Hawaii Law Coming Under Scrutiny
The Supreme Court has officially agreed to hear a challenge to Hawaii’s sweeping gun control law — and for those who’ve been watching the steady erosion of Second Amendment rights in certain states, this may be the moment the tide begins to turn back toward constitutional sanity.
The law in question, passed in June 2023, effectively created a patchwork of “gun-free” zones so extensive that it rendered lawful carry virtually impossible in any meaningful way. Public transportation, beaches, bars, schools, parks, government buildings — nearly every corner of daily life in Hawaii became a so-called “sensitive place.” And on top of that, the law presumes that all private property is off-limits to lawful concealed carriers unless explicitly stated otherwise by the property owner, in signage or written/verbal form.
This flips the constitutional presumption on its head. Where once Americans had the right to bear arms unless that right was specifically limited by narrowly tailored restrictions, Hawaii’s law begins with a blanket prohibition and requires gun owners to navigate a maze of exceptions and permissions. The practical effect is what the plaintiffs rightly describe as making the right to carry “illusory.” It exists on paper, but not in practice.
The challenge, brought by the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and several residents, contends that this law violates both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That landmark decision established a clear framework: gun regulations must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Laws must be grounded in founding-era analogues, not cobbled together from cherry-picked and historically dubious sources.
Supreme Court Takes Up Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” Gun Case https://t.co/GDQkM1RA1O via@Ammoland pic.twitter.com/FyXbgEloOM
— Evelyn (@IsabelMartijn) October 7, 2025
But when the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law in September 2024, it did precisely what Bruen warned against: it reached for obscure historical oddities — including anti-poaching colonial laws and Reconstruction-era Black Codes — to justify modern restrictions. These sources are not only inapplicable; they’re disturbing. The Black Codes, in particular, were explicitly designed to disarm freed slaves and maintain racial hierarchies after the Civil War. Using such laws as constitutional precedent isn’t just legally questionable — it’s morally indefensible.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity, and indeed an obligation, to reaffirm what Bruen made clear: the Second Amendment is not a second-tier right. It is not a polite suggestion. It is a guarantee — one that applies to public life and private property alike, unless narrowly and reasonably limited.
No serious legal scholar believes that Hawaii’s law can survive the Bruen test. Its sweeping presumptions, its burden on lawful gun owners, and its clear intent to circumvent Supreme Court precedent reveal it for what it is: a reactive, constitutionally hostile measure passed not out of historical tradition but out of political spite.
And so, this case now moves to the nation’s highest court — and if recent rulings are any indication, Hawaii’s law may not survive the scrutiny. The Court has shown a willingness to defend Second Amendment rights with renewed vigor, and the facts here are not ambiguous. This is not about illegal guns, unlicensed carry, or even high-capacity weapons. This is about whether law-abiding citizens have the right to carry their legally owned handguns for self-defense in the very places they live, work, and travel through every day.
If the Constitution means anything, the answer must be yes.