The state Department of the Attorney General is reviewing Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down restrictions on where and when guns may be carried, but said current Hawaii law should still be obeyed.

Read more Shohei Ohtani delivers on mound, at plate as Dodgers sweep Twins

The state Department of the Attorney General is reviewing Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down restrictions on where and when guns may be carried, but said current Hawaii law should still be obeyed.

The 6-3 high court decision held that Hawaii’s law on where and when guns can be carried as unconstitutional. The act was challenged in a lawsuit brought by three Maui residents who have concealed-carry permits and argued the law violated their constitutional right to bear arms.

The court’s decision addresses one specific provision of Hawaii’s firearms law creating a “default rule” that a person with a license to carry could not carry a gun onto private property. Places like stores, hotels and gas stations are gun free unless the owner said guns were welcome on their property.

The law includes property open to the public, and permits property owners to make rules along with communicating gun policy with clear signage.

“I think people should have to carry liability insurance if they’re going to carry guns in public places,” Gov. Josh Green said about the court’s decision.

“It’s personal for me. When I was an ER doc I saw a lot of people tragically wounded by accidental gunfire. I also lost an uncle and a cousin to self-inflicted gunshot wounds,” Green said in a statement to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “Having more guns in society, we will have more of these incidents, but Supreme Court made that ruling, so we’ll abide by it.”

However, Green said said in a statement that Attorney General Anne E. Lopez is evaluating the implications of decision on state law, state policies, and ongoing enforcement. Until that evaluation is complete, residents and visitors should continue to comply with “posted restrictions and applicable Hawaii law.”

“Separate provisions of Hawaii’s law governing firearms in designated sensitive places, including many state government facilities and other locations identified by statute, as well as licensing requirements, prohibited possession and other public safety measures remain in effect,” read a statement from Green’s office.

In 2022 the high court limited the ability of states to restrict the carrying of firearms in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, under Second Amendment rights.

Green in 2023 signed Act 52 into law, prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property owned by someone else or in and on beaches, parks and restaurants and bars that serve alcohol. It “requires possession and disclosure of a license to carry, prohibits leaving an unsecured firearm in a vehicle unattended, and prohibits consuming or being under the influence of alcohol, an intoxicating liquor, or a controlled substance when carrying a firearm.”

Also in 2023, Mayor Rick Blangiardi signed Bill 57 into law, banning firearms in 13 “sensitive places” across Oahu, including schools, child care facilities, the Waikiki Aquarium, voting sites and hospitals.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the state’s law, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in September 2024.

Andrew Namiki Roberts, president of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, told the Star-Advertiser that the Supreme Court decision confirms what the organization has maintained since the law was introduced.

“Hawaii tried to take the very limited concept of ‘sensitive places’ and expand it into a system that effectively banned lawful carry in almost every place someone might go. By making private property off limits unless the owner gave express permission, the state turned a constitutional right into an exception,” said Roberts. “Nowhere in America’s nearly 250 years of history has the government imposed a blanket prohibition on carrying firearms on private property. That decision has always belonged to the property owner, not the government. If a business or homeowner wants to prohibit firearms, they remain free to do so. What the state cannot do is make that decision for every property owner in Hawaii.”

Roberts said he expects some businesses to post signs prohibiting firearms, and they have “every right to make that choice.”

“But we also expect those signs to be relatively uncommon. Firearm ownership in Hawaii continues to grow, concealed carry licenses are being issued at an increasing rate, and many property owners have no objection to law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to carry for self-defense,” he said.

A total of 19,364 personal/private applications for permits to acquire firearms were processed statewide in 2025, marking a 14.7% increase from 16,879 applications processed in 2024, according to the attorney general’s office. Permits were issued for 95.3% of the applications.

Read more CRB battle ramps up: More weapons available for those fighting invasive bug

There were 44,401 firearms registered in 2025, and the number of registrations “increased dramatically” from 2000 through 2025 when the number of applications increased by 198.4% and registrations leapt by 226.1% , according to data reported by the AG.

Honolulu Police Department interim Chief Rade Vanic said while the Supreme Court’s ruling changes the legal landscape for carrying firearms in public, it “does not lessen the responsibility that comes with carrying one.”

“Anyone who chooses to carry a firearm must understand that with that right comes a tremendous responsibility—to know the law, make good decisions, and handle firearms safely and responsibly at all times,” said Vanic. “Our officers will continue to take appropriate enforcement action when those laws are violated to protect the safety of everyone in our community.”

City Prosecuting Attorney Steve Alm said he was not surprised by the ruling but is confident that legal gun owners will obey the law.

“Bruen changed second amendment law and while Hawaii was following a different path, Bruen is now the law of the land and will be followed,” said Alm. “The people who apply for concealed carry permits are law-abiding citizens. They have shown that they will follow the law and use their firearms for their own and their families’ protection rather than trying to insert themselves into situations in a law enforcement role. I trust that will continue.”

Alm pledged that his office will continue to work the HPD to “aggressively arrest and prosecute” all cases involving firearms.

Members of Hawaii’s congressional delegation decried the court’s decision.

“Hawaii has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country, largely because of our historically strong gun safety laws. Once again, this out-of-control Supreme Court majority is placing political ideology above protecting lives, making our state and our country less safe by expanding the presence of firearms,” said U.S. Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, in a statement, adding that the court’s decision put political ideology ahead of public safety.

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz said Hawaii’s gun safety laws help keep our communities safe. “(Thursday’s) decision takes away a tool that has worked for our state and makes it harder to prevent gun violence.

The decision was “wrong for Hawaii, wrong for public safety, and the wrong precedent for states and communities working to keep people safe,” U.S. Rep. Jill N. Tokuda said.

“Hawaii’s law did not take away anyone’s right to own or carry a firearm. It simply said that before bringing a gun onto someone else’s private property, you should get permission first. That should not be controversial. It is a matter of basic respect,” said Tokuda.

Businesses and property owners set basic rules every day about what is allowed on their property and what is not, Tokuda continued.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service. But when Hawaii set a commonsense safety standard for firearms, this Court decided that even asking permission went too far,” said Tokuda. “This ruling puts guns ahead of Hawaii’s ability to determine what safety looks like in our own communities and businesses. It shifts the burden onto property owners, workers, and families who deserve to feel safe in the places where they live, work, shop, and gather,” she said. “I will keep fighting for commonsense gun safety laws that protect our people, respect everyone’s rights, and prioritizes our communities’ ability to determine what safety looks like for ourselves.”

U.S.Rep. Ed Case did not immediately reply to Star-Advertiser request for comment.

The Second Amendment Foundation joined Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Connecticut Citizens Defense League and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus to file an amicus brief last year asking the justices to strike down Hawaii’s law.

The foundation hailed the high court decision, saying Act 52 was “flipping” from allowing guns unless denied, to banning all guns unless invited – creating a “de facto public carry ban.”

“Our stance is that one of the most fundamental underlying principles of the Second Amendment is the right to carry in public for self-defense,” said foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut, in a statement. “If a business does not want you to carry a firearm on the premises, the burden should be on the proprietor, not the private citizen, which would be in line with the ‘no soliciting’ or ‘no shoes, no shirt, no service’ signs we’re all familiar with. Today the Supreme Court told Hawaii that such transparent attempts at banning constitutionally protected conduct will not be tolerated.”

Read more Charlotte Hornets trading LaMelo Ball to Minnesota Timberwolves