[24-1046] Wolford v. Lopez

Jan 20, 2026

In this discussion, Mr. Beck, an appellate counsel representing Jason Wolford, passionately argues that Hawaii's law unfairly limits Second Amendment rights by presuming a ban on carrying firearms on private property open to the public. Ms. Harris, representing the State of Hawaii, counters that the law aligns with historical practices and property rights. They debate the implications of consent rules, the historical context of carrying laws, and the balance between state authority and constitutional protections, offering a compelling insight into a key legal challenge.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Bruen Protects Public Carry Tradition

Beck argued Bruen protects a general right to publicly carry and Hawaii's presumptive ban violates that national tradition.
He says Hawaii cannot justify flipping the historical default without relevantly similar analogs.

INSIGHT

Poaching Laws Versus Public Access Distinction

Justice Kagan probed whether anti-poaching statutes are good analogs because they flipped consent defaults historically.
Beck and Harris contended those laws addressed enclosed or improved lands and often preserved self-defense exceptions.

ADVICE

Treat Pretextual Laws As Fatal

Harris urged the Court to treat the Hawaii law as pretextual and per se unconstitutional when it singles out licensed carriers.
She recommended resolving the case on lack of historical analogs if preferred.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Wolford v. Lopez

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Jan 20, 2026.

Petitioner: Jason Wolford.
Respondent: Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii.

Advocates:

Alan A. Beck (for the Petitioners)
Sarah M. Harris (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)
Neal Kumar Katyal (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2023, Hawaii and California enacted new laws, Act 52 and Senate Bill 2, respectively, that significantly restrict the public carry of firearms. Both laws prohibit individuals with carry permits from bringing firearms into numerous specified “sensitive places.” Hawaii’s list includes fifteen categories, such as bars, restaurants serving alcohol, parks, beaches, and banks. California’s list is broader, covering more than two dozen types of property, including hospitals, public transit, playgrounds, libraries, museums, places of worship, and casinos.

Both states also changed the default rule for private property open to the public, generally banning firearms unless the property owner expressly permits them. Hawaii allows owners to consent verbally, in writing, or via a posted sign. California’s rule is stricter, permitting consent only through the posting of a specific, state-mandated sign. Plaintiffs in both states include individuals who hold concealed-carry permits and various gun-rights organizations. They filed lawsuits alleging that these new restrictions violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Plaintiffs in both actions sued their respective state attorneys general, and federal district courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of many of the new provisions. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consolidated the cases, affirming the injunctions in part but reversing them in large part. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling allowed many of the challenged restrictions to remain in effect but agreed with the district courts that the states could not, for example, ban firearms in banks or hospitals.

Question

Does a law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives “express authorization” violate the Second Amendment?