Court considering legality of state law banning guns on private property open to the public unless owner allows it<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The conservative majority on the US supreme court<\/a> appeared skeptical of a Hawaii law that bans people from bringing firearms on private property open to the public without permission from the property owner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case, Wolford v Lopez<\/a>, was brought by three Maui residents with concealed-carry permits and a local gun group who have support from Donald Trump\u2019s administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case has its origins in 2022, when the supreme court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen that the second amendment included the right to carry<\/a> concealed and loaded handguns in public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After that ruling, Hawaii<\/a>, which has very strict gun laws, passed a law <\/strong>allowing more people to carry concealed firearms, but banning the practice <\/strong>at so-called \u201csensitive places\u201d like beaches, banks and restaurants serving alcohol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The three Maui residents and gun group sued, arguing the law violated their second amendment right to bear arms. A federal judge in Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order<\/a> that blocked the state from enforcing parts of the law, writing that the state had not \u201cestablished a factual basis for the public safety concerns regarding permit-carrying gun owners who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An appeals court reversed parts<\/a> of that decision, stating that Hawaii could not ban firearms in banks and some parking lots but could impose restrictions at bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, beaches and parks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The supreme court decided to hear the case, but is only considering one aspect: the default rule that guns cannot be carried on private property open to the public unless the owner gives verbal permission or posts a sign saying they are allowed. California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey have similar laws, according to Scotusblog<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In oral arguments on Tuesday, conservatives on the court, who hold a six-three majority, seemed critical of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou are just [relegating] the second amendment to second-class status,\u201d Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, said during proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, argued the law strikes a balance between the constitutional right to bear arms and a property owner\u2019s right to choose whether they want to allow someone to bring a gun onto their property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms,\u201d Katyal said. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t create implied consent to bring those arms on to another\u2019s property.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n John Roberts, the conservative chief justice, said Hawaii\u2019s law treated the second amendment as a \u201cdisfavored right\u201d. He also noted the first amendment allows a candidate for public office to walk up to someone\u2019s door and ask for their vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut you say that it\u2019s different when it comes to the second amendment,\u201d Roberts told Katyal, adding: \u201cWhat exactly is the basis for the distinction?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, Sonia Sotomayor, the liberal justice, pressed Alan Beck, a lawyer arguing on behalf of the law\u2019s challengers, on whether there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm on to private property. Beck said there was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI\u2019ve never seen that right,\u201d Sotomayor told Beck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, ranks Hawaii<\/a> sixth among states in terms of the strictness of its gun laws. The state also has the fifth lowest rate of deaths from firearms, according to 2023 CDC data<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n