US Supreme Court conservatives appear skeptical of Hawaii handgun limits

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) – Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism on Tuesday toward a Hawaii law restricting carrying of handguns on private property that is open to the public, such as most businesses, without the owner’s permission.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments in a challenge to Hawaii’s law.

Three Hawaii residents with concealed-carry licenses and a Honolulu-based gun rights advocacy group appealed a lower court’s ruling that Hawaii’s measure likely complies with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The challengers are being backed by President Donald Trump’s administration. 

Hawaii’s law requires “express authorization” to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public, either as verbal or written authorization, including “clear and conspicuous signage.” Four other U.S. states have similar laws.

Neal Katyal, the lawyer who argued on behalf of Hawaii, told the justices that the state’s law strikes a proper balance between the right to bear arms and a property owner’s right to choose whether to permit someone to bring a gun onto their property.

“The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms,” Katyal said. “It doesn’t create implied consent to bring those arms onto another’s property.”

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts suggested to Katyal that Hawaii’s law treated the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.” The First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech would clearly permit a candidate for public office to walk up to someone’s door and ask for their vote, Roberts noted.

“But you say that it’s different when it comes to the Second Amendment,” Roberts told Katyal, adding: “What exactly is the basis for the distinction?”

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed Alan Beck, a lawyer arguing for the challengers to the law, on the constitutional basis of his argument.

“You say that there is a constitutional right to carry onto private property?” Sotomayor asked Beck.

“Yes, Justice,” Beck responded.

“I’ve never seen that right,” Sotomayor told Beck.

Roberts earlier in the arguments asked Beck about how his argument would play out in practical terms.

“A gas station on the side of the highway is private property. It’s owned by the gas company, or whatever. Do you assume that you have the right to go on that private property, even without any express permission?” Roberts asked. 

“Yes, Your Honor,” Beck said.

“Even though it’s private property?” Roberts asked.

“Yes, absolutely,” Beck replied.

The plaintiffs sued to challenge Hawaii’s restrictions weeks after Democratic Governor Josh Green signed the measure into law in 2023. 

A 2022 SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

The challengers have cited a 2022 Supreme Court ruling holding that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. That landmark 6-3 decision, called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, was powered by the court’s six conservatives, over dissents from the three liberal justices.

The Bruen decision invalidated New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. In doing so, the court created a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying that restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” not simply advance an important government interest.

Justice Department lawyer Sarah Harris, arguing on behalf of the administration, pointed to the Bruen ruling, which she said meant that states cannot refuse to license the public carrying of firearms.

“Hawaii can’t gut Bruen by presumptively banning everyone licensed to carry from doing so at retail establishments or other private property open to the public absent the owners’ express consent,” Harris said. “That novel law offends our history and tradition.”

A federal judge preliminarily blocked Hawaii’s restrictions. But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely ruled against the law’s challengers, prompting their appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not take up an aspect of the legal challenge that focused on the law’s provisions banning the carrying of handguns at beaches, bars and other sensitive places.

The court is expected to rule in the case by the end of June.

In a nation bitterly divided over how to address persistent firearms violence including frequent mass shootings, the Supreme Court often has taken an expansive view of Second Amendment protections. The court, with its conservative majority, widened gun rights in three major rulings in 2008, 2010 and most recently in 2022 in the Bruen decision.

The court in 2024 ruled 8-1 that a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns satisfied the court’s stringent history-and-tradition test in Bruen.

In March, the court will hear a bid by Trump’s administration to defend a federal law that bars users of illegal drugs from owning guns.

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)