Wolford v. Lopez · ¶195
Today, the majority fails to faithfully apply its own jurisprudence. It alters the Bruen test and overrides Hawaii’s considered—and in my view, constitutionally sound—judgment that the property interests of its residents should be protected against unauthorized armed entry. For the reasons I have explained, Hawaii’s law is an exercise of state regulatory power that has historically sounded in property law, not the Second Amendment. And it is also entirely consistent with a lengthy historical tradition of States enacting similar restrictions for exactly this reason.Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.