Supreme Court seems likely to strike down Hawaii’s restrictions on guns in stores and hotels

Supreme Court Signals Likely Strike Down of Hawaii Gun Restrictions

The Supreme Court appeared poised to overturn Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms into commercial establishments during Tuesday’s oral arguments, potentially extending the expansion of Second Amendment rights established in its landmark 2022 ruling.

At issue is Hawaii’s law that prohibits individuals from carrying guns into places like shopping malls and hotels unless property owners explicitly permit them—a measure critics have dubbed the “vampire rule” due to its requirement for invitation.

During the hearing, conservative justices expressed significant skepticism toward Hawaii’s position. Justice Samuel Alito directly challenged the state’s argument, stating, “You’re just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.” Several justices questioned whether Hawaii could impose similar restrictions on First Amendment speech rights on private property, suggesting they viewed the gun law as constitutionally problematic.

Neal Katyal, representing Hawaii, defended the measure as protecting property owners’ rights to determine whether firearms are allowed on their premises. He noted that since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a broader right to carry firearms in public, Hawaii has granted thousands of concealed-carry permits after previously issuing very few.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between expanding gun rights and public safety concerns. Four other states have enacted similar laws regarding firearms on private property, though such restrictions have been blocked in states like New York pending court challenges.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii’s law, business owners would still retain individual authority to prohibit firearms on their property. However, the state could no longer impose a default prohibition requiring explicit permission. The ruling would not affect other Hawaii restrictions on carrying guns in specific locations such as parks, beaches, and restaurants serving alcohol.

The challenge was brought by a gun-rights group and three Maui residents. A federal district court initially blocked the law, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later allowed its enforcement while legal proceedings continued.

This case represents the latest in a series of significant firearms rulings from the Supreme Court, which has generally expanded gun rights since its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision first recognized an individual right to bear arms. The court’s conservative majority, strengthened by three Trump-appointed justices, has continued this trend in recent years.

The justices are also considering another firearms case this term examining whether people who use marijuana and other drugs can legally possess guns. Federal law currently prohibits drug users from owning firearms, but changing state marijuana laws have created new legal questions.

In recent terms, the Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks—accessories that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly—while upholding regulations on “ghost guns” (untraceable firearms assembled from kits) implemented during the Biden administration. The court also maintained a federal law intended to protect domestic violence victims by restricting gun ownership.

Legal experts anticipate the court’s decision in the Hawaii case by late June, when the current term concludes. The ruling could further clarify the scope of Second Amendment protections following the 2022 Bruen decision, which established a new historical test for evaluating gun regulations.

The outcome may have significant implications for states’ ability to regulate firearms in public spaces, potentially reshaping the landscape of gun laws across the country.