The Supreme Court's rejection of Hawaii's firearm restrictions this week has forced gun-control advocates and state lawmakers to chart a new course. The 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez narrowed the range of tools available to states trying to regulate where guns can be carried, even when those restrictions were deliberately crafted to align with the court's historical standard for Second Amendment cases.
Hawaii designed its law with the court's test in mind. The state pointed to post-Civil War regulations to justify its ban on guns in private businesses open to the public. The court rejected the argument anyway, effectively shifting responsibility for keeping firearms out of private spaces from government to business owners themselves.
What remains on the table tells the story of a narrowing regulatory landscape. States can still ban guns on private property not open to the public, such as homes and office buildings. Some states are now exploring "forced choice" laws that would require businesses to explicitly decide whether to allow firearms and post signs accordingly, according to Pepperdine University law professor Jacob Charles.
The 2022 Bruen decision left an opening for objective safety requirements, and legislatures are trying to drive through it. California now requires a 16-hour training course for concealed carry applicants and is pursuing a separate four-hour training requirement for all gun buyers, complete with at least $400 in associated fees. Illinois successfully defended its ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines after a federal appeals court ruled in 2023 that such weapons, having been used by the military, fall outside Second Amendment protections for civilian use.
Courts have consistently upheld restrictions on guns in what they call "sensitive places." Schools, government buildings, and public parks remain off-limits. Maryland took an expansive approach in January when a judge allowed the state to classify parks, casinos, museums, health care facilities, stadiums, racetracks, and amusement parks as sensitive locations. Bans on firearms in bars and restaurants serving alcohol have also survived judicial scrutiny, with courts citing heightened violence risks when alcohol is involved.
The Supreme Court itself upheld in 2024 the principle that individuals deemed dangerous, including those previously committed to mental institutions or convicted felons, can be barred from owning guns.
The real problem, according to Hayley Lawrence of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, is the court's methodology itself. Asking whether modern regulations fit within historical tradition ignores a fundamental shift in American life. "We didn't have big population centers the way we think of them today, we didn't have people living in very crowded spaces," she said. The reliance on history as a constitutional test "really inhibits legislative experimentation or creative thinking or problem solving for today's legislatures dealing with today's problems."
Author James Rodriguez: "Hawaii played by the court's rules and still lost, which tells you how constrained state lawmakers really are now on this issue."
Comments