What Is and Isn't Constitutional on Firearm Law

By Z. E. Kendall

“The Second Amendment cannot give way to the spirit of Aloha in Hawaii any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple or the Windy City. Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of the fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment” -- Justice Samuel Alito, Wolford v. Lopez, 2026, page 3

The Right to Conceal Carry on Private Property

In recent years, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have emphasized the value of American history in making rulings on whether or not a law was Constitutional. This applies to the 2^nd Amendment.

They wrote in the recent Wolford v. Lopez decision, “Bruen identified three important inquiries for evaluating proffered historical analogues: the number of jurisdictions in which they were adopted, the extent to which they were well-accepted, and whether any analogue or collection of analogues is relevantly similar to the modern law in terms of how and why it restricted the keeping or bearing of arms.¹” In other words, the court is looking at the historical popularity of the laws and the reasons behind the laws.

But the Supreme Court is also looking at the practical effects of the laws as well. After all, for example, the Second Amendment deals with practical effects as it forbids the infringement of the ability to keep and carry firearms.

This brings us to the case of Wolford v. Lopez which the Supreme Court decided in June 2026. That court case focused on a Hawaii law that stated that nobody carrying a firearm could arrive on private property without that private property owner’s expressed authorization for carrying a firearm on their property. That law would have applied to residential and commercial properties, from houses to restaurants to offices to ammo shops.

“The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Justice Sam Alito wrote in the Wolford v. Lopez decision. Justice Alito was concerned that Hawaii’s law would mean that even people with concealed carry licenses “may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, coffee shops, drug stores, grocery stores, big box stores, home improvement stores, barber shops or hair salons, dry cleaners, and laundromats.” So, then, he held that Hawaii’s law would infringe upon the right to bear arms and therefore was unconstitutional.² The majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Alito in their 6-3 decision.

So then, what does this mean? The Supreme Court has ruled that you, as an individual, can carry firearms on private property even if the owner of that private property hasn’t made it clear whether or not he wants you to carry a firearm on his property. In order for it to be illegal to carry a firearm while visiting someone on private property, the owner of the private property has to make it clear that carrying a firearm is forbidden.

So then, for other situations, where does your Constitutional right end and a crime begin? Where’s the line between a right and a crime? From a philosophy of law standpoint, reckless endangerment appears to be that line. Putting other people into immediate high risk of harm is the standard.

So, then, state laws that deal with firearm use and firearm storage can be constitutional if the intent is to prevent reckless endangerment. For example, the Supreme Court’s Wolford v. Lopez opinion maintained that state laws “to prevent the distinctive harms and risks associated with unauthorized hunting” on private property were still Constitutional.³

But Justice Sam Alito had more to say in the Wolford v. Lopez decision.

The attorney general for Hawaii had argued that, “in Hawaii, opening private property to the public does not implicitly include any armed individuals among those who may enter.⁴” But the Supreme Court’s majority didn’t agree with that viewpoint.

Special Gun Control Rules for Cities

Now, in the past year, Louisville Metro Council sent a message to the Kentucky State legislature asking for the ability for it to write its own firearm regulations. Is it Constitutional for Louisville to even have that capability? Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito doesn’t believe that it is Constitutional. “The city of Chicago,” he wrote in citing McDonald v. Chicago, “opposed the nationwide application of Heller, arguing that law enforcement needs and public attitudes about guns varied from state to state and city to city and that states and cities should have leeway to regulate gun possession as their lawmakers saw fit. The Court, however, disagreed.⁵”

What the Louisville Metro Council wants our state legislature to do on gun control may very well fail to hold up in court. They may not get to set their own rules.

Constitutional Carry Law and Reckless Endangerment

Now, in the past, we supported the passage of the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Constitutional Carry law for people age 21 and up. We saw it as an important step in the right direction for firearms rights. However, it may not have gone far enough. Some people who are under the age of 21 (or even under the age of 18) can handle firearms without any reckless endangerment.

Image in stone of young soldiers, photographed by author, located in Buffalo, New York

Some families who have lived in the Commonwealth have given their own children firearms and have gone on hunting excursions with their family members and have handled it well.

Additionally, back when I was an older elementary school student, I fired a rifle at a gun-range. While that was a controlled environment, it nonetheless demonstrates that it is possible for at least some minors to safely use or handle firearms in some situations.

We don’t have to ignore the issue of public safety. If we look at the practical effects of handing loaded firearms to toddlers, we see cases in which toddlers shot someone or something without knowing what they were doing. For example, that happened in Indiana back in 2009 when a two-year-old accidentally shot and killed herself.⁶ So, lawmakers can make a case that toddlers should not have a right to keep and bear arms.

We can also encourage people to take classes in firearm safety, which could help new gun-owners be more responsible with the firearms that they have purchased.

All in all, when we seek wisdom, we find answers, even in the debates over the 2^nd amendment.

Notes:

1Wolford v. Lopez, page 2 of decision summary syllabus

2Wolford v. Lopez, page 2.

3Wolford v. Lopez, page 3.

4Wolford v. Lopez, page 17.

5Wolford v. Lopez, page 6.

6Myron, Lopez and WHAS. “Toddler Shoots Herself Dead ” Associated Press. 21 Apr. 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Y7WPw2QCU. Accessed 30 Jun. 2026. Web.