Published July 26, 2026 at 12:30 PM ET · Updated July 26, 2026 at 1:14 PM ET
Second Amendment scholar urges Hawaii to reconsider gun rights restrictions
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.
A Second Amendment scholar is urging Hawaii to reconsider its gun rights restrictions. The call targets the state's current approach to regulating firearms.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 3 hr ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from Bearing Arms. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
McDonald v. City of Chicago binds Hawaii: the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Jason Wolford v. Anne E. Lopez the Court struck down a Hawaii carry law, holding that barring licensed concealed-carry holders from carrying on private property open to the public without express owner consent violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. New Hawaii limits must clear Bruen's history-and-tradition test.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Alito
The Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. A four-Justice plurality incorporated the right via the Due Process Clause as fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in its history and tradition; Justice Thomas supplied the fifth vote via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Seventh Circuit's judgment upholding Chicago's and Oak Park's handgun bans was reversed and remanded.
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.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
