Gun Laws And 2a
‘Lawful Carry Is Dangerous’: Prosecutors Urge Supreme Court to Let States Ban Guns by Default
‘Lawful Carry Is Dangerous’: Prosecutors Urge Supreme Court to Let States Ban Guns by Default
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Honolulu, HI
HONOLULU, HI — A coalition of progressive prosecutors led by New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg has filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that states can presumptively ban firearms from all private property open to the public — including retail stores and restaurants — unless the owner affirmatively consents to firearms being allowed.
The brief, submitted in Wolford v. Lopez, supports Hawaii’s so-called “no-carry default” law, which criminalizes the act of carrying a firearm onto most private commercial property unless there is clear signage or express permission allowing firearms. This controversial stance from prosecutors presents a significant challenge to Second Amendment interpretations and could reshape carrying rights across the nation.
Although the law applies to all carriers, the brief makes a specific case against legally armed individuals, framing their presence in businesses as “potentially dangerous or disruptive.” It emphasizes that even lawful concealed carry can increase the risk of violent conflict, citing studies on the “weapons effect” — the controversial idea that the mere presence of a firearm escalates aggression.
“Businesses have great difficulty confronting customers who are engaged in potentially disruptive or dangerous behavior, and introducing a firearm makes such interactions more treacherous still,” the brief argues. This line of reasoning suggests a lack of understanding regarding responsible gun owners who undergo background checks and training.
The prosecutors claim the default ban is a neutral way to respect property rights by aligning with what they argue are the presumed wishes of most business owners. They further argue that making carry presumptively illegal protects businesses from having to post signage or directly confront armed customers. However, critics argue this approach diminishes individual rights and undermines the carefully crafted fabric of self-defense laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms.
The brief takes an unusual step by placing lawful concealed carriers — vetted, background-checked, and licensed individuals — in the same risk category as disorderly or dangerous trespassers. While the brief acknowledges the Second Amendment’s protection of public carry under Bruen, it seeks to narrow that protection by framing the issue as one of property rights rather than firearm rights. This significant shift in perspective poses broader implications for gun ownership and public safety.
“The presence of firearms raises the risk of gun violence, which not only harms customers but is also antithetical to commerce,” the prosecutors articulate. They argue that jurisdictions like Hawaii, New York, and California — where legislatures claim a majority of businesses prefer to exclude firearms — have the right to enact a criminal prohibition on carrying in these spaces unless the business opts in. By flipping the traditional understanding of carry laws from being legal unless explicitly prohibited to illegal unless permitted, proponents seek to fundamentally alter the landscape of public carry rights.
The Wolford case challenges Hawaii’s law on constitutional grounds, arguing that presumptively criminalizing the right to carry on most property open to the public amounts to a de facto ban on carry rights. Petitioners argue that such laws violate the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
If upheld, laws like Hawaii’s could create widespread gun-free zones by default across entire states — even where individual property owners might welcome lawfully armed customers but haven’t posted a sign. While framed as a property rights measure, the policy aims to criminalize lawful carry in nearly all public-facing businesses unless gun owners are explicitly invited — a substantial shift from traditional norms. If the Supreme Court sides with the prosecutors, states may gain wide leeway to implement sweeping no-carry zones by legislative presumption, not based on the actual will of property owners. That sets a concerning precedent for law-abiding gun owners and raises serious constitutional questions about the erosion of public carry rights.
The implications of this case are substantial, as it could reshape the landscape of lawful carry across the nation. While early reports suggest a growing support for stricter carry restrictions among certain jurisdictions, the potential infringement on Second Amendment rights raises alarms. If the Supreme Court aligns with this view, we could witness a significant shift towards prohibitive carry laws that do not reflect the will of property owners. This situation heralds a critical test of both public and private rights surrounding firearm ownership in the United States.