Hawaii limits on concealed carry headed for Supreme Court
Aloha State gun owners argue Hawaii’s regulations on concealed handguns mirror the New York law that the high court shot down three years ago.
by Kelsey Reichmann, Court House News, October 3, 2025
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court added a major Second Amendment showdown to its upcoming docket Friday, agreeing to review Hawaii’s restrictions on concealed handguns.
Three Maui residents asked the justices to review an appeals court ruling that upheld Hawaii’s law requiring gun owners to obtain permission before carrying concealed firearms on private property.
“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 gun owners wrote. “The Ninth Circuit’s reliance on non-Founding Era analogues allows States to enact laws the ‘founding generation’ would have never allowed.”
Hawaii’s law also bans firearms in parks, beaches, playgrounds, youth centers and bars that serve liquor. The gun owners argue that Hawaii’s regulations mirror the New York law that the Supreme Court shot down in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
The landmark 2022 ruling reframed gun regulations nationwide, requiring laws to be historically analogous. In the years since, the lower courts have increasingly struggled to decide how to measure modern legislation against 19th-century regulations.
In 2024, the justices tried to clarify where to draw that line in Rahimi v. United States, which upheld prohibitions on domestic abusers’ possession of firearms.
Wolford v. Lopez asks the high court to further explore their historical test through Hawaii’s law.
The Supreme Court took up four additional appeals, including two involving when lawsuits can be brought under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity or LIBERTAD Act. Also known as the Helms-Burton Act, the 1996 law aimed to remedy U.S. assets confiscated by Fidel Castro’s regime.
ExxonMobil led one appeal involving the transfer of oil refineries and other properties to Cuba’s state-owned oil companies. Companies were prevented from bringing actions for such losses, however, based on a provision of the Helms-Burton Act allowing the president to suspend actions if it’s in the national interests of the U.S. or will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.
Such actions were suspended for two decades until President Donald Trump’s first term. Exxon filed its suit, but an appeals court rejected the case based on Cuba’s foreign sovereign immunity.
In Exxon’s case and another from Havana Docks Corporation, the justices will review the necessary elements to provide standing to bring action against the Cuban government.
The justices will also review whether a freight broker can be sued over negligently selecting a carrier and driver that were involved in an Illinois truck crash, and if Michigan violated the constitutional rights of a property owner by taking and selling a home to satisfy a government debt.
The Supreme Court’s 2025 term begins on Monday.
---30---
COVERAGE: