California's attempt to turn basically every public location into a gun-free zone just got dragged back into the legal spotlight, and the state's attorneys are probably not thrilled about it.
As Conservative Brief reported, the case May v. Bonta was officially reopened on Wednesday after the Supreme Court knocked down a similar Hawaii concealed carry law in Wolford v. Lopez. The California case had been sitting on the shelf, stayed and gathering dust, but the Hawaii ruling basically handed the challengers a fresh set of batteries and pointed them back toward the courtroom.
Here is the deal. California passed a "sensitive places" law that prohibits concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms in bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, zoos, museums, stadiums, and a whole buffet of other locations. Basically, if you enjoy going anywhere in public, California would prefer you leave your legal firearm at home. You jumped through every hoop the state demanded to get your permit, congratulations, now please do not use it.
The Supreme Court was not impressed with Hawaii trying the same trick. In a 6 to 3 decision back in June, the justices struck down Hawaii's Act 52, which made it a crime for licensed concealed carry holders to bring handguns onto private property open to the public (stores, restaurants, gas stations) unless the property owner gave "express authorization." So unless the cashier at your local convenience store handed you a notarized permission slip, you were technically a criminal.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, did not mince words. "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," he wrote. He also delivered what might be the most quotable line of the term: "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."
The spirit of Aloha, it turns out, does not override the Bill of Rights. Who knew.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association, which brought the case against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, celebrated the reopening. The Trump administration also played a role in the Hawaii case, with the Solicitor General filing an amicus brief and participating in oral arguments, arguing that states were using property rule loopholes to accomplish what outright bans could not after the Court's 2022 Bruen decision.
Alito applied the history and tradition test from Bruen and found Hawaii's law fell flat. He noted the departure from common law principles: "Under that rule, everyone, including those lawfully carrying firearms, may enter unless expressly prohibited." Hawaii flipped that default on its head, and the Court flipped it right back.
Now California gets to explain why its version of the same idea should survive. Given that the Ninth Circuit just got reversed on the Hawaii case, the state's legal team might want to start workshopping some new arguments. The old ones are not looking great.
Like what you see? Then sign up for our Free Newsletter
