Gun rights defenders just got a huge boost. According to Langley Outdoors Academy, 23 U.S. states have joined forces to push the Supreme Court to take up a major Second Amendment case out of Hawaii – Wolford v. Lopez. Braden Langley, the host of the channel, called it “incredibly important,” revealing that the movement now includes not just states, but the Department of Justice, NRA, GOA, CRPA, NAGR, and a long list of others. The pressure is mounting on SCOTUS to step in and clarify what “sensitive places” really means in the post-Bruen world.
Langley described the scene vividly: “The wolves are circling.” With so many major players zeroing in on this one case, it’s clear that something big may be coming. If SCOTUS agrees to hear Wolford, the ripple effects could shake gun laws in multiple states to their core.
What’s the Wolford Case About?
The case challenges Hawaii’s new gun control law, passed after the 2022 Bruen decision. That landmark ruling said states must allow ordinary Americans the right to carry firearms in public. But Hawaii responded by flipping the rules, requiring concealed carriers to get explicit permission from property owners before carrying on any publicly accessible private land, like grocery stores, restaurants, or gas stations.
As The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski reported, this rule has functioned as a “near-complete ban” on public carry. Most property owners don’t post signs allowing or denying guns, meaning lawful carry becomes almost impossible. According to Gutowski, the law “effectively means that ordinary citizens may not carry firearms on any private property, even property open to the public.”
DOJ Joins the Fight – for the First Time
One of the most surprising developments came from the U.S. Department of Justice. As Gutowski reported, the DOJ, under the Trump-appointed Solicitor General D. John Sauer, filed a rare amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case. This marks the first time the federal government has stepped in to defend the Second Amendment post-Bruen.
Sauer argued that the Hawaii law “functionally eliminates” the right to carry by design. He compared it to a rule that would ban political campaigners from walking up to a door unless explicitly invited, calling it discriminatory and unconstitutional. “It suppresses gun rights, not protects property rights,” he wrote.
NRA, CRPA, and Gun Groups Pile On
The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) also filed a supporting brief, alongside groups like the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols. The NRA called Hawaii’s law a direct attack on the right to carry, warning that it “deliberately makes public carry so impractical that citizens choose not to exercise their rights.”
The NRA brief emphasized the obvious intent behind the law: to scare people out of carrying guns, even if they’re legally allowed to. They also pointed to the circuit split between the Ninth and Second Circuits, with the Second having already struck down a similar law in New York. That makes this a perfect moment for the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.
26 States, One Message: Take the Case
While Braden Langley initially mentioned 23 states, the final tally, according to the brief, includes 26 total, including Montana, Idaho, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Utah, and others. The list also includes the Arizona state legislature, even though the state’s Attorney General didn’t join. This is not a fringe effort – it’s a major legal movement.
Langley couldn’t hide his excitement. “This is a big deal,” he said. “They’re all telling SCOTUS to get off their butts.” The brief warns the Supreme Court that lower courts are openly ignoring its Bruen ruling, and that its credibility is on the line if it allows that to continue.
Why SCOTUS Has to Intervene
The brief signed by 26 states warns that Bruen set clear rules: no more vague balancing tests, no more deferring to lawmakers just because they say something is “for public safety.” Instead, gun laws must be backed by clear historical precedent. Yet the Ninth Circuit ignored that.
As Gutowski detailed in The Reload, the appeals court relied on outdated and unrelated historical laws, like 1700s poaching rules and property laws from plantations, to justify Hawaii’s sweeping public carry ban. But those laws didn’t apply to today’s public areas and didn’t single out guns the way Hawaii’s law does. They don’t pass the Bruen test, and that’s the point.
Sensitive Places Turned Into No-Carry Zones
Braden Langley mocked the absurdity of Hawaii’s “sensitive places” law, comparing it to the children’s book Green Eggs and Ham: “You can’t carry on a train, you can’t carry in the rain, you can’t carry with a hat…” It’s a poetic way of showing how restrictive the law really is.
Hawaii essentially pretends to honor the right to carry, then bans it almost everywhere people go. It’s a loophole strategy, and gun-rights advocates say it’s unconstitutional. If SCOTUS doesn’t shut it down now, other states will likely follow suit.
What Makes This Case Different
There are two reasons this case stands out. First, it could undo Hawaii’s workaround of the Bruen decision. Second, it could force the Court to draw clear lines about where guns can and can’t be carried in public. As Sauer said, it’s not just about “who can carry”, which was covered in Rahimi, but about where they can carry.
The Court has issued few decisions on the Second Amendment since Heller and McDonald. According to Sauer, this is the moment to provide “much-needed guidance” to the lower courts and clarify the Second Amendment’s reach.
The Dam Is Cracking
This may be one of the most fascinating shifts in Second Amendment history. When 26 states and the DOJ join up with every major gun rights group in America, it’s not a coincidence. This is the system pushing back against itself. It’s a rare moment where even federal prosecutors are calling out rogue courts for ignoring the Constitution.
The fact that the DOJ, which hasn’t always been gun-friendly, is siding with the NRA, CRPA, and GOA speaks volumes. This isn’t just about Hawaii anymore. It’s about whether the courts actually respect what SCOTUS said in Bruen, or if states can just pretend and pass laws that violate rights under a new name.
Could This Be the Domino That Falls First?
If the Supreme Court takes up Wolford v. Lopez, it could be the first of many dominoes to fall. States like New York, California, and New Jersey have passed similar laws. If Hawaii’s is ruled unconstitutional, those laws may be next. Langley noted that “pulling this thread” could unravel nearly every Bruen-response law across the country.
Gun-rights groups know it. State attorneys general know it. And clearly, the DOJ knows it too. Now all eyes are on SCOTUS.
Time to Make a Move
The Supreme Court has been hesitant to take gun cases that are still at the interlocutory stage, meaning not fully resolved in lower courts. But as Gutowski explained, the Wolford case is basically already decided. The Ninth Circuit ruled based on the law’s merits. There’s no point waiting any longer.
With so many voices demanding action, the Court’s silence could do real damage, not just to the Second Amendment, but to its own authority. As Langley said, “They’re making a mockery of your ruling in the Bruen decision.” At this point, SCOTUS has a choice: step up and enforce its own precedent, or allow states to trample over it.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.