Can citizens who have been trained and have concealed carry licenses actually carry concealed in shops or other private property open to the public without being given express permission by the property owner?
Or, like a vampire in the teen hit Vampire Diaries, will the license holder have to have an invitation to enter?
That’s the question the Supreme Court was asked to consider in Wolford v. Lopez, which was argued before the court in January 2026.
In a 6-3 decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that a Hawaii law banning concealed carry at businesses and other types of private property that is open to the public is unconstitutional. In the court's opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Hawaii's "regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives."
"Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments," the ruling concluded.
Beginnings
In 2023, Hawaii passed Act 52, prohibiting carrying weapons on any private property, such as parks, beaches, and areas considered sensitive, such as bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, and financial institutions. The law would require every concealed carry permit holder to have express permission from a property owner – either verbally, in written form, or in posted signage. As sister site Bearing Arms’ writer Cam Edwards wrote in January:
This case challenges Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule,” which makes it a crime for licensed concealed-carry permit holders to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public (e.g., stores, restaurants, etc.) without the owner’s explicit permission. Hawaii essentially inverted the default to “no guns allowed” unless the owner affirmatively consents.
Court History
Plaintiffs Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford, and Atom Kasprzycki, plus the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, petitioned the Attorney General of Hawaii under the Second Amendment and the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. In his opinion on that case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that a government’s laws must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted an injunction against Hawaii’s new restrictive law. At the same time, plaintiffs in California were bringing similar actions against a similar law in their state.
However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pushed back. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s injunction (i.e., upheld Hawaii’s law) on firearms at bars and restaurants that serve alcohol and on beaches and in parks, holding that these establishments “likely fall within the national tradition of prohibiting firearms at sensitive places.” The Ninth upheld Hawaii’s act outlawing the carrying of guns onto property open to the public without the property owner’s consent.
Impact
Since the Court overturned the Ninth Circuit, the decision strengthens the rights of concealed carry permit holders in commercial areas across the nation. Had the Court decided to uphold Hawaii’s Act 52, then property holders would have had much more say over whether individuals can carry at their establishments, and the right to bear arms would have been weakened. Nevertheless, the clash between private property rights and gun rights will continue.
Editor's note: Chris Queen also contributed to this report.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member