Opinion
Companion Analysis for AmmoLand News
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- At first glance, Wolford v. Lopez appears to present a narrow, technical dispute about firearms carried on private property open to the public. But appearances can be deceiving. As Attorney Roger J. Katz explains in his full legal analysis, the case before the U.S. Supreme Court is far more consequential—and potentially far more dangerous—than the question formally presented for review.
The issue accepted by the Court asks whether Hawaii may presumptively ban licensed concealed carry on private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission. Framed this way, the case sounds like a routine circuit split over “sensitive place” restrictions. In reality, Katz argues, Wolford rests on a deeply flawed premise: that states possess broad authority to carve out vast public and quasi-public spaces where the natural law right of armed self-defense simply does not apply.
That assumption is precisely what threatens the integrity of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
How We Got Here: From Licensing to Nullification
To understand the danger, Katz traces the path from New York’s early 20th-century handgun licensing regime to today’s post-Bruen regulatory backlash. For decades, states like New York relied on discretionary standards—“proper cause” and “good moral character”—to suppress public carry without openly banning it. Those schemes collapsed only after Heller, McDonald, and ultimately Bruen recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense both inside and outside the home.
But states unwilling to accept that reality did not retreat. Instead, they pivoted.
What emerged was the modern invention of sprawling “sensitive place” restrictions—not narrowly defined locations grounded in historical practice, but broad categories designed to swallow the rule. Entire cities, neighborhoods, businesses, and everyday locations were reclassified as gun-free zones, transforming lawful carry into a legal minefield.
As Katz explains, this tactic does not merely regulate the right—it neutralizes it.
The Unanswered Question the Court Refuses to Face
At the heart of Katz’s critique is a problem the Supreme Court itself created and has repeatedly declined to fix: the lack of clarity surrounding the “historical tradition” test announced in Heller and applied in Bruen.
Under that framework, once a law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the state to show a historically analogous regulation. But analogous to what—and from when?
Is the relevant period 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified? Or can states rely on post-Reconstruction laws, late 19th-century experiments, or even 20th-century innovations? Lower courts are divided, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to resolve the conflict—most notably by refusing review in Antonyuk and stripping the issue from Wolford itself.
That refusal matters. Without a defined historical baseline, courts are left to improvise. The result is inconsistency, judicial discretion masquerading as originalism, and a steady erosion of Bruen’s force.
Why Wolford Is a Ruse—No Matter How It’s Decided
Even a ruling in favor of the petitioners, Katz warns, would leave the core problem untouched. Hawaii—and states like it—could simply rewrite their laws and continue restricting carry through alternative means. A ruling against the petitioners would be worse, effectively endorsing the notion that Second Amendment rights vary by geography and local preference.
That argument is already being openly advanced. Advocacy groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety frame Wolford as a matter of “local choice”—suggesting that Hawaii may decide one rule while Florida adopts another.
But as Katz forcefully reminds readers, fundamental rights are not subject to local option. The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege conferred by government. It is a natural law right, preexisting the Constitution, recognized—not granted—by the Second Amendment. Treating it like a regulatory preference places it on the same footing as ordinary policy disputes, stripping it of its constitutional stature.
The Larger Pattern—and the Cost of Judicial Timidity
Katz’s broader concern extends beyond Wolford. He identifies a troubling pattern under Chief Justice John Roberts: avoiding decisive Second Amendment cases, declining to clarify governing standards, and leaving hostile states free to test the limits of defiance.
The consequences are not theoretical. Law-abiding citizens are forced to navigate contradictory laws under threat of felony prosecution, license revocation, and ruinous legal consequences—even when acting in self-defense. Meanwhile, the lower courts receive no meaningful guidance, and states exploit the ambiguity.
Read the Full Analysis
This article only scratches the surface of Roger J. Katz’s full legal examination of Wolford v. Lopez, its historical roots, and its implications for the future of the Second Amendment. His complete work offers a far more detailed discussion of the historical tradition test, the Court’s internal dynamics, and why unresolved standards threaten to reduce armed self-defense to a second-class right.
Readers who care about the integrity of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—and about the future of the right to keep and bear arms—are strongly encouraged to read Katz’s full analysis in its entirety.
The stakes could not be higher, and the Court’s next move may determine whether Bruen remains a living precedent—or a hollow promise.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
Chief Justice Roberts Is Not Defending The Second Amendment—He Is Containing It
Antonyuk Deserved More: The Court’s Denial Isn’t Just A Letdown—It’s A Warning
To be honest Federal state, and local courts and those run by the municipalities are now guided by potitical repersentation of the party in control of that state. Lets be truthful something the democrats can not seem apply each and everyday. Politics weaponized the court system, in the end it is we the people who are getting served tanted polticial justice not the rule of law. The wholesale attacks on conservatives and law enforcment that will not bend to the democrats lawlessness & policies that do not and should not hold up in any court in America. Firearm laws have… Read more »
The blame for the reason we got here lies solely on SCOTUS. They have repeatedly chosen to NOT take important cases for whatever reason. They’ve allowed governments at all levels to require “permission slips” in order to exercise a Constitutional right. Whether those are for the firearm itself or ammunition, the point is that asking permission from “the crown” is ridiculous. Now, we see, as this author stated, a narrowly defined question about the legality of a person, who already asked permission, carrying a concealed firearm on private property. Uh, what’s the point of concealed?! SO NO ONE KNOWS YOU… Read more »