game could be found, not retail establishments that residents of cities and suburbs frequent as part of their daily routines. They had little if any impact on the Second Amendment’s central objective: protecting the fundamental right to self-defense.
Black Codes Are a No-Go
Alito blasted Hawaii for relying on a Civil War-era law (“Black Code”) aimed at restricting freed black Americans’ Second Amendment rights to defend its concealed carry restriction.
As we laid out in McDonald, the right to keep and bear arms was crucially important for vulnerable blacks during this period. … And this was well-understood by the Republicans in Congress who were responsible for drafting, approving, and securing the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. … Unless we put history entirely out of our minds, Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
