A major gun rights battle is now on the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Wolford v. Lopez, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) has filed a scathing amicus brief challenging the Ninth Circuit’s handling of Hawaii’s controversial gun law.
The law bans carrying firearms on any private property that’s open to the public unless the person has express written permission from the property owner. That effectively means carrying a gun almost anywhere in Hawaii is illegal, even on land that looks public. The Ninth Circuit upheld this law, and now NAGR says that decision not only distorts the Constitution but also threatens to split the Second Amendment in two.
NAGR: Defending a Right Older Than the Constitution
In its amicus brief, NAGR argues that the Second Amendment does not create the right to bear arms – it merely acknowledges a natural right that existed long before the Constitution. “The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that existed prior to the Constitution,” the brief states. It emphasizes that the Second Amendment simply codifies a truth the Founders already understood: armed citizens are essential to liberty. This argument, rooted in originalism, is at the heart of NAGR’s case against how the Ninth Circuit interpreted the law.
1791 or 1868? Why the Date Matters
One of the biggest points of conflict is historical interpretation. According to both the amicus brief and William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, the courts are now split on whether to judge gun rights based on the Founding Era (1791) or the Reconstruction Era (1868). Kirk calls this a “huge issue” because courts that favor 1868 can pull from a time when governments were more open to restrictive gun laws, especially in the South. This gives judges more wiggle room to justify bans. “The more that courts can rely on reconstruction era law,” Kirk says, “the more they can with a straight face attempt to justify these gun control regulations.” NAGR insists this shift is unconstitutional.
Sarcasm With a Legal Edge
Barry Arrington, the attorney who wrote NAGR’s amicus brief, didn’t hold back. Kirk describes the writing as full of “haymakers” and biting sarcasm. For example, Arrington slams progressive judges for treating the “fabricated right to abortion” as more sacred than the clearly stated right to bear arms. He says, “The Constitution specifically enumerates the right to keep and bear arms… yet progressives treat it like it doesn’t really exist.” This kind of blunt language isn’t typical in Supreme Court briefs, but it gets the point across with force and personality.
Two Second Amendments?
The brief warns that if different courts continue using different historical timelines, Americans could end up living under “two radically different Second Amendments.” As Kirk puts it, the Ninth Circuit is doing the opposite of what courts in other regions are doing, which could lead to a situation where your rights depend entirely on where you live. NAGR says this is unacceptable and that the Supreme Court needs to resolve the “circuit split” immediately. “What is protected is going to change significantly based on the circuit you’re in,” Kirk warns.
Bruen and Heller Are Being Undermined
Arrington accuses the Ninth Circuit and other non-originalist courts of trying to gut the impact of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). According to the brief, ever since Heller confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, anti-gun judges have been chipping away at it. “They have spent the ensuing 17 years frenetically working to undermine Heller as much as possible,” the brief claims. This is a direct shot at what NAGR calls the ongoing war against gun rights.
When History Gets Rewritten
One of the most powerful lines in the brief, echoed by Kirk, is the warning that the meaning of the Second Amendment seems to change “depending on what day of the week it is and which court we’re in.” NAGR argues that this shifting legal landscape weakens not just the Second Amendment but the rule of law itself. If the courts can change history to suit their policy goals, then no constitutional right is safe. That’s not just a gun issue – that’s a constitutional crisis.
A Consistent Rule for All Rights
Arrington’s brief goes further, pointing out that no other constitutional right has been treated this way. In First Amendment cases, for example, courts don’t suddenly start using 1868 as their historical anchor. The brief lists several landmark cases, including Espinoza v. Montana, Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, and Gamble v. United States, to show that courts always stick with the original date of ratification. “Later history can liquidate an understanding of the text,” Arrington writes, “but it cannot change the text.” This argument, Kirk says, could affect how all constitutional rights are interpreted going forward.
Why This Case Could Matter Far Beyond Hawaii
Even though this case is still in an interlocutory stage (meaning the Supreme Court hasn’t agreed to hear it yet), Kirk believes it’s a critical fight. The outcome could shape how courts evaluate gun laws for years to come. “This deals with the future of how any other gun control legislation is going to be analyzed,” he says. And if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in, the Ninth Circuit’s method could spread to other jurisdictions. That’s why NAGR and Kirk are sounding the alarm.
A Supreme Test of Judicial Honesty
From a broader perspective, what makes this situation fascinating is how it exposes a deep fracture in the American legal system. If judges are using the same Constitution but applying it differently depending on personal beliefs or regional politics, then we’re not talking about law anymore – we’re talking about power. The NAGR brief cuts through the legal fog and dares to call it what it is: manipulation. Whether one agrees with their stance or not, their courage to challenge this openly is worth noting.
The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher
What really jumps out is the potential long-term impact. This isn’t just about Hawaii. It’s about whether your right to bear arms depends on where you live, or worse, who your judge is. The idea that the Second Amendment could mean one thing in California and another in Texas is chilling. That’s not how a unified constitutional republic is supposed to work. If the Supreme Court doesn’t fix this, we might see deeper legal chaos in the years ahead.
A Call for Constitutional Clarity
The National Association for Gun Rights has made its argument clear: the Ninth Circuit has stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution. With the support of legal experts like Barry Arrington and commentary from voices like William Kirk, the amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez doesn’t just challenge a law – it challenges a trend. A trend where judges play with history and twist precedent to achieve policy goals. Whether the Supreme Court decides to hear the case or not, this brief sends a loud message: the fight over the Second Amendment is far from settled, and the battle for its original meaning is only just beginning.
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.