Supreme Court Leaves Hawaii Gun Ruling in Place for Now

The US Supreme Court won’t reconsider a Hawaii ruling that criticized the “fuzzy ‘history and traditions’ test” set forth in a landmark Second Amendment ruling allowing the right to carry a gun in public for self defense.

The justices Monday declined to review a state court finding that Hawaii’s restrictions on public carry don’t violate the US or state constitutions.

In doing so, several justices highlighted what Justice Clarence Thomas said was the “Hawaii regime’s obvious unconstitutionality.” Writing for himself and Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas nevertheless said he agreed with the court’s decision not to take up the case now because the litigation was still in the early stages.

Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote separately to urge the Hawaii Supreme Court to change course.

Often “courts revisit and supplement interlocutory rulings later in the course of proceedings,” Gorsuch said. “Perhaps the Hawaii Supreme Court will take advantage of that opportunity in this case.”

In upholding the state’s public carry restrictions, the Hawaii ruling was critical of the analysis in 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen in which the justices instructed courts to look to founding-era gun laws in assessing whether modern day laws are constitutional.

“Time-traveling to 1791 or 1868 to collar how a state regulates lethal weapons—per the Constitution’s democratic design—is a dangerous way to look at the federal constitution,” the Hawaii Supreme Court said.

The case involves Christopher Wilson, who was charged with carrying a firearm and ammunition without a license. Wilson argued the laws violated the Second Amendment under the Bruen test.

After Wilson appealed, the US Supreme Court clarified that test in US v. Rahimi. There, the justices said courts don’t need to find an exact historical match in analyzing firearms bans. An 8-1 court uphold a federal firearms ban for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

The justices sent the Hawaii case back to the state court to apply the new test.

The case is Wilson v. Hawaii, U.S., No. 23-7517.