By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Oral arguments will be heard Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case challenging Hawaii’s concealed carry law which requires permission from the owners of private property open to the public before a legally-armed citizen can enter.
The case is known as Wolford v. Lopez, and the outcome—probably not to be announced until June—could be monumental, as it would affect similar restrictive carry laws in other states. Writing at SCOTUSBlog, Amy Howe identifies the other states as California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey.
Interestingly, in their brief, attorneys representing Hawaii reach back in history to the time when Hawaii was a kingdom. “In 1833,” the brief notes, “King Kamehameha III promulgated a law prohibiting ‘any person or persons’ from possessing deadly weapons, including any ‘knife, sword-cane, or any other dangerous weapon.’”
However, Hawaii is no longer a kingdom, but a state, which must abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
In a report at Civil Beat, reporter Madeleine Valera quotes San Diego attorney Alan Beck, who represents the plaintiffs. He says any discussion about gun laws when Hawaii was ruled by a king are invalid.
“What they’re really arguing is that the rights of my clients, who are U.S. citizens, should be dictated by the laws of a monarchy,” he reportedly told Valera. “That’s not a position that’s really tenable.”
When Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor emeritus, offered an opinion on the case in an Op-Ed at The Hill a few days ago, he noted how Hawaii’s law (and that of the other states mentioned above) is noteworthy “because most state laws say that individuals may carry their guns in such public-private places unless the places post a sign saying it is expressly not allowed.”
In an unscientific survey, The Hill asked to what extent readers support or oppose the Hawaii gun control law’s requirement. Thirty-four percent “strongly oppose” it, another 40 percent “somewhat oppose” the law, and only 26 percent “strongly support” it. Not one person “somewhat” supported the law, and there were no votes expressing “no opinion.”
Civil Beat quoted Chris Marvin, described as “a Hawaiʻi-based gun violence prevention expert.” Marvin is the founder of Marvin Strategies, LLC, “a consulting firm that specializes in narrative strategy for social change,” according to the company website. The same website notes, “Marvin Strategies was the primary consultancy used to by Everytown for Gun Safety for the development, roll out, and programatic (sic) strategy of Train SMART gun safety training.”
The Train SMART program was dissected by Lee Williams, SAF Investigative Journalism Project editor, in an Oct. 24, 2025 report appearing in TheGunMag.com.
The Trump administration—specifically Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department—has sided with the plaintiffs in this case. That 29-page brief was submitted by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris and Vivek Suri, assistant to the Solicitor General.
In its brief, the Justice Department states, “Hawaii’s singling out of firearms confirms that the default rule has nothing to do with protecting property rights. For everything but firearms, Hawaii presumes that owners welcome it on their property unless they affirmatively object. Individuals entering property open to the public presumptively may bring in bicycles, roller skates, protest banners, muddy shoes, dripping umbrellas, melting ice cream cones, open containers of alcohol, boomboxes, dogs, and many other things that owners might not want on their premises. 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…That discriminatory rule manifestly seeks to suppress gun rights, not to protect property rights. It is no more constitutional than a hypothetical law requiring political campaigners (and only campaigners) to obtain a homeowner’s express authorization before walking up the front path and knocking on the door.”
Traditionally, the high court holds its most controversial rulings until the final days of the term, so gun owners in Hawaii and elsewhere probably will not see the decision until late June.
