Trump Administration Aims to Weaken Current Gun Regulations

The Trump Administration has initiated a decisive shift in the national debate over firearms, moving beyond legislative battles to employ a novel strategy centered on executive authority. The administration's core objective is to systematically dismantle the federal firearms regulatory framework from within. This is being achieved not by repealing laws through Congress, but through targeted non-enforcement of statutes, strategic reversals in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) litigation posture, and administrative actions to nullify prior regulations.

The legal foundation for this approach is the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established a "history and tradition" test for all gun laws. The administration is leveraging this new standard via the February 7, 2025, Executive Order on Protecting Second Amendment Rights, which directs the Attorney General to review all recent federal firearms policies and, crucially, to re-evaluate the government's legal position in all Second Amendment litigation.

---

Wolford v. Lopez currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on Hawaii’s Act 52, a law enacted in 2023 that restricts concealed carry of firearms on private property open to the public, such as stores, restaurants, or parking lots, unless the property owner provides explicit authorization. The petitioners, led by Jason Wolford, argue that this “private-property default rule” violates their Second Amendment rights by effectively banning public carry. Hawaii, represented by Attorney General Anne E. Lopez, defends the law as a necessary measure to protect public safety and respect property owners’ rights. The U.S. government, in an amicus brief, supports the petitioners, aligning with the Trump Administration’s broader efforts to weaken federal gun regulations.

As of yet, the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant certiorari (review) in this case, with a conference scheduled for September 29, 2025. The case has drawn significant attention due to its potential to reshape gun laws across the United States, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating firearm regulations.

Background of the Case

The roots of Wolford v. Lopez lie in the evolving landscape of Second Amendment law. Prior to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022, Hawaii maintained one of the most restrictive concealed carry regimes in the nation. Over 18 years, the state issued only four concealed carry licenses, with one county never granting any. The Bruen decision, which struck down New York’s restrictive permitting system, affirmed a general right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, prompting states like Hawaii to revise their laws.

In response, Hawaii enacted Act 52 on June 2, 2023. This law introduced a private-property default rule, codified in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.5(a), which prohibits concealed-carry license holders from carrying firearms on private property open to the public without express authorization from the property owner, either through written or verbal permission or signage. Violations are classified as misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in prison. The law also designates certain “sensitive places,” such as parks and beaches, where firearms are generally prohibited.

The petitioners, including Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford, Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, challenged Act 52, arguing that the private-property default rule effectively nullifies their Second Amendment rights by making it nearly impossible to carry firearms in public spaces. They contend that requiring explicit permission from property owners for virtually every location—such as grocery stores, malls, or restaurants—creates an undue burden on their constitutional right to bear arms.

Legal Journey

• District Court (2023): In August 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted a preliminary injunction against parts of Act 52, enjoining enforcement of the law in locations such as parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings, financial institutions, public beaches, parks, bars, and restaurants serving alcohol, as well as the private-property default rule. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Second Amendment claims for these provisions.

• 9th Circuit Decision (September 2024): On September 6, 2024, a 9th Circuit panel issued a split decision, affirming the injunction for restrictions on carrying firearms at financial institutions and certain parking lots but reversing it for bars, restaurants serving alcohol, beaches, parks, and the private-property default rule. The court applied the Bruen framework, which requires firearm regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The panel found that Hawaii’s private-property default rule likely aligns with historical laws that allowed property owners to exclude firearms, citing examples from 1771 New Jersey and 1865 Louisiana statutes.

• En Banc Review Denied (January 2025): The petitioners sought en banc review by the full 9th Circuit, but this was denied on January 14, 2025. Eight judges dissented, arguing that the panel’s decision was contrary to Supreme Court precedent and created a circuit split with the 2nd Circuit’s ruling in Antonyuk v. James (2d Cir. 2024). The dissenters, including Judge VanDyke, contended that the law “nullifies Second Amendment rights” by limiting carry to “those who aimlessly wander the streets” (Pet. App. 181a).

• Supreme Court Petition (April 2025): On April 1, 2025, the petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to resolve the circuit split and clarify the application of Bruen. The petition has attracted significant support, with amicus briefs filed by the U.S. government, the National Association for Gun Rights, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Foundation for Moral Law, Montana and other states, the Buckeye Institute, and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. Hawaii filed a brief in opposition on June 4, 2025, and the petitioners replied on June 16, 2025. The case is scheduled for a Supreme Court conference on September 29, 2025, to determine whether certiorari will be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

The Wolford v. Lopez case pits Second Amendment rights against state regulatory authority, with each side presenting distinct arguments:

Party	Position	Key Arguments
Petitioners (Jason Wolford et al.)	Seek to overturn Act 52	The private-property default rule violates the Second Amendment by effectively banning public carry, as it requires permission from property owners for nearly every public space. The law does not align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation required by Bruen. The 9th Circuit’s decision conflicts with the 2nd Circuit’s ruling in Antonyuk v. James, creating a circuit split that needs Supreme Court resolution.
Respondent (Hawaii, Anne E. Lopez)	Defend Act 52	The law protects property owners’ rights to control their premises, consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation (e.g., 1771 New Jersey, 1865 Louisiana laws). Act 52 is a reasonable public safety measure in the post-Bruen era, ensuring that concealed carry is conducted responsibly. The law does not ban carry outright but merely requires permission, balancing Second Amendment rights with property rights.
United States (Amicus Curiae)	Support petitioners	Act 52 serves no legitimate purpose and unduly restricts Second Amendment rights. The law’s requirement for express authorization undermines the right to public carry established in Bruen.

Potential Ramifications

The outcome of Wolford v. Lopez could have profound implications for gun rights and regulations across the United States:

• If the Supreme Court Grants Certiorari and Rules for the Petitioners:

  • Hawaii’s Act 52 and similar laws in five other states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) could be struck down, affecting over 75 million people—more than one-fifth of the U.S. population.

  • Such a ruling would likely expand Second Amendment protections, limiting states’ ability to impose broad restrictions on where firearms can be carried.

  • It could provide clearer guidance on applying the Bruen “history and tradition” test, helping lower courts navigate Second Amendment challenges.

• If the Supreme Court Sides with Hawaii or Declines to Hear the Case:

  • States could continue to enforce or adopt similar private-property default rules, potentially restricting where concealed-carry license holders can legally carry firearms.

  • Other jurisdictions, particularly in the 9th Circuit, might be encouraged to implement comparable laws, leading to a patchwork of regulations that could complicate gun rights nationwide.

  • A decision upholding Act 52 could validate state efforts to balance Second Amendment rights with public safety and property rights, particularly in densely populated or sensitive areas.

The case also underscores the need for Supreme Court guidance, as lower courts have struggled to consistently apply the Bruen framework, leading to conflicting rulings like those in Wolford and Antonyuk.

Broader Context: Trump Administration’s Gun Regulation Policies

The Wolford v. Lopez case is unfolding against the backdrop of significant changes in federal gun policy under the Trump Administration. The Administration has taken several steps to weaken federal firearm regulations, aligning with its support for the petitioners in this case:

• Executive Order (February 7, 2025): President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review and re-evaluate federal firearms policies, emphasizing the Bruen “history and tradition” test as the guiding standard for regulations.

• Reversal of ATF Rules:

  • The Administration has ceased defending or sought to repeal Biden-era ATF rules on “ghost guns” (unserialized firearms) and pistol braces, which aimed to close regulatory loopholes.

• Revocation of “Zero-Tolerance” Policy:

  • On April 7, 2025, the DOJ revoked a policy that automatically revoked licenses from gun dealers for any violation of federal law, allowing dealers with violations to retain their licenses.

• Narrowing “Prohibited Person” Categories:

  • The Administration has challenged the ban on handgun sales to individuals under 21, arguing that such restrictions lack historical precedent.

  • It has also stopped defending the felon-in-possession ban (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) in certain “as-applied” challenges for non-violent felons and revived a petition program on March 20, 2025, to review such cases.

• Proactive Agenda:

  • The Administration is advocating for national concealed carry reciprocity, which would allow permit holders to carry firearms across state lines, overriding stricter state laws.

  • It has proposed federal funding for arming school personnel, including training and bonuses, to enhance school safety.

These federal actions reflect a broader push to expand gun rights, which contrasts with state-level efforts like Hawaii’s Act 52 to impose stricter controls. The U.S. government’s amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez aligns with this deregulatory stance, arguing that Hawaii’s law unduly restricts Second Amendment rights. This federal-state tension highlights the complex legal and political landscape surrounding gun rights in the United States.

Wolford v. Lopez is a critical case that could shape the future of Second Amendment rights in the United States. The petitioners’ challenge to Hawaii’s Act 52 raises fundamental questions about the balance between an individual’s right to carry firearms in public and a state’s authority to regulate such activity to protect public safety and property rights. The 9th Circuit’s decision to uphold the private-property default rule, coupled with the circuit split with the 2nd Circuit, makes Supreme Court review likely, though the Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case as of July 21, 2025.

The outcome of Wolford v. Lopez could affect millions of Americans in states with similar laws and provide much-needed clarity on how to apply the Bruen framework. In the broader context, the case reflects ongoing debates over gun rights, amplified by the Trump Administration’s efforts to weaken federal gun regulations. Whether the Supreme Court grants certiorari and how it rules will likely have lasting implications for the balance between individual rights and state regulatory power in the realm of firearms.

---

More from Rationally Based