Hawaii has long maintained some of the strictest firearm regulations in the United States, reflecting its “aloha spirit.” Before 2022, the state’s licensing regime for carrying firearms in public was highly restrictive. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 134-9, permits to openly or concealed carry were issued only in “exceptional cases” where applicants demonstrated a special need, such as fear of injury. County police chiefs exercised broad discretion, resulting in extremely few permits granted, sometimes none for years in certain counties. This system effectively functioned as a near-total ban on public carry for ordinary citizens.
This approach faced significant legal challenges, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry permits, ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, rejected subjective “special need” standards and established a new test: modern gun laws must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The ruling explicitly criticized discretionary regimes like Hawaii’s (and a few others) as unconstitutional for ordinary law-abiding citizens.
In direct response to Bruen, Hawaii’s legislature promptly revised its laws. In 2022-2023, the state passed legislation (notably Act 52 in 2023) that overhauled the carry permit system. It shifted from a “may-issue” discretionary model to a more objective “shall-issue” process for concealed-carry permits, allowing qualified applicants to obtain licenses without demonstrating a special need. This change permitted licensed individuals to carry concealed firearms in public, a significant expansion from the prior de facto prohibition.
However, the reforms were not solely about liberalization. Hawaii paired the expansion with new restrictions, including bans on “sensitive places” (e.g., parks, beaches, bars serving alcohol) and a default rule governing private property open to the public.
Under the new framework, licensed carriers generally could not bring firearms onto private property (e.g., stores, restaurants, or gas stations) without the owner’s express authorization, whether verbal, written, or via conspicuous signage. This change inverted the common “permission presumed unless prohibited” default in many states, making Hawaii’s approach, in practice, more restrictive for everyday activities.
A separate but related area involved non-firearm weapons, such as knives, bows, and spears, often classified under Hawaii’s “deadly or dangerous weapons” statutes. Historically, Hawaii restricted the concealed carry of such items but allowed open carry in many contexts, particularly for practical uses such as hunting, fishing, or work. Hawaii’s hunting culture relies on bladed tools for field dressing game and on traditional implements such as bows for subsistence or sport.
To address potential federal lawsuits invoking Bruen’s historical tradition test, Hawaii made targeted changes around 2022-2024. Lawsuits had challenged restrictions on open carry of knives and similar weapons as infringing on Second Amendment protections (since Bruen extended to arms “in common use” for lawful purposes, potentially including knives). In response, the state repealed or adjusted prohibitions on open carry of certain non-firearm deadly weapons. This move effectively mooted several pending federal cases by removing the challenged restrictions, avoiding adverse rulings that could have broader implications for the state’s regulatory scheme. By legalizing or clarifying open carry for these items, Hawaii neutralized claims that its laws lacked historical analogues or unduly burdened self-defense rights.
The current SB 433 (introduced in the 2026 legislative session) represents a potential reversal in this non-firearm domain. The bill prohibits any person from openly carrying a “deadly or dangerous weapon,” explicitly including bladed weapons in that category. It establishes an affirmative defense for lawful self-defense or transport, but would criminalize open carry as a misdemeanor in many scenarios.
Critics, including hunting advocates and gun rights groups, argue it threatens traditional tools and knives for dispatching game, bows, and spears, turning routine hunting or work activities into offenses. The bill has drawn opposition for potentially conflicting with post-Bruen Second Amendment principles, as open carry of common arms (including knives) may now enjoy constitutional protection if historically unregulated in that manner.
This proposed change highlights ongoing tensions within Hawaii’s firearms policy. Post-Bruen, the state expanded concealed-carry of firearms to comply with federal rulings but imposed measures to limit its practical scope. Earlier adjustments, such as allowing the open carry of non-firearm weapons, served as a strategic response to moot lawsuits and preserved broader restrictions. SB 433, if enacted, could reimpose bans that were lifted precisely to avoid constitutional challenges, potentially inviting new litigation.
As cases like Wolford v. Lopez (challenging Hawaii’s private property default rule) reach the Supreme Court, Hawaii’s laws remain under scrutiny, with SB 433 adding another layer to this complex landscape.
Wolford v. Lopez: Why the Supreme Court’s Latest 2nd Amendment Case Risks Missing the Real Threat
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
” He who goes unarmed in Paradise had better be sure that, that is where He is.”
James Thurber