Supreme Court rolls back limits on carrying guns on private property open to public

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that prohibits the carry of a firearm onto private property that is open to the public unless the property owner gives express consent. 

In a 6-3 decision by Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s conservative majority said the law imposed “severe restrictions on the daily activities” of lawful gun owners in violation of the Second Amendment.

“Rather than allowing all to enter private property open to the public unless specifically prohibited, these new laws provided that no one carrying a firearm may enter without express authorization,” Alito wrote. 

“The Hawaii law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” the opinion said. 

The ruling, which likely also invalidates similar laws in California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey, is a setback for gun control advocates that had argued the measures were necessary for public safety in places like shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, farms, arenas and private beaches. 

Hawaii had argued that there is no such thing as a right to armed entry onto private property without consent, pointing to a handful of historical examples of similar laws since America’s founding. 

But the court’s conservatives concluded that those analogues were “outlier legal rules adopted in a few locales.”

“Overwhelming evidence shows an enduring American tradition permitting public carry,” Alito wrote. 

While private property owners may still prohibit firearms on their premises, the onus now falls entirely on those owners to post signage banning guns. The default rule, in essence, is that lawful gun owners may carry their weapons unless told otherwise, according to the decision. 

Forty-five states presume that it is okay to carry guns on private property open to the public unless property owners make their contrary wishes clear. 

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the ruling “only further binds the hands of modern legislatures attempting to balance and protect their residents’ interests.”

“Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law,” Jackson wrote.

The National Rifle Association, which backed the challenge to the Hawaii law, praised the majority decision in a statement on X.

“Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places,” wrote NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford. 

Brady, a gun safety group, slammed the court’s decision as “deeply dangerous” and one that “privileges guns over everything and all people in society.”

“This common-sense law is what the people of Hawaii wanted, but the court has complete disregard for that community will. Ultimately, the court makes it clear that it cares little about the threat of gun violence posed to the American people,” said Kris Brown, the group’s president.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.