On Friday, October 3rd, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez, signaling that the High Court will hear arguments as to whether or not Hawaii may restrict licensed permit holders from carrying a firearm on private property open to the public without the express permission of the property owner. The debate should be moot at this level, as it is a clear attempt to obfuscate the landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
The law was initially hit with an injunction by a Hawaii district court, but that injunction was later reversed by the Ninth Circuit, leading petitioners to request in April that the Supreme Court review the decision in light of Bruen. To be clear, Hawaii is simply pulling from New York’s post-Bruen playbook, where SCOTUS issues a ruling and the state ignores it by creating a new law with different language to the same intent and effect, forcing yet another cycle of publicly funded litigation that they will undoubtedly ignore again if they don’t get the result they desire. If that sounds petulant, well, that’s because it is the dictionary definition of the term.
The petition, filed by Hawaii residents Jason and Alison Wolford, Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, challenges a state law that bans residents, including permit holders, from carrying on publicly accessible private property, such as in stores, shopping centers, malls, or any other private business open to the pubic, without first receiving express permission from the owner of that property. Essentially, Hawaiian lawmakers believe they can circumvent Bruen by creating a presumption that firearms are not permitted on premises unless otherwise directed by the owner or landlord, thereby continuing to infringe on the Second Amendment by pretending to defend property rights.
“Only if someone wants to carry a gun must he obtain ‘express authorization’ under the arbitrary presumption that all property owners would view guns differently,” according to the DOJ.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) says that five states have enacted similar restrictions on carrying in public: Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, causing the Trump administration to urge the Supreme Court to hear the case.
“In holding the Second Amendment does not apply to private property open to the public, the Ninth Circuit’s decision renders illusory the right to carry in public. The Ninth Circuit’s reliance on non-Founding Era analogues allows States to enact laws the ‘[F]ounding generation’ would have never allowed… The Ninth Circuit effectively has allowed Hawaii to ‘eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense’ recognized in Bruen … For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit’s decision should not be allowed to stand,” according to the petitioners.
The Bruen decision concluded that the Constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated through direct historical analogues. The petitioners, however, correctly assert that the Ninth Circuit relied on analogies not permitted by Bruen, effectively ignoring Supreme Court instructions and allowing the Hawaii Attorney General, Anne Lopez, to eliminate the right to carry.
Lopez, to nobody’s surprise, demands that the Ninth Circuit ruling is correct, and that the appeals court had carefully examined the history and found evidence supporting such “sensitive place” restrictions.
“And Hawai‘i’s default-property rule is constitutional for the independent reason that it represents a permissible effort to vindicate the rights of Hawai‘i’s citizens to exclude armed individuals from their private property… Accordingly, this Court should deny review of the petition for certiorari, staying its hand until the relevant issues have had time to percolate in the lower courts, or—at a minimum—until the case reaches final judgment,” Lopez said.
To which I will reply with a quote from a timeless classic: “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Okay, maybe the reference to Billy Madison as a “timeless classic” came with a little hyperbole, but everything in the quote remains truthful. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with property rights. Hawaii has made what it calls “firearm trespass” a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and/or a fine, a far cry from property rights, which are typically a matter of civil litigation.
Without the law, a property owner may still post signs and inform the public that they are not welcome if they are carrying a firearm. The property owner also reserves the right to trespass the individual, refusing them future service and lawful access to the property. Further, it seems little Annie takes no issue allowing cases on the matter “time to percolate in the lower courts, or—at a minimum—until the case reaches final judgment,” meaning that she sees no reason why American citizens should not first suffer damages and pay countless millions to fund both sides of the litigation. This is a key component of the Democrat strategy, driving a dagger into hope and the American dream through relentless fatigue and economic exhaustion.
I just can’t do plastic holsters.
Alaska is not part of the lower 48 and they like guns.
Why not Hawaii?
Oh,,, Alaska was owned by the Russians, Hawaii was owned by the British.
They are both the United States of America now but only one has the Second Amendment.
Hawaii was never owned or colonized by the British. It was the American government which made sure that the islanders could do nothing against the occupying US troops and the government that was installed. Way back then, there was not right to keep and bear in Hawaii, as duly noted by the Hawaii Supreme Court when it out and out attacked the Bruen decision as wrong and as incompatible with Hawaii history.
Hawai’i is also hard left politically, so no real surprise they were hateful of the ‘Bruen’ decision….
Thank you for informing me of my mistake about Hawaii belonging to the United Kingdom at one time.
‘–but hey, I’ll use any chance I get to bash on the British.
Facts don’t matter🙂
The part that the Hawaii AG and the Ninth Circuit ignore is that a landowner/occupier has every right to bar carry on their private property. But that is a long way from apply a presumption imposed by this statute that all carry is banned absent express permission. Thus, unless a publicly accessible property is posted as allowing CCW, carry is banned. This means that absent some sign, carrying firearms off of one’s own property is banned–and there goes the Second Amendment.
That the Ninth went this way is not surprising. The anti-gun majorities on the en banc panels are known for inventing excuses to uphold gun law restrictions. The classic example occurred when, after concluding that concealed carry was a privilege not a right, thus raising an inference that it would have to rule that open carry was the right, the Court nonetheless held that the right to bear did not extend beyond one’s curtilage, i.e., no right to carry away from the home. (The opinion was not only wrong, it was probably one of the worst written piece of legal garbage I have ever read.)
“The part that the Hawaii AG and the Ninth Circuit ignore is that a landowner/occupier has every right to bar carry on their private property. But that is a long way from apply a presumption imposed by this statute that all carry is banned absent express permission.”
Correct, this ruling calls them out.
What I like about what will happen is, it will *force* businesses to declare their hatred for guns, and it is their right. The public will then get to choose whether or not they spend their money there. That puts the business in the position of having to decide whether or not they can do without that business.
What I suspect will happen is, they will still hate guns, but keep their mouths shut about it, and hang no sign. Anyways, it’s gonna be fun watching them choose between hatred of the 2A and a viable business… 😉
For deep blue states business will not notice. For Florida it would close. For something like Virginia or Pennsylvania it will depend on population density. In the end stake the vampire as it will only drain us otherwise.
“For deep blue states business will not notice. For Florida it would close.”
I can hope. Florida’s premier grocery store has just announced they will *welcome* open carry in their stores.
That position has quite frankly surprised me, and in a most delightful way. It will go a long ways toward normalizing guns in public, in general.
This is what *winning* looks like… 😉
Oh, it’s *Publix*, no less! 😉
Always liked the Publix selection when I am in its region. Scary how their steak is often better than the butchers and expensive grocery stores up here (seriously north of Poughkeepsie go to a farm for beef of any sort).