Re: Supreme Court appears sympathetic to gun owners' challenge to Hawaii law

On 23 Jan 2026, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <[email protected]>
posted some news:[email protected]: 

> https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-appears-sympathetic-to
> - gun-owners-challenge-to-hawaii-law/
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared to side with a group of Maui gun
> owners in their challenge to a Hawaii law restricting their ability to
> bring their guns onto private property that is open to the public.
> After approximately two hours of oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez,
> virtually all of the court’s six Republican appointees seemed to agree
> with the challengers that the law, which requires the gun owners to
> obtain express permission from the property owner, violates the Second
> Amendment’s right to bear arms.
> 
> Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that recent cases show that the 
> Second Amendment has unfairly been a “disfavored right,” while Justice
> Samuel Alito told a lawyer for Hawaii that the state was “relegating
> the Second Amendment to second-class status.” Hawaii passed the law in
> 2023 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State
> Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the court struck down a
> New York handgun- licensing law that required New Yorkers who wanted
> to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend
> themselves. In Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas explained in his
> majority opinion that courts should only uphold gun restrictions that
> are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm
> regulation.” 
> 
> The Hawaii law bars anyone with a concealed-carry permit from bringing
> a gun on private property that is open to the public without explicit 
> permission from the property owner. A violation of the law is a 
> misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison.
> 
> The lower courts upheld the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
> Circuit concluded that “a national tradition likely exists of
> prohibiting the carrying of firearms of private property without the
> owner’s oral or written consent.”
> 
> Representing the gun owners, lawyer Alan Beck told the justices that
> “[b]y banning people from carrying firearms on private property that
> is open to the public unless they first obtain affirmative permission,
> Hawaii has run roughshod over that constitutional right.” Hawaii’s
> “ban,” Beck continued, “is inconsistent with our national historical
> tradition of firearms regulation.”
> 
> Neal Katyal, who represented Hawaii, countered that “[t]here is no 
> constitutional right to assume that every invitation to enter private 
> property includes an invitation to bring a gun.” In some states, he 
> continued, “an invitation to shop is not an invitation to bring your 
> Glock.”
> 
> Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the Hawaii law did not 
> implicate the Second Amendment as much as it did issues of property 
> rights. The real question at the center of the case, she told Beck, is
> how states treat property owners’ consent.
> 
> Beck resisted that characterization, telling Jackson that the law 
> implicates “arms-bearing conduct” and therefore the Second Amendment.

Jackson is a complete idiot.  It's a wonder she can determine the 
difference between tooth and toilet brushes.

Maybe she can't.