The Wire · CalGunHub

Supreme Court strikes down no-carry default rule, with direct SB 2 bearing

Published June 25, 2026 · Updated October 12, 2026

The 6-3 ruling against Hawaii's private-property default rule reverses the Ninth Circuit decision that had also addressed California's SB 2.

Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting

Who this affects: California's SB 2 included a private-property default rule, Penal Code section 26230(b), parallel to the Hawaii law struck down on June 25, 2026. That California provision had already been enjoined by the federal courts and was not being enforced, and the stayed May v. Bonta case in the Central District of California is expected to address the aftermath. The decision concerned licensed concealed-carry permit holders carrying on private property open to the public; it did not address California's sensitive-places list. This is general information, not legal advice.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2026 ruled 6-3 that Hawaii's statute making it unlawful for licensed concealed-carry permit holders to carry handguns on privately owned premises open to the public unless the owner expressly allows it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, reversing the Ninth Circuit in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (609 U.S. 185).

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. "As a practical matter, however, the choice between these two default rules is often outcome-determinative with respect to Hawaiians' Second Amendment rights," Alito wrote. Justice Barrett filed a concurrence, joined in part by Thomas and Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, as did Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor. "In my view, our adoption of the Bruen test was a grave mistake," Jackson wrote.

The ruling is confined to Hawaii's private-property default rule and does not address the state's sensitive-places list. The Court had granted certiorari on October 3, 2025, limited to that question, and heard argument on January 20, 2026.

Trackers, including the gun-control advocacy group Everytown, note the decision puts similar affirmative-consent laws in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland in the path of follow-on litigation. California's SB 2 contained a parallel default rule, Penal Code section 26230(b), which the Ninth Circuit had already affirmed was properly enjoined in the same consolidated 2024 appeal. The Central District of California merits case, May v. Bonta, had been stayed pending this decision.

Update: The Court issued its judgment on July 27, 2026. As of October 12, 2026, no published report of a May v. Bonta merits judgment had appeared.

Informational only, not legal advice. Facts are attributed to the sources listed above.