Hawaii Sensitive Places

Hawaii has a law banning guns in certain "sensitive locations."  The law reads (emphasis added):

[§134-9.5]  

(a)  A person carrying a firearm pursuant to a license issued under section 134-9 shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm, whether the firearm is operable or not, and whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, unless the person has been given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property…

(b)  For purposes of this section, express authorization to carry or possess a firearm on private property shall be signified by:

                          (1)  Unambiguous written or verbal authorization; or

(2)  The posting of clear and conspicuous signage at the entrance of the building or on the premises…indicating that carrying or possessing a firearm is authorized.

Sounds a lot like New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The law was initially blocked by a district court judge.

A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the most far-left, most reversed circuit court in the United States) reversed the judge and upheld the law, in 2024. In his dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the law "effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians." 

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a court case challenging the private property part of this; Wolford v. Lopez.  (Lopez is Hawaii’s Attorney General and will defend the law.)  No date has been set for oral arguments.

Wolford et al and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition say that the case violates the 2022 SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which states that firearm restrictions need to be consistent with the nation’s “history and tradition.”

…the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier, and that

the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen’s text, history and tradition test* in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

The Trump administration’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court filing:

"From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise…Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot."

"The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms."

Hawaii argued in a brief that the Second Amendment does not override a property owner’s right:

“The rule can be upheld for the independent reason that it represents a valid governmental effort to vindicate property owners’ fundamental right to exclude by enacting a default rule that comports with the community’s reasonable expectations…there is no right to engage in speech or carry firearms on someone else’s property without her consent."

* Under Bruen’s text, history and tradition test:

The first step is to look at the original text and meaning of the Second Amendment. The courts have held that “the people” are at least Americans who have reached the age of majority, which in the United States is 18 years of age. Handguns are bearable arms, so the Second Amendment covers the plaintiffs’ conduct.

The second step puts the burden on the state. It must show that a law is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation by using historical analogues.

The question that is argued is whether historical analogues must come from founding era, which most consider to be the ratification date of the Second Amendment in 1791. Others argue it is the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which, they hope, allows them to try and use ‘Jim Crow Era’ laws restricting gun ownership of blacks.’