Defending the Right of Businesses to Set Firearm Rules on Their Property

This case focuses on whether states may adopt a default rule that prohibits carrying firearms onto private property open to the public—such as shops, restaurants, and banks—unless the property owner gives consent.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen recognized a right to carry firearms in public, several states enacted laws clarifying that private property owners retain control over whether firearms are allowed on their premises. Hawai’i adopted a “no-carry default” rule, placing the burden on individuals to obtain consent before bringing firearms onto private property open to the public.

Lower courts split on the issue. The Second and Third Circuits struck down similar laws, while the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawai’i’s statute. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Democracy Forward represents amici curiae—the City of Baltimore, the City of New Haven, and the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce—in support of Hawai’i. Our amicus brief explains why no-carry default rules are lawful, practical, and consistent with longstanding traditions of state and local regulation of private property.

The brief highlights three core points:

• Businesses open to the public face significant liability risks from gun violence under well-established tort law. A no-carry default helps businesses identify when firearms are present and take reasonable steps to protect people in their venues, reducing exposure to litigation and insurance costs.
• Default property rules are a common and flexible policy tool that states and municipalities use to respond to changing circumstances—whether regulating drones, solicitation, animals, or other activities on private property. Choosing a default rule is a policy judgment, not a constitutional mandate.
• The Second Amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) does not guarantee a right to carry firearms onto another person’s private property. Property owners retain the right to exclude firearms, and Hawai’i’s law preserves that discretion while minimizing transaction costs for businesses and the public.

The brief urges the Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit and uphold the ability of states and local governments to protect public safety, support local commerce, and respect private property rights without violating the Constitution.