The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet issued its final opinion in Wolford v. Lopez, but based on the oral arguments, the justices appear strongly inclined to strike down Hawaii’s extreme attempt to turn nearly every private business in the state into a “gun‑free zone.”

The case centers on Hawaii’s law that flipped the traditional rule on its head: instead of property owners choosing to ban firearms, the state declared that all private businesses were gun‑free zones by default unless the owner posted a sign explicitly allowing carry.

In most states, the opposite is true. Property owners can choose to prohibit firearms, but the baseline assumption is that lawful carry is allowed unless otherwise stated. Hawaii’s approach created a sweeping, statewide ban disguised as a property‑rights measure.

Gun owners who challenged the law argued that Hawaii was attempting an end‑run around Bruen, which reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for self‑defense. By banning carry on virtually all private property open to the public, Hawaii effectively tried to nullify that ruling.

Several other states, including California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey, copied Hawaii’s strategy, hoping to use the same “default ban” framework to block lawful carry without directly violating Bruen.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Hawaii’s law, the consequences will be enormous.

While Idaho would not be directly affected, nearly half the country could move toward similar blanket restrictions. And for Idahoans traveling to those states, the risk of unknowingly violating these confusing and expansive bans would be at risk of long-term prison time.

Reports suggest, however, that the likely vote on the Hawaii ban is going to be 6 to 3 against it, making it likely a short-lived law.