The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a long-standing Hawaii gun control law Thursday, ruling that the state’s restrictions on carrying concealed firearms off private property violate the Second Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court’s conservative majority held that Hawaii’s law, which required concealed carry only with property owners’ permission, imposed unconstitutional limits on the right to carry guns in public.

Hawaii has historically maintained strict gun regulations dating back to its time as a sovereign kingdom. Even after its annexation by the United States, the state continued to restrict firearm importation and carriage. These measures contributed to Hawaii having one of the nation’s lowest gun-death rates as of 2024. However, the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen reshaped the legal landscape around gun ownership and carrying rights. The Bruen decision established that any regulation restricting the right to carry firearms must be grounded in historical tradition dating to 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified.

In this latest case, Hawaii officials defended their law by presenting historical precedents, including state laws restricting gun possession in certain places. Nonetheless, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, found these arguments unconvincing. He described Hawaii’s law as placing a “severe restriction” on daily activities of gun owners, effectively hindering their constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. Alito illustrated this point with an example of a woman who, upon entering a grocery store parking lot with a concealed handgun, would be in violation of the law—even if she disarmed immediately after arriving.

The law under scrutiny was enacted after the Bruen decision, reflecting legislative concerns about the potential for increased firearms in publicly accessible spaces. Lawmakers sought to maintain public safety and curb any rise in gun deaths, which, though modest, have increased by 3 percent in Hawaii over the past decade. This contrasts with a 15 percent national increase during the same period, according to data cited by the gun-control advocacy group Giffords.

The ruling has broader implications beyond Hawaii. It raises uncertainty for states with similar gun regulations, from Massachusetts to California, about how to draft laws that meet the Court’s historical test established in Bruen. Gun control advocates express frustration, noting apparent inconsistencies in the Court’s approach. Adam Skaggs, chief counsel at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, pointed out that the Court recently upheld a federal law barring gun possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders despite no historical analogs, contrasting sharply with the ruling against Hawaii’s law.

Skaggs criticized the Court’s reasoning as selective and unpredictable, complicating lawmakers’ efforts to navigate constitutional boundaries. As the Supreme Court continues to expand gun rights, the decision leaves states grappling with how to implement reasonable firearm regulations without running afoul of the evolving judicial standards.