Gun rights columnist flags contradictions in anti-Wolford property rights argument

1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.

Read the story at Bearing Arms →

What we know

A gun rights columnist identified logical contradictions in the property-rights-based argument against Wolford. The analysis was published by Bearing Arms, a Second Amendment-focused outlet.

Patriot Watch first flagged this story 2 hr ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 2 hr ago from Bearing Arms. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.

⚖ The Constitutional Angle

Jason Wolford v. Anne E. Lopez held that Hawaii may not bar licensed concealed-carry holders from carrying on private property open to the public without express owner authorization, restoring the common-law default of implied license to enter property held open to the public unless consent is withdrawn. Property-rights objections to this result collide with the holding itself: the state cannot flip that default.

Jason Wolford v. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii 609 U.S. ___ (2026) (slip op.); U.S. Reports page not yet assigned

Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Alito

Hawaii's law (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.5(a) (2023)) prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision restores the common-law default: a person lawfully carrying enjoys the implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent — a State may not flip that default to require express permission.

Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited