Aloha State’s carry permit might as well be a gum wrapper

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up a case challenging a Hawaii law that bans concealed carry almost everywhere.

In 2022, when it handed down its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court settled one of the most important constitutional questions of our time: The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is protected under the Second Amendment.

That should have been the end of the matter. In Hawaii, however, lawmakers responded with defiance instead of compliance with their so-called carry law (Act 52). Even if you don’t live in Hawaii, be aware that it is doing what anti-gunners in your state would love to do.

Under this law, permit holders — people who have undergone mandatory training, passed background checks and followed every rule — are effectively barred from carrying a firearm almost anywhere. Parks, sidewalks, beaches, government property, banks and even most private property are all off-limits. A carry permit in Hawaii may as well be used to discard chewed-up gum.

Hawaii points out the problem with permits in general. It simply can’t be left to politicians and bureaucrats to decide when and where lawful citizens can carry. That’s why constitutional (permitless) carry is so important, and that’s why in 2023 Gun Owners of America filed an amicus brief in this case, Wolford v. Lopez, urging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down this law.

For years, courts tried to water down the Second Amendment by “balancing” it against the government’s supposed public safety interests. Bruen, along with other landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as Heller and McDonald, should have ended that game. The court was clear: When the Second Amendment’s text covers an activity such as carrying a gun for self-defense, the government must show that its restrictions are consistent with our nation’s history and tradition of gun laws.

Hawaii can’t do that. These sweeping bans are brand new. They have no roots in the Founding era or in American history. In fact, they directly contradict the purpose of the Second Amendment: to ensure ordinary Americans can defend themselves, their loved ones and their property from threats, no matter the source.

The court left the door cracked open by acknowledging certain “sensitive places” where guns can be restricted, such as courthouses or schools. Hawaii busted down the door and instead came up with what amounts to a blanket ban on carrying. If nearly every public area is “sensitive,” then the right to carry isn’t a right at all. In hearing this case, the court can shut the door again on unconstitutional restrictions.

The court can reiterate that the Second Amendment is not a privilege the government can revoke whenever it wants. We would never accept this thinking with free speech. You don’t have First Amendment rights only on your own property or in a few places where the government allows it. That would never be tolerated, and we shouldn’t tolerate it with the Second Amendment either.

One of the worst parts of Hawaii’s law is what we call in our brief the “vampire rule.” On private property open to the public, carrying a gun is banned unless the owner puts up a sign saying otherwise. That turns centuries of property law on its head.

In some states, if a business owner doesn’t want firearms and the owner wants to lay out a welcome mat to criminals, they post a “no guns” sign. Hawaii has reversed that, forcing business owners to take action just to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights. It’s a sleazy move designed to make lawful carry virtually impossible.

Hawaii also bans guns in banks. Where’s the historical precedent for that? There isn’t any. Hawaii wants to invent a tradition that doesn’t exist, and Bruen doesn’t allow it.

The state also argues that because it owns public land, it can ban guns there too. Still, constitutional rights don’t disappear on government property. The First Amendment doesn’t vanish in a park, and neither does the Second.

The truth is, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in America. Study after study shows they commit crimes at rates far lower than the general population. Hawaii’s attempt to paint lawful gun owners as a safety risk is unconstitutional and will endanger lives by restricting the most effective means of self-defense.

What’s happening in Hawaii matters for the entire country. If states can gut the right to carry by declaring nearly every place off-limits, then the Second Amendment becomes meaningless.

Gun Owners of America’s amicus brief to the 9th Circuit stated plainly that the Constitution doesn’t allow states to play games with fundamental rights. The 9th Circuit ignored what the Supreme Court already made clear: The right to bear arms is not a second-class right.

If Hawaii gets away with this scheme, other anti-gun states will follow. That’s why this case matters so much. The court has a choice: Uphold the Second Amendment and its own ruling in Bruen, or watch our rights be regulated out of existence.

Originally published by John Velleco for the Washington Times. Read the full story ›

Gun Owners of America Files Motion for Summary Judgment Against ATF, Challenging NFA Provisions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 8, 2025

Washington, D.C.—Yesterday, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).

GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment.

With the filing of this motion for summary judgment, GOA and GOF now expect the Trump Administration to take an official position on untaxed firearm registration and file a response on or before November 6, 2025.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“The National Firearms Act’s onerous registration requirements for untaxed firearms are a relic of a taxing scheme that no longer exists.  These provisions violate the Constitution by exceeding Congress’s authority and infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.  We urge the Court to strike down these unconstitutional restrictions and protect the rights of our members, supporters, and millions of gun owners nationwide.”

John Velleco, GOF’s Executive Vice President, issued the following statement: 

“The NFA is the strictest federal gun control law in the nation’s history. Even so, NFA-regulated weapons have proliferated in recent years, quickly becoming favored tools of the home defender, hunter, and hobbyist alike.  This lawsuit takes aim at FDR-era restrictions that never should have been passed in the first place. We look forward to taking a big step towards restoring the Founders’ original vision for American gun owners.”

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

Recently leaked text messages from Virginia AG candidate Jay Jones revealed violent fantasies about Republican lawmakers. Jones has the backing of the gun control lobby, which is completely silent on the entire situation.

The texts in question detailed Jones’ fantasies about shooting one of his Republican colleagues in the head, twice, instead of Hitler or Pol Pot.

That’s not all, he also made plans to “piss on their graves,” referring, of course, to the Republicans he fantasized about murdering.

And finally, he wished death upon a Republican politician’s children in the hopes that tragedy would move that individual closer to his personal views on policy.

But even more telling is the fact that in response to this exposure of Jones’ violent fantasies, no gun control groups have made any statements condemning Jones’ remarks or rescinding their endorsements.

In fact, Jones’ website still proudly displays the endorsements of large and small gun control groups alike. Featured prominently are Moms Demand Action, Everytown, Brady, Giffords, Virginians for Change, and Prevent Gun Tragedies PAC.

You’d think that in their work to oppose “gun violence,” a candidate who fantasizes about shooting his political opponent twice in the head would be a no-go.

Yet, nothing but silence from the anti-gun lobby. It seems as if you are on their side, violence is acceptable.

This refusal to condemn Jones’ violent fantasies is clearly why Jones has no intent to drop out of the Virginia AG race, even after these text messages were leaked.

Everytown, the anti-gun group belonging to billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, donated $200,000 to Jay Jones’ campaign in August.

In Everytown’s announcement of their support, their President, John Feinblatt, was singing Jones’ praises, even calling him a “committed gun sense champion.”

Anti-gun groups love Jay Jones. And there’s a reason for that. During his time as a State Representative, he voted for numerous anti-gun bills—many of which became law.

Jones voted for the establishment of new gun-free zones, bans on privately made firearms, bans on carrying around the Capitol Square in Richmond, red flag laws, and more.

His gun-control activism and attempts to restrict your right to own a firearm clearly didn’t stop him from fantasizing about killing his Republican coworkers.

It doesn’t seem to bother his anti-gun donors either.

Every single one of these gun control organizations backing Jay Jones must loudly renounce him & his calls for political violence.

Originally published by Tyler Durden for ZeroHedge. Read the full story ›