The US Supreme Court on Friday announced its decision to hear Wolford v. Lopez, a significant case challenging Hawaii's strict 2023 gun-carry restrictions. This follows the landmark 2022 Bruen decision, which broadened public-carry rights and introduced stringent criteria for justifying firearm restrictions based on historical precedents.

Hawaii's law, enacted in response to Bruen, prohibits individuals with concealed carry permits from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public without explicit owner consent, and designates numerous public spaces as gun-free zones. This includes parks, playgrounds, and locations serving alcohol.

Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the statute, a decision now contested by gun rights advocates. They argue that the law effectively negates the right to carry firearms in public spaces, a right previously recognized under the Second Amendment in Bruen. The challengers highlight that the Ninth Circuit's reliance on post-Reconstruction-era laws, rather than late 18th-century regulations, may have skewed the historical framework required for evaluation.

The Trump administration, through an amicus brief by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, supported the Supreme Court's review of the case, emphasizing that the Ninth Circuit's ruling contradicts the national tradition of public carry for self-defense. Sauer pointed out that similar restrictive laws in other states affect over a fifth of the US population, potentially undermining the Bruen decision.

On the other side, Hawaii defends its law as aligning with both historical precedent and property rights, asserting that property owners have always had the authority to decide whether firearms can be brought onto their premises. According to state legal filings, allowing property owners to exclude firearms supports both historical practices and current property rights, maintaining that the default has never been open carry in Hawaii.

As the Supreme Court prepares to address these pivotal questions, the outcome could reshape the landscape of gun rights and state-level firearm regulations across the country. This case not only challenges the balance between individual rights and public safety but also tests the boundaries of state powers under the Second Amendment.