Hawaii has, historically, been one of the states least friendly to the Second Amendment. Even after the Supreme Court's landmark Bruen ruling, residents of the 50th state still find it difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, or to be able to carry it, well, almost anywhere.
There has been some legal wrangling over these restrictions, and now, the Supreme Court has agreed to review a case challenging those restrictions.
The Supreme Court will review a case regarding Hawaii's laws restricting where people are able to carry firearms.
Hawaii's laws ban guns on private property unless the owner has specifically allowed them. Guns are also prohibited from beaches, parks, bars and restaurants.
The case centers on whether restricting handguns specifically in certain so-called "sensitive locations" can include public property, such as parks, beaches and government buildings, and private property accessible to the public, such as hotels and stores, unless the owner specifically allows them. Without explanation, the Court chose only to focus on the private property aspect when accepting the appeal for review.
That last segment is rather surprising, at least to a layman. The plain and unambiguous wording of the Second Amendment doesn't make any such mention of private vs. public property, stating only that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As a (I think) well-informed layman, I tend to interpret "...shall not be infringed" literally.
The Trump administration appears to agree.
The Trump administration has argued that the law violates the Court's 2022 ruling on the Second Amendment, in which it found that people have the right to carry firearms in public. However, state attorneys say concealed-carry regulations have been changed to align with the ruling.
"From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise," the Trump administration's brief in support of the challengers reads. "Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot."
"The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms," the administration added.
This is an excellent point. In most states, a property owner may post a sign prohibiting guns on the premises, and as the owner of private property, commercial or residential, they should be free to decide for themselves whether to allow armed citizens. Private property rights, after all, are a thing as well.
But Hawaii's law puts the onus on a property owner to specifically allow armed citizens. That's a reversal of the normal order.
Read More: Watch: Josh Hawley Roasts 'Gun Violence' Advocate With His Own Words
The post-Bruen world is a very different one for people on both sides of the Second Amendment issue. The Supreme Court handed Second Amendment advocates a big win in that case; the "keep and bear" arms statement has been clarified in that and several other decisions, wherein "keep" means "own" and "bear" means "carry." Hawaii seems to be throwing every roadblock it can into the process, but if things go well, we can hope the Supreme Court will hand down another win for the Second Amendment and for the supposedly free residents of Hawaii.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member