Wolford v. Lopez. Flips permission to carry a gun in public facility from assumed to be allowed unless explicitly prohibited, to assumed to be disallowed unless explicitly allowed.

Hawaii's law may make carrying a gun in public almost impossible if you want to go anywhere. Thus, does the law mean too much restraint against Second Amendment rights?

On Jan. 20, the court will hear arguments in Wolford v. Lopez about what the historical record reveals regarding limitations on carrying concealed firearms in public.

After the Bruen decision, Hawaii and a few other states enacted laws restricting citizens from bringing a licensed firearm on private property held open to the public unless the owner gives permission. Usually that is accomplished by posting “clear and conspicuous signage at the entrance.”

The plaintiffs, Jason and Alison Wolford, argue that the Hawaii ban makes it “impossible as a practical matter to carry a firearm.” Most establishments will not post any sign, meaning it would be a criminal offense to conduct normal errands such as entering a grocery store or shop.


Here's the link for the words above. Just search for the case and stories are many.

https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-likely-to-reject-limits-on-concealed-carry-but-uphold-bans-on-gun-possession-by-drug-users-270122

Here's an excerpt of a counterargument from an amicus brief:

Hawaii’s law establishes the default assumption that if permission has not been granted, firearms are not allowed. The brief argues that this rule is constitutional and improves public safety. The Second Amendment does not specifically protect bringing firearms onto private property without consent. As the brief argues, “a person has no freestanding constitutional right to enter or remain on private property—let alone a right to do so armed with a deadly weapon,” and “a property owner has wide authority to exclude others from its property,” including the “unquestioned” right to exclude those who have firearms.

The brief argues that no-carry default rules like Hawaii’s “draw their historical lineage not from restrictions on gun ownership, but rather from a long tradition under both the common law and criminal law of enforcing private property owners’ preferences.”

The petitioners argue that “it is often impractical for owners to communicate their preferences to any and all strangers who happen to step inside the premises,” which jeopardizes the safety of customers and business owners. Conversely, “no-carry default rule lessens the burden on local businesses to communicate and enforce their desire to exclude guns, and it allows law enforcement like PAGV’s members to enforce those bans instead, thus sparing private property owners from having to assume the risks.”

No-carry default rules reflect local customs and expectations. Therefore, “in jurisdictions where most business owners already wish to ban firearms, a no-carry default rule will result in fewer deviations from the baseline, which can reduce the need for customers to make store-by-store determinations about whether guns are allowed.”

The brief argues that bypassing these local and state-level concerns is “startling” and “ignores not only reality, but also the long common-law and criminal-law tradition of respecting the actual views of those affected by private property regimes. Petitioners’ one-size-fits-all approach ignores this venerable tradition.”