The Ninth Circuit on August 10 reinstated a preliminary injunction against Hawaii's default ban on carrying firearms on private property open to the public. In its published opinion in Wolford v. Lopez, the three-judge panel affirmed the injunction against Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 134-9.5. The short ruling follows a U.S. Supreme Court reversal and changes the result the same panel reached in 2024. It does not end the lawsuit or invalidate every sensitive-place restriction enacted in Hawaii's 2023 Act 52.
The private-property rule is blocked
Section 134-9.5 made private property off limits to firearm carry unless the owner allowed it. The requirement covered an owner's verbal or written authorization, including clear and conspicuous signage. Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford, Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition challenged that default along with other parts of Act 52. They requested preliminary relief while the underlying Second Amendment case continued. The federal district court granted their motion in part, putting the private-property provision and some other location rules on hold.
Hawaii appealed, and a Ninth Circuit panel initially ruled in 2024 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success against the private-property default. The Supreme Court granted review only on that question in 2025. In 2026, it reversed, holding that Hawaii's restriction on licensed concealed-carry holders entering private property open to the public without express permission violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court then returned the case to the Ninth Circuit for proceedings consistent with that decision.
Invalid Date
More Articles
Ninth Circuit Reinstates Injunction Against Hawaii Private-Property Carry Ban | GunsNation
The August 10 opinion implements that mandate rather than conducting a new historical analysis. Judges Mary M. Schroeder, Susan P. Graber, and Jennifer Sung made up the panel, with Judge Graber writing. The court said its earlier treatment of all other portions of Hawaii law remains unaffected. Its disposition is therefore mixed: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Because the case is still at the preliminary-injunction stage, the ruling controls enforcement during the litigation but is not a final merits judgment resolving every claim.
Other location rules keep their prior posture
The panel also left intact relief against Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 134-9.1(a)(12). It affirmed relief against parts of Section 134-9.1(a)(1) that reach certain government parking areas. Those are parking areas shared with nongovernmental entities, areas not reserved for state or county employees, or areas that do not exclusively serve a state or county building. The opinion does not turn every government parking area into an unrestricted carry location; it identifies those three narrower parking-area circumstances.
At the same time, the Ninth Circuit reversed the injunction insofar as it covered Sections 134-9.1(a)(4) and 134-9.1(a)(9). The new opinion does not redo the panel's reasoning for those provisions. Instead, it incorporates the earlier decision and changes only what the Supreme Court's private-property ruling required. Readers should not treat the decision as a blanket rejection of Hawaii's sensitive-place statute, because several challenged restrictions remain outside the preliminary relief described by the court.
For a licensed carrier in Hawaii, the immediate practical change concerns the statutory presumption for private property open to the public. While the injunction remains operative, the state cannot enforce Section 134-9.5 in the manner blocked by the district court. Property owners still retain ordinary authority over their premises, and the opinion does not say an owner must permit firearms. It addresses the state's default rule that required affirmative permission before a licensed person could carry onto covered private property.
The decision is also narrower than a nationwide carry rule. It comes from a Hawaii case, applies the Supreme Court's controlling holding to the challenged Hawaii statutes, and says nothing about permit eligibility or firearm possession by prohibited persons. Separate state and federal restrictions remain outside the case. The opinion itself offers no new test for every private-property or sensitive-place law elsewhere, even though courts considering similar language must account for the Supreme Court's decision.
The lawsuit returns to district court
No trial date, merits briefing schedule, or final-judgment timetable appears in the August 10 opinion. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case, so the next procedural milestone is further litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The preliminary injunction may govern in the meantime, subject to later court orders. The remaining claims and the ultimate form of final relief are unresolved, as are any later appellate steps after the district court completes the case.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
