In a move that stunned many, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez, backing gun owners challenging Hawaii’s strict firearm restrictions. According to the official brief, the DOJ believes Hawaii’s so-called “private-property default rule” directly violates the Second Amendment by inverting the long-standing tradition that allows law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense. This is not a small technical critique – it’s the DOJ telling the Supreme Court that Hawaii’s law all but nullifies the right to carry a gun in public.
The DOJ’s brief argues that Hawaii’s rule flips the Constitution on its head by criminalizing gun possession on all private property – unless the owner gives express, affirmative permission. That means even walking into a grocery store, restaurant, or gas station with a licensed concealed firearm could be a misdemeanor. As the brief puts it, this rule turns the right to bear arms into a nearly unusable privilege.
William Kirk Says the DOJ’s Message Is Loud and Clear
Gun rights attorney William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, responded to the DOJ’s move in his recent video. In Kirk’s view, this amicus brief is a bombshell because it’s the first time in recent memory the DOJ has taken the side of lawful gun owners in a Supreme Court petition. “Four years ago, who would’ve thought we’d see the DOJ actually siding with us?” Kirk asked. He praised the department for calling out not only Hawaii but also several other states that have passed similarly restrictive laws after the Bruen decision.
Kirk explained that the real danger of Hawaii’s law is that it assumes every piece of private property is a gun-free zone unless stated otherwise. “That’s backwards,” he said. “Under traditional property law, you’re told what you can’t bring, not that you need permission for everything you might bring.” He pointed out that Hawaii doesn’t require signs to carry a Bible or a protest sign, but they do for a lawfully carried firearm.
The Core of the Dispute: Hawaii’s Act 52
The law at the heart of the case is Hawaii’s Act 52, which restructured the state’s gun laws following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. In response to Bruen, which held that states must respect the right to carry firearms in public, Hawaii passed legislation making nearly all private property off-limits to guns unless the owner specifically says otherwise.
The DOJ says this is a bait-and-switch. On paper, Hawaii complied with Bruen. In practice, they used Act 52 to block public carry everywhere except the sidewalk. The DOJ calls this a “near-complete ban,” arguing that Hawaii’s rule “broadly restricts arms use by the public generally,” which violates both the spirit and the text of the Second Amendment.
Comparing Court Opinions: Ninth vs. Second Circuit
One major reason the Supreme Court may take this case is the conflict between two federal appeals courts. As noted in both the DOJ’s brief and Kirk’s analysis, the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law, but the Second Circuit struck down a nearly identical law in New York. That’s a classic circuit split, one of the key factors the Supreme Court looks for when deciding which cases to hear.
Judge VanDyke, in a powerful dissent from the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to rehear the case, said Hawaii’s law “practically accomplishes close to the same thing rejected in Bruen.” Eight judges dissented from the Ninth Circuit’s decision not to review the case en banc. They saw what the DOJ sees now: a law designed not to protect property, but to suppress gun rights.
The DOJ Cites History – and Finds Hawaii’s Law Lacking
The DOJ didn’t just criticize the law in theory. It backed up its case with history. The amicus brief points out that from the founding of the United States through the 19th century, there has never been a widespread tradition of banning guns from all private property by default. In fact, the DOJ found only a handful of obscure laws, most of them related to poaching or specific types of land, that even remotely resembled Hawaii’s.
And one of those examples, from Louisiana in 1865, was openly acknowledged as a racially motivated attempt to disarm freed slaves. Far from being a valid precedent, that law, the DOJ argues, is an example of what the Second Amendment was meant to prevent.
Exemptions Reveal the Law’s Real Purpose
Another major problem the DOJ raised is the long list of exceptions in Hawaii’s law. The restrictions don’t apply to off-duty police officers, retired cops from other states, or government employees commuting to work with guns. William Kirk echoed the concern, calling it “proof that the law isn’t about protecting property – it’s about restricting gun rights for everyday people.”
Kirk pointed out that if you can carry a firearm into a store as an off-duty cop but not as a licensed civilian, then the law isn’t about property rights – it’s about who the state wants to allow to be armed. In other words, Hawaii’s law favors elites, not the general public.
Consent Doesn’t Count – Unless It’s Written
A particularly bizarre feature of the law, which Kirk highlighted in his video, is how it treats consent. According to Act 52, even if a property owner verbally agrees or nods approval, that’s still not enough. Only written or clearly posted signage counts. The DOJ blasted this requirement as artificial and intentionally burdensome, calling it a “heightened burden” with no basis in traditional property law.
Kirk sarcastically noted that under Act 52, you can get the nod from the owner and still be guilty. “It’s absurd,” he said, “and DOJ is right to call it out.”
The Bigger Picture: More States Might Be in Trouble
The DOJ didn’t stop with Hawaii. It also warned that five states, Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, have all passed similar “default ban” laws. These were dubbed “Bruen response bills,” and according to Kirk, they amount to a coordinated effort to undermine the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling.
By highlighting this broader trend, the DOJ makes it clear: This isn’t just about Hawaii. It’s about stopping a nationwide movement to get around Bruen by changing the rules of public and private space.
Why the Supreme Court Should Step In Now
According to the DOJ’s brief, the Court must take this case to prevent more legal chaos. With lower courts confused and multiple states pushing the boundaries, only the Supreme Court can settle the matter. “Rahimi clarified who may possess arms,” the DOJ wrote. “This case affords an opportunity to begin addressing where arms may be carried.”
Kirk called it a golden opportunity. “If SCOTUS takes this case,” he said, “they can slam the door shut on these ridiculous laws once and for all.”
When the DOJ Sides With Gun Owners – That’s News
This case is remarkable not just because of what it argues, but who is arguing it. For the DOJ to stand behind armed citizens, call out unconstitutional gun laws, and directly challenge states like Hawaii – it’s something most people never expected to see. As William Kirk noted, “This isn’t your father’s DOJ.”
It’s also a sign of how much the landscape is shifting. The DOJ’s filing shows that even within federal institutions, there’s a growing recognition that the Second Amendment has been mistreated for too long – and that states are using loopholes to keep doing it.
This Case Could Redefine Gun Rights Law
If the Supreme Court takes Wolford v. Lopez, it won’t just be deciding whether Hawaii’s rule goes too far. It could end up creating a new nationwide standard for where guns can be carried, how property rights interact with public carry, and what “shall not be infringed” really means in everyday life.
It’s a powerful moment. For decades, gun owners have been on defense. But now, with the Bruen precedent, a supportive DOJ, and a major circuit split, momentum might finally be shifting in their favor.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
The article DOJ Now Backing Gun Owners in Supreme Court Battle first appeared on Survival World.
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.
