The Second Amendment continues to be an issue that comes before the current U.S. Supreme Court after decades of prior courts refusing to hear such cases.
And not surprisingly, most of the current cases stem from blue states trying to restrict gun rights. A legal challenge to California’s “sensitive places” restrictions on licensed concealed carry, May v. Bonta, was reopened on Wednesday following a recent Supreme Court decision striking down portions of Hawaii’s concealed carry law. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court ruled that Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms on private property violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Before the Wolford decision, May v. Bonta had been stayed. The Supreme Court’s ruling cleared the way for the case to move forward again, highlighting the broader impact of the decision on similar firearm restrictions across the country. May v. Bonta was brought by the California Rifle and Pistol Association against California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
California’s “sensitive places” law prohibits individuals with concealed carry permits from carrying firearms for self-defense in a wide range of locations, including bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, zoos, museums, stadiums, and other designated public places.
In June, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that has big implications on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. In a 6-3 decision, the nation’s highest court reaffirmed the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves in striking down Hawaii’s law. The justices ruled that the law effectively turned private businesses open to the public into gun-free zones by default.
Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared Hawaii’s Act 52 unconstitutional. The law criminalized licensed concealed-carry permit holders from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public — such as stores, restaurants, gas stations, and shops — unless the owner provided “express authorization.” This flipped the longstanding common-law default, under which the public could enter unless explicitly barred. “The regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Alito wrote.
He emphasized that the law imposed “severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the State’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit.” Permit holders faced a maze of potential barriers, forcing them to seek permission before entering routine establishments or risk criminal penalties. The decision reverses the Ninth Circuit and aligns with the Court’s post-Bruen framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Alito meticulously applied the history-and-tradition test, finding Hawaii’s law presumptively unconstitutional because it burdens conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment — carrying arms for self-defense. The Trump administration played a key role in bolstering the challengers. The Solicitor General filed an amicus brief and participated in oral arguments, urging the Court to protect Second Amendment rights against state overreach.
The administration’s involvement underscored President Trump’s commitment to defending lawful gun owners from Biden-era style restrictions that lingered in blue states. Officials argued the Hawaii law deprived individuals of their constitutional right to bear arms in public spaces, effectively nullifying Bruen’s protections through property-rule gimmicks. This aligns with the Trump DOJ’s broader objectives: enforcing a national, uniform understanding of the Bill of Rights that does not bend to local “spirits” like Hawaii’s “spirit of Aloha.” The administration sought to prevent states from using default rules to achieve what outright bans could not after Bruen. Alito dismantled Hawaii’s historical analogues as inadequate. He noted the law’s departure from common law: “Under that rule, everyone, including those lawfully carrying firearms, may enter unless expressly prohibited.”
Alito argued that Hawaii’s new default “imposes a new and significant burden.” “The Second Amendment cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii… any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple… Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees,” Alito wrote.
