A Supreme Court case exposes Hawaii’s use of a historically racist law to defend its controversial gun control policy.
Story Highlights
- The Supreme Court reviews Hawaii’s controversial gun law.
- Hawaii’s defense relies on a post-Civil War Black Code.
- Conservative justices criticize the use of racially discriminatory laws.
- A potential ruling could impact gun rights nationwide.
Supreme Court Examines Hawaii’s Controversial Gun Law
On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in *Wolford v. Lopez*, challenging Hawaii’s 2023 gun law, which prohibits firearms on private property without explicit permission. The law’s defense by Hawaii references an 1865 Louisiana Black Code, historically used to disarm freed Black citizens and facilitate KKK terror. This argument has faced sharp criticism from conservative justices who view it as contradictory to the *Bruen* test, which mandates gun restrictions align with America’s “history and tradition.”
This case has significant implications for gun rights across the nation. The court’s conservative majority, including Justices Alito and Gorsuch, questioned Hawaii’s reliance on a racially discriminatory law as part of its defense. The justices argued that such a defense undermines the Second Amendment and relegates it to “second-class status.” A decision is expected by June 2026, which could either reinforce Hawaii’s strict gun regulations or invalidate similar laws nationwide.
The Historical Context of Hawaii’s Gun Law
Hawaii’s law was enacted in response to the 2022 *Bruen* decision, which struck down restrictive gun licensing requirements. Hawaii’s law, § 134-9.5, presumes no firearms allowed on private property open to the public without explicit permission, effectively creating a de facto public carry ban. This approach has been contested as an attempt to sidestep the *Bruen* ruling via property law. The use of a post-Civil War Black Code as precedent has drawn particular ire, given its origins in suppressing Black Americans’ rights.
Hawaii’s attorney general has defended the law as protecting property rights, despite its roots in discriminatory practices. The Ninth Circuit previously upheld the law, citing historical anti-poaching statutes alongside the Black Code. However, the Supreme Court’s current review focuses on whether such historical laws can justify modern restrictions, especially when these laws have racially discriminatory origins.
The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
If the Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii’s law, it could significantly expand gun rights within the state and set a precedent for other states with similar restrictions. Hawaii gun owners would gain increased access, and the decision could embolden challenges to similar laws nationwide. Conversely, an upheld ruling would reinforce Hawaii’s stringent gun control measures, maintaining the status quo of limited public carry rights.
The case underscores a broader debate about the role of historical laws in shaping contemporary gun rights. It highlights the tension between protecting property rights and upholding Second Amendment freedoms, especially when the historical basis for such restrictions is deeply flawed. The decision will resonate not only in Hawaii but across the country, influencing the ongoing dialogue between gun rights advocates and those advocating for stricter control.
Sources:
Race looms large in gun-rights arguments at Supreme Court
Supreme Court appears sympathetic to gun owners’ challenge to Hawaii law
Supreme Court takes up Hawaii law that presumes no guns on private property
Hawaii AG to Supreme Court: Gun control is Hawaiian tradition
