For the second time in just a few years, the United States Supreme Court has reminded states that they cannot accomplish indirectly what the Constitution forbids them from doing directly.
Today, the Court issued its decision in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down Hawaii’s law that effectively made it illegal for licensed citizens to carry a handgun into most businesses unless the property owner or authorized person had first given express permission.
While the case arose in Hawaii, its impact reaches far beyond the islands.
The Law at Issue
Imagine stopping for gas on your way home, then grabbing lunch, picking up a prescription, dropping off your dry cleaning, and finally stopping by the grocery store.
Under Hawaii’s law, a licensed concealed handgun carrier could have committed a crime at every one of those stops unless each business had affirmatively invited firearms onto the property.
No affirmative permission = Potential criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court recognized exactly what that meant in the real world: a constitutional right that existed on paper but became nearly impossible to exercise in everyday life.
The Court’s Message
Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Alito held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense and that states cannot undermine that right by rewriting traditional property rules. The common law rule is that the general public has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent.
The Court rejected Hawaii’s attempt to justify the law based on unique local customs, emphasizing that constitutional rights do not change from state to state.
Just as importantly, the Court reaffirmed the framework established in Bruen: when a law burdens the right to keep and bear arms, the government must point to a comparable historical tradition supporting that restriction, not simply argue that it seems like good public policy. Hawaii pointed to colonial-era anti-poaching laws and even an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the infamous Black Codes to justify its modern carry restrictions. The Court rejected those comparisons outright. It explained that laws designed to prevent unauthorized hunting bear little resemblance to prohibiting ordinary citizens from carrying handguns for self-defense, and it gave no weight to the Louisiana law because it was enacted to disarm newly freed Black Americans and leave them defenseless against violence. Far from reflecting our constitutional tradition, the Court noted that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in part to protect the very right that those discriminatory laws sought to deny.
What Does This Mean for Texans?
The good news is that Texas has never adopted Hawaii’s “express consent” rule.
Instead, Texas generally follows the traditional principle that businesses open to the public are open to lawful visitors unless the owner chooses to restrict firearms through the methods provided by Texas law. That means this decision is less about changing Texas law and more about protecting it.
The Court made clear that states cannot use creative legal workarounds to transform ordinary businesses into de facto gun-free zones. Constitutional rights cannot be regulated out of existence through clever drafting.
Property Owners Still Have Rights
This decision does not eliminate the rights of private property owners.
Businesses remain free to prohibit firearms on their property where state law allows. In Texas, licensed carry may still be prohibited through proper notice under Texas Penal Code Sections 30.06 and 30.07, and non-license holders under Section 30.05. Additionally, many locations remain prohibited under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03.
What the Court rejected was making prohibition the default everywhere unless permission is first granted.
Why This Decision Matters
Since Bruen, several states have attempted to preserve broad carry restrictions by redesigning their laws rather than complying with the Constitution.
Today’s decision sends a clear signal that courts will look beyond labels and examine whether a law allows ordinary citizens to exercise their right to armed self-defense in daily life.
For gun owners, this is another significant victory.
For lawmakers, it is another reminder that constitutional rights cannot be treated as privileges that exist only where government permits them.
And for those of us who spend our careers defending the right to self-defense, it is encouraging to see the Supreme Court continue to insist that the Second Amendment means what it says.
We’ll continue monitoring how lower courts apply this decision and what it means for future challenges across the country.
