Supreme Court's Hawaii Gun Ruling Narrows State Options for Firearm Restrictions
The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's firearms law Thursday in a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, ruling that states cannot compel private businesses open to the public to serve as gun-free zones and shifting that burden from legislatures to business owners themselves. The ruling is forcing gun-control advocates and state lawmakers to reassess which restrictions the current court will allow to stand.
The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's firearms law Thursday in a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, ruling that states cannot compel private businesses open to the public to serve as gun-free zones and shifting that burden from legislatures to business owners themselves. The ruling is forcing gun-control advocates and state lawmakers to reassess which restrictions the current court will allow to stand.
A Test Case Designed to Win — and Lost
Hawaii had crafted its law specifically to survive the court's constitutional standard, which requires that modern gun restrictions fit within the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The approach still failed. The state's argument rested on a law enacted during the post-Civil War era, which the justices rejected. The 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established that framework, and Wolford v. Lopez illustrates how difficult it has become to design legislation that clears it.
What States Can Still Do
The ruling does not eliminate all state authority over firearms in private spaces. Jacob Charles, a law professor at Pepperdine University, told Axios that states retain the ability to set a default ban on private property not open to the public — such as office buildings and private homes — and that this portion of Hawaii's law remains intact under the Wolford decision. Charles also suggested states could enact "forced choice" laws requiring businesses to explicitly declare whether firearms are permitted and post corresponding signage at entrances.
Courts have continued to uphold restrictions in locations deemed "sensitive places" — including schools, government buildings, and public parks. A Maryland judge ruled in January that a law extending that designation to state parks, casinos, museums, health care facilities, stadiums, racetracks, and amusement parks could stand. Bans on firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol have also generally withstood legal challenge.
Legislative Workarounds Taking Shape
Some states are pivoting to hardware restrictions and stricter licensing rather than location-based bans. A federal appeals court upheld Illinois' prohibition on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines in 2023, finding those categories have historically been associated with military use and therefore fall outside Second Amendment protections for civilian self-defense. California now requires a 16-hour training course from an authorized instructor for concealed carry permits; a separate pending bill would mandate a four-hour course for prospective gun buyers, adding at least $400 in fees.
The Supreme Court itself upheld in 2024 the principle that individuals deemed dangerous — including those previously committed to a mental institution or convicted felons — may be barred from acquiring firearms.
The Limits of History as a Legal Methodology
Hayley Lawrence of the Duke Center for Firearms Law cautioned that the historical tradition test constrains legislative creativity at a structural level. Lawrence told Axios that population density, gun culture, and firearms technology all looked markedly different in the eras courts are now asked to treat as precedent, adding that relying on history and tradition as a constitutional methodology inhibits the kind of problem-solving today's legislatures need to address contemporary conditions.