{"id":2548931,"date":"2026-01-23T06:46:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-23T11:46:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-likely-to-head-bop-hawaii-over-gun-rights\/"},"modified":"2026-01-23T06:49:18","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T11:49:18","slug":"scotus-likely-to-head-bop-hawaii-over-gun-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-likely-to-head-bop-hawaii-over-gun-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS likely to head-bop Hawaii over gun rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-likely-to-head-bop-hawaii-over-gun-rights%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2548931&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The article argues that the Supreme Court&#8217;s upcoming hearing in Wolford v.Lopez will test whether the Court will enforce its Bruen decision affirming a right to public carry. It contends Hawaii has flouted Bruen by enacting laws that, in practice, prevent concealed-carry permit holders from carrying in virtually all public places-expanding &#8220;sensitive places&#8221; and adopting a rule that bans armed patrons on private businesses unless the owner affirmatively allows them. The author says this exploits business owners&#8217; tendency toward silence, effectively nullifying permits (noting an estimate that 96.4% of maui County is off-limits). the piece criticizes Hawaii&#8217;s courts and the 9th Circuit for resisting Bruen, describes permit holders as law\u2011abiding, and frames the state&#8217;s actions as punitive rather than safety-driven. It urges the Supreme Court to overturn Hawaii&#8217;s rule and reaffirm robust Second Amendment protections.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">SCOTUS likely to head-bop Hawaii over gun rights<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_2481211\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in <em>Wolford v. Lopez<\/em>, a case that will determine whether the nation&rsquo;s highest court is serious about its <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/second-amendment\/\">Second Amendment<\/a> precedents. The matter is simple. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/hawaii\/\">Hawaii<\/a> passed a law that, in practice, prohibits the state&rsquo;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/fbi-conducted-over-38-8-million-gun-background-checks-in-2021\/\" title=\"FBI Conducted over 38.8 Million Gun Background Checks in 2021\">concealed carry permit holders<\/a> from exercising their right to armed self-defense in virtually any location outside of their homes. Hawaii knows well that this law violates both the spirit and letter of <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/20-843_7j80.pdf\"><em>Bruen v. New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association<\/em><\/a>, the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\">Supreme Court<\/a>&rsquo;s 2022 landmark case on public carry. It just does not care.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Now, the state should brace itself for a more-than-deserved judicial head-bopping.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"recommended-stories\">\n<h2>Recommended Stories<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/opinion\/4427383\/harden-the-churches-safety-protocols-minnesota-protests\/\">Harden the churches<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/op-eds\/4427450\/congressional-testimony-tim-walz-minnesota-fraud-scandals\/\">What I told Congress about the massive fraud scandals under Tim Walz<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/op-eds\/4428339\/the-cause-of-life-continues-after-roe\/\">The cause of life continues after Roe<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p>Hawaii has long resisted so much as acknowledging that the Second Amendment applies within its borders. This resistance is often aided and abetted by the Supreme Court of Hawaii (which once invoked, I&rsquo;m not kidding, the &ldquo;<a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/fedsoc.org\/scdw\/hawaii-supreme-court-rejects-bruen-as-inconsistent-with-aloha-spirit\">Spirit of Aloha<\/a>&rdquo; as a legitimate reason for restricting the right to keep and bear arms) and by the 9th Circuit (which notoriously struggles to find <em>any <\/em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/gun-control\/\">gun control<\/a> measure restrictive enough to run afoul of the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/constitution\/\">Constitution<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Bruen<\/em>, the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that reserved <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/democrats-gun-bill-would-force-ags-office-to-team-up-with-gun-control-ally\/\" title=\"Democrats\u2019 Gun Bill Would Force AG\u2019s Office To Team Up With Gun-Control Ally\">concealed carry permits<\/a> only for those lucky few applicants who could convince the government they had an extraordinary need to protect themselves with firearms outside the home. In doing so, the court affirmed that ordinary citizens have a right to bear handguns in public for self-defense.<\/p>\n<p><em>Bruen<\/em> both implicitly and explicitly implicated Hawaii&rsquo;s public carry laws, which at the time did not bother with even a pretense of offering permits to ordinary citizens. But rather than comply with the spirit of <em>Bruen <\/em>and respect the Second Amendment rights of its residents, Hawaiian officials, perhaps intoxicated by the &ldquo;Spirit of Aloha,&rdquo; chose to get creative in their noncompliance.<\/p>\n<p>If the state could no longer deny concealed permits to ordinary citizens, it would simply make those permits worthless. After all, what&rsquo;s the practical difference between a gun owner who can&rsquo;t obtain a public carry permit and a gun owner with a public carry permit that does not allow him to carry anywhere in public?<\/p>\n<p>First, Hawaii dramatically expanded the list of public spaces from which concealed carry permit holders would be categorically excluded from bringing their firearms, including beaches, playgrounds, any recreational facility maintained or managed by a government entity, amusement parks, museums, zoos, fairs, and public libraries. These became Second Amendment-exclusionary zones. Stadiums, movie theaters, concert halls, or any other &ldquo;place at which a professional, collegiate, high school, amateur, or student sporting event is being held&rdquo; became &ldquo;sensitive places&rdquo; exempt from <em>Bruen<\/em>&lsquo;s demands.<\/p>\n<p>Unsatisfied with eliminating most publicly owned spaces from the purview of armed public carry, Hawaii also eyed privately owned spaces. It passed the statute now before the Supreme Court in <em>Wolford<\/em> &mdash; a <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >rule presumptively banning lawfully armed civilians<\/a> from any private property (including businesses or other locations open to the public) unless the owner gives express permission for patrons to be armed.<\/p>\n<p>To be clear, the problem is not that the law allows private property owners to prohibit armed patrons. Every state allows businesses to exclude people from their property for any lawful reason, including because that person is armed. But for centuries, the default rule across the nation has presumed that lawfully armed patrons are welcomed into public-facing businesses on the same footing as any other patron. Businesses wishing to exclude armed patrons may do so, but they must take active steps to notify those customers (or any other group of unwanted guests) that they are not welcome.<\/p>\n<p>The simple reality is that most business owners have no desire to take extra steps to grant or revoke special permissions of any kind. This is especially true when, like here, the special permissions risk wading into politically fraught waters. So, in practice, few businesses will affirmatively tell lawfully armed patrons that they are welcome, even if they would not otherwise bother excluding them.<\/p>\n<p>Hawaii&rsquo;s new rule exploits this tendency of property owners toward silence and inaction, purporting to speak on behalf of those who are otherwise unconcerned with or neutral about the presence of armed customers. The new law&rsquo;s impact on the right to bear arms in public in Hawaii is not just devastating &mdash; it eviscerates the right. For example, an estimated 96.4% of Maui County is off limits to legally armed concealed carry permit holders.<\/p>\n<p>Hawaii says the measure is necessary for public safety and to &ldquo;vindicate&rdquo; the rights of property owners. It&rsquo;s a terrible cover story. After all, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding segments of society. They rarely commit <em>any<\/em> crimes, much less violent crimes that are meaningfully facilitated by their ability to lawfully carry guns in public. If Hawaii&rsquo;s true concern is public safety and property rights, why not also presume that business owners wish to exclude categories of patrons that are far more likely to cause problems, such as groups of unaccompanied minors, individuals with criminal histories, or people under the influence of alcohol?<\/p>\n<p>No, the truth is both far more obvious and far more insidious: Hawaii wants to vindictively punish the state&rsquo;s lawful gun owners for <em>Bruen<\/em>, in this case by extinguishing all practical usefulness of the concealed carry permits now begrudgingly issued to them. As is too often the case, the 9th Circuit was happy to oblige, abusing and misusing <em>Bruen<\/em>&lsquo;s &ldquo;historical analogue&rdquo; test in precisely the manner that the Supreme Court warned against in <em>Bruen<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/in_focus\/4427632\/white-houses-false-start-housing\/\">THE WHITE HOUSE&rsquo;S FALSE START ON HOUSING<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court has vowed to raise the right to keep and bear arms from its century-long status as a second-class right. If the court is serious, it has only one choice in <em>Wolford<\/em>: Hawaii must finally pay the piper over its Second Amendment recalcitrance.<\/p>\n<p>May it head-bop away, aloha and amen.<\/p>\n<p><em>Amy Swearer is a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUS likely to rebuke Hawaii over gun law<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1725,"featured_media":2548932,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AP24344592063838.jpg?w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[538],"tags":[43482,52020,10364,6994,32209],"class_list":["post-2548931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-washington-examiner","tag-constitutional-law","tag-gun-rights-2","tag-hawaii","tag-scotus","tag-second-amendment"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AP24344592063838.jpg?w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2548931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1725"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2548931"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2548931\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2548935,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2548931\/revisions\/2548935"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2548932"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2548931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2548931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2548931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}