In the ongoing dicussion involving Wolford v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court delved deeply into the constitutional dimensions of a Hawaii statute addressing guns on private properties. This legislation requires gun owners to obtain express permission from property owners to carry firearms on their premises. As oral arguments unfolded, four pertinent questions emerged from the justices, along with responses from Akhil and Vikram Amar, legal scholars consistently contrasting Supreme Court interpretations with the Constitution’s original intent in their Brothers in Law series.
-
One line of questioning concerned whether Hawaii’s law effectively reduced the Second Amendment to a “second-class” right. Comparing this to the First Amendment, some justices questioned why the rules regarding campaign buttons differ from those concerning firearms. Citing an earlier piece from 1999, Akhil Amar notes that historical precedence supports differential treatment of these rights, as exemplified by restrictions on firearm ownership for felons, a stance even recognized by the NRA.
-
Justices inquired whether Hawaii imposes similar requirements on other objects entering commercial spaces without owner approval. While Hawaii referenced laws on cars and trash, the authors suggest that control over other items like marijuana or alcohol could appeal to traditionally conservative justices, such as Samuel Alito. This argument frames Hawaii’s law as primarily a property regulation rather than solely a firearms issue.
-
The court critically examined Hawaii’s reliance on an 1865 Louisiana law, often criticized for connections to “Black Codes.” The Amar brothers counter this association, explaining it was a race-neutral statute that protected property rights across racial lines, evidenced by support from a Congress steeped in Reconstruction principles.
-
Questions from Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed the prevalence of similar laws in other states, suggesting Hawaii’s position might be seen as fringe. The Amars argue that Kavanaugh should consider potential legislative trends, allowing for broader application of the statute across states. This perspective relies on Akhil’s analysis in his 2015 book, America’s Unwritten Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s tradition of open oral arguments, now complemented by modern live streaming, enhances public access and provides legal commentators platforms like SCOTUSBlog to engage with and respond to the justices’ queries in real-time. For further insights and analysis, refer to SCOTUSBlog’s detailed recap of the argument session.