Wolford v. Lopez · ¶66

At this second step, the inquiry mandated by Heller and Bruen turns to an exploration of the historical understanding of the scope of the right the Constitution codified. Hawaii’s first argument on this score is based on “Hawai’i’s particular customs and laws.” Brief for Respondent 24. The State starts with the undisputed principle that the owner of private property is generally free to exclude anyone from entering without consent. See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 7–8 (2013). It acknowledges that an owner’s consent need not always be express and that there are circumstances in which consent may be inferred. See id., at 8. But the State contends that, whatever the situation in other parts of the country, in Hawaii, opening private property to the public does not implicitly include any armed individuals among those who may enter.

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