Wolford v. Lopez · ¶100

Hawaii first points to several 18th-century laws that, broadly speaking, prohibited the carry of firearms onto certain property without the owner’s consent. See ante, at 19– 21. Hawaii argues that these laws stand for the principle that a State may “vindicate a property owner’s right to control whether and under what conditions the public enters his property” by “condition[ing] . . . entry on obtaining the property owner’s consent.” Brief for Respondent 28. But that is pitched at too high a level of generality. Because Hawaii’s law applies only to the carry of firearms onto property held open to the public, the State must offer a justification for singling out firearms for disfavored treatment. Cf. Bruen, 597 U. S., at 29 (asking “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self- defense” (emphasis added)). On that score, the reason is clear: Hawaiians…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.