The US Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling on Thursday in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down a Hawaii law that required express permission to carry firearms on private property. The decision was praised by gun rights groups as a historic win and condemned by gun control advocates as a dangerous rollback of public safety measures.
Ruling Reverses Default Rule on Private Property
Before the ruling, only five states—Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey—required property owners to explicitly allow guns on their premises. Those laws are now void. Under the new default, individuals are permitted to carry firearms on private property unless the owner explicitly bans them. However, individual property owners retain the right to decide whether to allow guns, and the ruling does not affect sensitive public spaces like parks, libraries, and schools.
Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, explained: “It has no bearing on sensitive-places law. That is still the status quo. Homeowners and business owners still have the right to stop people from bringing firearms to their property. But the state can’t set the default rule.”
Second Major Gun Ruling This Month
This is the second time in June 2024 that the Supreme Court has struck down a firearms policy based on the precedent set by the 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun laws to have a historical analogue. In the recent Hemani decision, the court sided with a Texas gun owner challenging the federal ban on gun ownership for illegal drug users.
Jeffrey Fagan, a professor of law at Columbia Law School, noted that the Wolford decision creates an “extraordinary burden” on private property owners, particularly businesses open to the public like malls and hardware stores. “They’re going to have to take new steps now because the rules about carrying in private property are thrown into question,” he said.
Implications for Business Owners
Business owners must now explicitly post their policies on gun-carrying, which risks alienating customers who support or oppose firearms. This shift places them in a difficult position, as they must balance the preferences of both groups. Fagan added that the ruling “creates an extraordinary burden on private property owners.”
Bellwether for Future Gun Rights Decisions
Legal experts view the ruling as a sign of the conservative majority’s direction. Lawrence said she expects the court to take up more cases that ease restrictions on gun ownership and carrying, potentially striking down bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and laws governing who can possess a gun and where they can carry it.
“It certainly gives a look at where the court is going,” Lawrence said. “Alito talks about this cumulative burden that Hawaii’s firearms law had. The extensive references reflect that the court is thinking about this in a cumulative sense. So if there is an undue burden on second amendment rights it will be struck down.”
Gun control groups lambasted the decision, arguing it prioritizes gun owners’ rights over public safety. Gun rights advocates, however, praised it as a crucial step toward challenging restrictions inconsistent with historical gun laws.
