Oral Argument Re-Listen: Wolford v. Lopez | Must Gun Right Holders Receive Express Consent?

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner (Wolford): Alan A. Beck, San Diego, California.
2. For United States (as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner): Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice argues.
3. For Respondent (Lopez): Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D.C.

Question Presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit concealed carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without property owner express permission.

Overview: Post-Bruen constitutional challenge to Hawaii's affirmative-consent requirement for carrying firearms on private property open to public creates circuit split over intersection of Second Amendment rights and traditional property law principles.

Posture: District court enjoined law; Ninth Circuit reversed, creating conflict with Second and Third Circuits.

Main Arguments:

• Petitioner: (1) Carrying firearms on private property open to public falls within Second Amendment's plain text protection; (2) Hawaii's presumptive prohibition effectively abolishes public carry rights through property law circumvention; (3) Colonial and Reconstruction-era scattered laws fail to establish sufficient historical tradition under Bruen framework

• Respondent: (1) Second Amendment never protected armed entry onto private property without owner consent under English common law inheritance; (2) Hawaii's law vindicates fundamental property owners' right to exclude rather than restricting Second Amendment rights; (3) Multiple colonial and Reconstruction-era historical analogues constitute "dead ringers" supporting Hawaii's approach requiring express consent

Implications: Petitioner victory establishes robust Second Amendment protection in privately-owned publicly-accessible spaces, potentially invalidating similar post-Bruen restrictions across multiple states and expanding public carry rights significantly. Respondent victory permits states to circumvent direct gun control restrictions through property law mechanisms, enabling broader firearms regulations while preserving traditional property rights and potentially creating complex patchwork of varying consent requirements across jurisdictions affecting everyday carry practices.

The Fine Print:

• H.R.S. § 134-9.5(b): "No person shall carry or possess a firearm on any private property unless that person has been given express authorization by the property owner or the owner's authorized agent through unambiguous written or verbal authorization or clear and conspicuous signage"

• Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Primary Cases:

• NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022): Second Amendment protects individual right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense; government restrictions must demonstrate consistency with historical tradition of firearm regulation rather than interest-balancing approach

• Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021): Property owners possess fundamental right to exclude others from their premises, constituting "one of the most treasured rights of property ownership" requiring government compensation for regulatory takings

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:01:24] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:34] Wolford Opening Statement

[00:03:03] Wolford Free for All Questions

[00:19:29] Wolford Round Robin Questions

[00:33:22] United States Opening Statement

[00:34:36] United States Free for All Questions

[00:44:23] United States Round Robin Questions

[01:07:53] Lopez Opening Statement

[01:10:09] Lopez Free for All Questions

[01:39:01] Lopez Round Robin Questions

[01:51:14] Wolford Rebuttal