Supreme Court Emergency Decision To End All Firearm Permits Nationwide Gets DOJ & State Support!

Summary

The Supreme Court is set to review a critical Second Amendment case, Wolford v. Lopez, which challenges Hawaii's concealed carry laws that were passed in defiance of the 2022 Bruin decision. This case is pivotal for states like New York, New Jersey, and California, which have implemented similar restrictive laws. The Trump DOJ and 26 states support striking down these laws, arguing they infringe on the Second Amendment. Hawaii defends its law, claiming it balances public safety with property rights. The case will be decided in January, with significant implications for concealed carry regulations nationwide.

Takeaways

• 📜 The Supreme Court has agreed to review *Wolford v. Lopez*, a major Second Amendment case involving state concealed-carry restrictions implemented after the Bruen ruling.
• 🏛️ The case centers on Hawaii’s new concealed-carry law, which critics argue was designed to undermine the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
• 🤝 The Trump DOJ and former AG Bondi have filed briefs supporting the challenge, calling Hawaii’s restrictions unconstitutional and seeking to participate in oral arguments.
• 🗽 Twenty-six states have filed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs and advocating for the law to be struck down.
• ⚖️ Hawaii's law requires “affirmative consent” before carrying a firearm onto private property, effectively banning carry unless a property explicitly posts permission.
• 🏪 Opponents argue that the law flips U.S. historical practice, where firearms were allowed on private property unless a “no guns” sign was posted.
• 📚 Hawaii claims the law is consistent with the Second Amendment and historical tradition, arguing property rights allow property owners to control armed entry.
• 🧑‍⚖️ The Ninth Circuit previously upheld Hawaii’s law, prompting plaintiffs to seek emergency review from the Supreme Court.
• 🗓️ The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on January 20th and issue a ruling this term, potentially reshaping how lower courts apply the Bruen text-history-tradition test.
• 🔫 The outcome could significantly impact concealed-carry laws in several states, including New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Hawaii.
• 🚨 The video emphasizes that the decision may either stop or empower states to enact even stricter concealed-carry restrictions.

Q & A

What is the main subject of the Supreme Court case discussed in the transcript?

The main subject is the challenge to state concealed carry restrictions, particularly focusing on Hawaii's new laws that are seen as defying the Supreme Court's previous ruling in *New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin*.

What is the significance of the case *Wolford v. Lopez*?

*Wolford v. Lopez* is a major Second Amendment case that addresses the issue of concealed carry restrictions in states like Hawaii, New York, California, and others. The case has the potential to shape future interpretations of the Second Amendment in relation to state-imposed restrictions on concealed carry.

How did the Trump DOJ contribute to this case?

The Trump DOJ supported the challenge against Hawaii's concealed carry laws by submitting an amicus brief, arguing that the law is unconstitutional. The DOJ also seeks to participate in the oral arguments at the Supreme Court to argue in favor of striking down the law.

What role did the Ninth Circuit play in this case?

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case but upheld Hawaii's concealed carry law, reversing a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked the law. The plaintiffs attempted to get the Ninth Circuit to review the case again, but the court denied their request.

What are the key arguments made by Hawaii in defense of its concealed carry law?

Hawaii argues that the law requiring permission to carry firearms onto private property is consistent with the Second Amendment. They claim that this regulation is rooted in a long tradition of property rights, where owners can exclude firearms from their premises, and that the law is designed to balance the right to carry firearms with the protection of property rights.

Why is Hawaii's law controversial in the context of the Second Amendment?

The controversy stems from Hawaii's approach, which requires explicit consent or a sign to carry a firearm on private property, essentially reversing the traditional understanding that one can carry a gun unless the property owner posts a sign prohibiting it. Critics argue that this approach limits the right to carry in public spaces, in violation of the Second Amendment.

How does Hawaii's argument about property rights relate to the Second Amendment?

Hawaii claims that property owners have the constitutional right to exclude firearms from their property, and this principle predates the Second Amendment. They argue that the law does not infringe on the Second Amendment because it does not outright ban carrying a gun, but instead requires permission to do so on private property.

What are the potential consequences if the Supreme Court upholds Hawaii's concealed carry law?

If the Supreme Court upholds Hawaii's law, it could set a precedent for other states to impose similarly restrictive laws on concealed carry, making it harder for individuals to carry firearms in public spaces and potentially limiting Second Amendment rights nationwide.

What is the impact of the amicus briefs filed by 26 states?

The 26 states that filed amicus briefs in support of striking down Hawaii's concealed carry restrictions add significant weight to the challenge, demonstrating broad support for the argument that such laws are unconstitutional. These briefs indicate that the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for other states with similar laws.

What is the historical presumption regarding concealed carry that Hawaii's law contradicts?

Historically, in the U.S., the presumption has been that individuals can carry firearms in public unless a property owner posts a sign prohibiting it. Hawaii's law inverts this presumption by requiring explicit consent to carry, which critics argue undermines the right to carry firearms as protected by the Second Amendment.