In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Hawaii law that prohibited firearms on private property open to
the public without the express and affirmative consent of the property owner. Wolford v.
Lopez.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York
State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which ended “may-issue”
concealed carry licensing schemes, Hawaii enacted HRS
§ 134-9.5. The law provided that a person carrying a licensed firearm could
not enter or remain on private property of another person “unless the person
has been given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property.” Such
authorization could be provided through unambiguous written or verbal consent
or the posting of clear and conspicuous signage at the entrance of the building
or elsewhere on the premises.

The Supreme Court held that the law conflicted with the
common law presumption that members of the public, including those lawfully
carrying firearms, may enter private property open to the public unless expressly
prohibited from doing so. As a result, the Court concluded that Hawaii’s law
unconstitutionally burdened individuals seeking to exercise their Second
Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense. In addition, the Hawaii
law could not be justified by the country’s historical firearm regulations.

This ruling does not raise concerns regarding the
applicability of the Illinois
Firearm Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66/et seq.). Illinois follows a system
where firearms are presumptively allowed on private property unless the owner
posts statutorily prescribed signage prohibiting them. This is consistent with the
common law presumption. Hawaii took the opposite approach, presumptively
prohibiting firearms on private property by requiring signage indicating that
carrying firearms was authorized. Illinois law requires that property owners
take affirmative steps to exclude firearms, whereas Hawaii’s approach required that
property owners take affirmative steps to allow them.   

This decision impacts California, Maryland, New York, and
New Jersey, which have laws similar to Hawaii’s.

Post Authored by Luigi Laudando & Dan Bolin, Ancel Glink