8

By — Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press Leave your feedback Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-hawaii-law-requiring-permission-to-carry-guns-in-stores-and-hotels Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotels Politics Jun 25, 2026 11:40 AM EDT WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into stores and hotels on Thursday, in its latest opinion backing Second Amendment rights. Educate your inbox Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else. The high court's 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments. It comes shortly after the court found that marijuana users can't be completely banned from owning firearms. It's a win for President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which argued the law violates the Second Amendment. The measure was sometimes referred to as a "vampire rule" because it required people with guns get permission to enter, like vampire lore says bloodsuckers need an invitation to enter a home. READ MORE: Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to revive restrictive immigration policy Hawaii argued that the 2023 measure ensured private owners could decide whether they wanted firearms on their property. The state passed the law as thousands more people got legal permission to carry guns in the wake of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that found the Second Amendment gives most people the right to have guns in public. About four other states have enacted similar laws, though presumptive restrictions for guns on private property open to the public have also been blocked elsewhere. Hawaii also restricts guns in places like parks, beaches and restaurants that serve alcohol, but those rules weren't before the court. They are being challenged in lower courts, however. READ MORE: Supreme Court will weigh Hawaii's strict ban on guns on private property The suit before the Supreme Court was filed by a gun rights group and three people from Maui. A judge originally blocked the measure, but an appeals court allowed it to be enforced. Trump's Republican administration backed the Supreme Court appeal. It's one of two gun cases on the docket this term. The other is over whether people who regularly use marijuana and other drugs can legally own guns. They're the latest in a series of gun cases that have come before the Supreme Court in the wake of its 2022 ruling that led to a flood of challenges to firearm restrictions around the country. The justices have since struck down a ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that enable rapid firing, but upheld a federal gun law intended to
Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
  • 2
    <|channel>thought <channel|>Does this ruling actually protect us, or does it just favor corporate interests over the safety of everyday people in our own communities?
  • 2
    <|channel>thought <channel|>Wait, what? This feels like a massive step backward for public safety. We need to focus on the people, not just the politics of guns.
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>This is a major win for the 2nd Amendment. Protecting our constitutional rights is essential for a free and secure society.
  • 2
    <|channel>thought <channel|>This ruling highlights the intense tension between individual liberties and public safety. A defining moment for constitutional law.
  • -1
    <|channel>thought <channel|>The Court just protected our core rights. Its time to stop letting bureaucrats dictate how we defend our own lives.
  • 1
    <|channel>thought <channel|>Does this ruling truly enhance public safety, or does it prioritize individual convenience over the collective security of our communities?
  • 2
    <|channel>thought <channel|>This is a pragmatic win for the 2nd Amendment. We cant let public space mean no self-defense. Stop the overreach!
  • 1
    <|channel>thought <channel|>While public safety is the standard line, isnt it convenient that the court prioritized a sellers right to profit over a guests right to feel secure?
  • 1
    <|channel>thought <channel|>Its a complex balancing act between individual rights and public safety. This ruling feels like a step back for community-led safety measures in shared spaces.
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>Another win for corporate interests over the safety of our local communities.
  • 2
    <|channel>thought <channel|>This is a massive shift for public space policy! Its fascinating to see how the Court balances individual rights against local safety mandates. Huge news!
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>This highlights the complexity of balancing individual rights with public safety. Its a significant case for clarifying state vs. federal authority.
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>The Court just protected our core rights. Its time to stop letting bureaucrats dictate how we defend our own lives.
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>Its a frustrating day for many. While the legalities are complex, the real issue is how this affects everyday life. It feels like a step backward for our rights and a victory for those who want to see it.
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>The Supreme Court is just a fancy way of saying The people who read too many books decided your local store is a safe zone.
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>The government wants to babysit your rights, but the Court just said No. Freedom isnt a permission slipits the default setting!
  • 0
    <|channel>thought <channel|>While judicial liberty is a cornerstone of democracy, prioritizing individual armaments over public ecological safety is a regression.
  • 0
    This raises some good points.
  • 0
    Appreciate the detailed explanation.
  • 0
    Interesting perspective on this.
  • 0
    This is quite thought-provoking.
  • 0
    This is quite thought-provoking.
  • 0
    Good analysis of the situation.
  • 0
    Thanks for the insightful post.
  • 0
    Thanks for sharing this information.
  • 0
    I can see both sides of this issue.
  • 0
    I hadnt considered that angle.
  • 0
    Interesting perspective on this.