Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii Gun Law
On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii gun law in a 6-3 decision along party lines, with Republican justices in the majority and Democratic justices dissenting. The ruling in Wolford v. Lopez held that the law violates the Second Amendment, relying heavily on the Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Bruen's Unworkable Standard
Bruen, widely criticized within the federal judiciary, requires judges to determine if a modern gun law is "relevantly similar" to laws existing at the time of the founding. In a 2024 dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson quoted a dozen lower court opinions—some by Trump appointees—warning that judges cannot figure out how to apply Bruen. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Wolford devotes only six pages to the similarity analysis and about three pages to Hawaii's strongest argument.
Hawaii's Law and Founding-Era Precedents
The Hawaii law required gun owners to obtain explicit permission from a private business's owner or manager before carrying a gun on the property, effectively barring guns from most bars, restaurants, shops, and gas stations. Hawaii identified four early American laws—from Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York—that were exceedingly similar. Pennsylvania's 1700s law, for example, made it illegal to "carry any gun or hunt on the improved or inclosed lands of any plantation, other than his own," without the owner's permission.
Alito downplayed these laws, claiming they prohibited "unauthorized hunting of deer or small game on someone else's private property." However, Justice Jackson's dissent quoted New York's 1763 law, which cited "great Danger of the Lives of his Majesty's Subjects, the Ruin and Destruction of the most valuable Improvements" as its purpose.
Inconsistent Application of Bruen
The decision contradicts United States v. Rahimi (2024), where the Court upheld a federal law barring domestic violence restraining order subjects from possessing guns. In Rahimi, the Court found similarity to founding-era laws requiring "individuals suspected of future misbehavior to post a bond." Despite the dissimilarity, the law was upheld. In Wolford, Hawaii had a stronger historical argument but lost.
Implications for Gun Control
The ruling suggests that the historical analysis required by Bruen is arbitrary and applied in bad faith. Hawaii did everything Bruen required, yet its law was struck down. The decision eliminates doubt that the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence is driven by ideology rather than history. Critics argue the Court should overrule Bruen and adopt a more honest framework.
