Sweet.
Wolford v. Lopez is a case out of Hawaii fighting against a “Vampire Rule” for carry (Default no carry on private property) currently awaiting cert grant/denial at SCOTUS:
Today the US DOJ filed an amicus brief AGAINST Hawaii’s law:
DOJ advocating for the 2A rights of the citizens of the United States. It’s a cold day in Hades!
Recommend reading the X thread - lotsa briefs!
https://xcancel.com/MorosKostas/status/1993020765814612139#m
Is this new or a part of the above??
In a historic first, the Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a Second Amendment case that sides with plaintiffs challenging a gun control law.
The DOJ’s brief in Wolford v. Lopez, filed with the Supreme Court on Monday, argues that Hawaii’s law prohibiting lawful concealed carry by default on all private property effectively negates the right to keep and bear arms. As the Justice Department notes, before the Supreme Court struck down “may issue” carry regimes in Bruen, it was virtually impossible to obtain a license in Hawaii. Once the state was forced to adopt a “shall issue” standard, lawmakers decided to make it virtually impossible to exercise your right to carry by banning guns on all private property, including property open to the public, unless property owners provide “[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization” or post “clear and conspicuous signage” allowing firearms.
Just like Bruen, which began in New York, impacted similarly restrictive laws around the country, the outcome of Wolford v. Lopez will, too.
“It’s not just Hawaii that is effectively banning public carry,” Bondi wrote on X. "California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York have similar laws. So a win in this case will restore Second Amendment rights for millions of Americans."
SCOTUS Oral Arguments in progress:
Wolford oral arguments concluded.
SAF live tweet thread:
Justice Jackson… Amazing how far DEI can take you.
I have a box of rocks in my backyard, that is more intelligent than she is.
Scary stuff. Wonder if she’s figured out what a woman is yet???
https://xcancel.com/AmySwearer/status/2013766890015904061#m
My longer analysis is this - Hawaii is in for a complete judicial beat down when this opinion comes out.
The state has gotten very comfortable skating by on 2A issues with the most absurd of legal gymnastics, in no small part because it knows the Hawaii Supreme Court and 9th Circuit will bail it out with some “we summoned the Spirit of Aloha” nonsense. Today, Hawaii essentially ran with the following three arguments:
(1) How can we be infringing on Second Amendment rights when this isn’t even a gun law? It’s just a property law that has the practical affect of restricting where you can carry a gun outside of your own home. Totally not the same thing.
(2) Okay, even if it regulates Second Amendment conduct, it’s supported by a rich national tradition comprised of…a handful of historical laws regulating completely different conduct for completely different reasons, and one blatantly racist “dead ringer” law that would be roundly unconstitutional today.
(3) Fine. The historical tradition for our law sucks. But Bruen can’t really require the government to bear this sort of burden of historical proof – do you have any idea how many other gun laws we would struggle defend if Bruen means exactly what it says?!
Frankly, none of six Justices from the Bruen majority seemed to have any interest in entertaining these arguments. Rightly so. Hawaii’s best hope is that at least two of the six find a pipe filled with some Spirit of Aloha. And unlike Bill Clinton, they’d have to inhale. A lot.
if they dont rule 100% in our favor it will open the door for countless situations, for example a restaurant owner could ban a religious group that they dont like if they are carrying any religious symbol post a sign that says “no bibles allowed” , no quorans allowed” and so on.. even john roberts said that the 2a is no different than any other right, not a second class right . the list will be endless.
I think you misunderstand the case.
The Bill of Rights defines things the government may not do.
The problem is with the government prohibiting an action instead of the property owner doing it.
A restaurant owner can excluded anyone they choose from their privately owned property. The exceptions for reasons people cannot be excluded are characteristics protected under discrimination law. Race, religion, sex, etc. are protected, gun possession is not.
The government has no right to exclude anyone from private property.
i dont see the difference, if a constitutionally protected gun can be banned from from a private location so can a constitutionally protected religious item and when the muslims, jews, christians complain or who ever is banned where does it go? it will be non-stop
Copyright © 2024-2026. All rights reserved. New Jersey Gun Forums LLC
