On Friday, October 3rd, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez, signaling that the High Court will hear arguments as to whether or not Hawaii may restrict licensed permit holders from carrying a firearm on private property open to the public without the express permission of the property owner. The debate should be moot at this level, as it is a clear attempt to obfuscate the landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
The law was initially hit with an injunction by a Hawaii district court, but that injunction was later reversed by the Ninth Circuit, leading petitioners to request in April that the Supreme Court review the decision in light of Bruen. To be clear, Hawaii is simply pulling from New York’s post-Bruen playbook, where SCOTUS issues a ruling and the state ignores it by creating a new law with different language to the same intent and effect, forcing yet another cycle of publicly funded litigation that they will undoubtedly ignore again if they don’t get the result they desire. If that sounds petulant, well, that’s because it is the dictionary definition of the term.
The petition, filed by Hawaii residents Jason and Alison Wolford, Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, challenges a state law that bans residents, including permit holders, from carrying on publicly accessible private property, such as in stores, shopping centers, malls, or any other private business open to the pubic, without first receiving express permission from the owner of that property. Essentially, Hawaiian lawmakers believe they can circumvent Bruen by creating a presumption that firearms are not permitted on premises unless otherwise directed by the owner or landlord, thereby continuing to infringe on the Second Amendment by pretending to defend property rights.
“Only if someone wants to carry a gun must he obtain ‘express authorization’ under the arbitrary presumption that all property owners would view guns differently,” according to the DOJ.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) says that five states have enacted similar restrictions on carrying in public: Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, causing the Trump administration to urge the Supreme Court to hear the case.
“In holding the Second Amendment does not apply to private property open to the public, the Ninth Circuit’s decision renders illusory the right to carry in public. The Ninth Circuit’s reliance on non-Founding Era analogues allows States to enact laws the ‘[F]ounding generation’ would have never allowed… The Ninth Circuit effectively has allowed Hawaii to ‘eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense’ recognized in Bruen … For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit’s decision should not be allowed to stand,” according to the petitioners.
The Bruen decision concluded that the Constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated through direct historical analogues. The petitioners, however, correctly assert that the Ninth Circuit relied on analogies not permitted by Bruen, effectively ignoring Supreme Court instructions and allowing the Hawaii Attorney General, Anne Lopez, to eliminate the right to carry.
Lopez, to nobody’s surprise, demands that the Ninth Circuit ruling is correct, and that the appeals court had carefully examined the history and found evidence supporting such “sensitive place” restrictions.
“And Hawai‘i’s default-property rule is constitutional for the independent reason that it represents a permissible effort to vindicate the rights of Hawai‘i’s citizens to exclude armed individuals from their private property… Accordingly, this Court should deny review of the petition for certiorari, staying its hand until the relevant issues have had time to percolate in the lower courts, or—at a minimum—until the case reaches final judgment,” Lopez said.
To which I will reply with a quote from a timeless classic: “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Okay, maybe the reference to Billy Madison as a “timeless classic” came with a little hyperbole, but everything in the quote remains truthful. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with property rights. Hawaii has made what it calls “firearm trespass” a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and/or a fine, a far cry from property rights, which are typically a matter of civil litigation.
Without the law, a property owner may still post signs and inform the public that they are not welcome if they are carrying a firearm. The property owner also reserves the right to trespass the individual, refusing them future service and lawful access to the property. Further, it seems little Annie takes no issue allowing cases on the matter “time to percolate in the lower courts, or—at a minimum—until the case reaches final judgment,” meaning that she sees no reason why American citizens should not first suffer damages and pay countless millions to fund both sides of the litigation. This is a key component of the Democrat strategy, driving a dagger into hope and the American dream through relentless fatigue and economic exhaustion.
Read the full article here
