Justice Samuel Alito said on Tuesday that the lawyer defending a Hawaii gun law, which requires gun owners to get permission to carry firearms on private property, is treating the Second Amendment as a constitutional right with “second-class status.”
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in Wolford v. Lopez over a Hawaii law that preemptively bans concealed firearms on private property. The conservative majority of the high court appeared skeptical of the Aloha State’s arguments. Alito was one of multiple justices who renewed a claim that lawyers pushing to uphold sweeping gun laws treat the constitutional right to bear arms as less important than all other rights.
“You’re just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status. I don’t see how you can get away from that,” Alito said to lawyer Neal Katyal, who argued on behalf of Hawaii.
Alito then questioned whether the state could enact a similar law banning political attire rather than guns without running afoul of First Amendment protections.
“Could Hawaii enact a statute that says that if you were wearing the attire expressing approval of a particular political candidate, you can’t come in unless you get express consent from the owner of the restaurant?” Alito asked.
Katyal attempted to create a distinction between the First and Second amendments, arguing that banning political clothing would be viewpoint discrimination.
“It’s a violation of the First Amendment. We have a violation of the First Amendment, and a violation of the right that the court held is protected by the Second Amendment in Bruen, which is the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm outside of the home for purposes of self-defense,” Alito said.
Chief Justice John Roberts also expressed concern over whether Hawaii is treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.”
“What our precedents talk about in this area is that the Second Amendment has been treated as sort
of a second-level right. And that’s one area where, given this law, I don’t really see the basis for the distinction,” Roberts said.
In the Supreme Court’s most recent landmark gun case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas noted, “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”
HAWAII GUN CASE AT SUPREME COURT PITS GUN RIGHTS AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY LAWS
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the key gun case by the end of June. Next month, the high court will hear another high-profile gun rights case, which could affect the gun rights of marijuana users, with United States v. Hemani.
The high court will have one more oral argument session this month, when it hears arguments in President Donald Trump’s bid to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook on Wednesday.