Wolford v. Lopez · ¶89

Hawaii and the principal dissent insist that this is a case about property law, not the Second Amendment. The argument goes like this: No one has the right to enter private property—let alone to bring firearms onto it—without the owner’s consent. Brief for Respondent 14–15. Whether consent can be implied or must be express depends on local custom and property rules, which States have always had authority to modify. Id., at 15–16. By requiring express consent, Hawaii has simply modified a default rule of property law. And because the “‘pre-existing [Second Amendment] right’” did not require any particular default rule, Hawaii’s law does not even implicate the Second Amendment. Id., at 13 (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 20 (2022)); see post, at 6– 13 (JACKSON, J., dissenting). No further analysis is necessary. This argument misunderstands the role…

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