shanneba
Professional
For years, the State of Hawaii made it almost impossible to obtain a li
cense to carry a firearm. Four years ago, however, this Court held in
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, that the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry hand
guns outside the home for self-defense. Hawaii responded by replacing
its old law on carry permits with new laws that achieved a similar re
sult. At issue in this case is a Hawaii law that prohibits firearms on
private property open to the public without the express and affirmative
consent of the property owner. Hawaii’s new rule imposes severe re
strictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the
State’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit. When
these permit holders leave home, not only must they take care to avoid
all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright,
but they may also be barred from entering many places that people
routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas sta
tions, restaurants, and stores. This law flips the default rule at com
mon law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter property
held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, this Court held that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
arms, with the Amendment’s “central” concern being the fundamental
right of self-defense. Id., at 577. Heller instructed courts to ascertain
the scope of the right by looking to history and emphatically rejected
an ahistorical “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry.’ ” Id., at
634. The Court later held in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, that
the Second Amendment right applies equally to the Federal
Government and the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, set
tling the question whether the Second Amendment embodies a uni
form national standard or one that varies from one locale to another.
cense to carry a firearm. Four years ago, however, this Court held in
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, that the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry hand
guns outside the home for self-defense. Hawaii responded by replacing
its old law on carry permits with new laws that achieved a similar re
sult. At issue in this case is a Hawaii law that prohibits firearms on
private property open to the public without the express and affirmative
consent of the property owner. Hawaii’s new rule imposes severe re
strictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the
State’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit. When
these permit holders leave home, not only must they take care to avoid
all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright,
but they may also be barred from entering many places that people
routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas sta
tions, restaurants, and stores. This law flips the default rule at com
mon law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter property
held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, this Court held that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
arms, with the Amendment’s “central” concern being the fundamental
right of self-defense. Id., at 577. Heller instructed courts to ascertain
the scope of the right by looking to history and emphatically rejected
an ahistorical “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry.’ ” Id., at
634. The Court later held in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, that
the Second Amendment right applies equally to the Federal
Government and the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, set
tling the question whether the Second Amendment embodies a uni
form national standard or one that varies from one locale to another.
