Wolford and Hemani: Supreme Court Decisions in Second Amendment Cases Expected Soon

AmmoLand ^ | June 10, 2026 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Two Second Amendment cases have been heard by the Supreme Court this term. The Supreme Court’s opinions in those two cases are expected to be announced before the end of June 2026.

The two cases are the Wolford case, out of Hawaii in the Ninth Circuit, and the Hemani case out of Texas in the Fifth Circuit.

Wolford is essentially a question of whether a state can define “sensitive” locations so broadly as to prevent people from being armed in most public places.  Specifically, Wolford asks whether Hawaii has the authority to require property owners to actively choose to allow private carry on their property, or whether the State will ban private carry on their property.

The Hemani case is a fairly straightforward question: Can the government strip people of their Second Amendment rights if they are users of a substance (marijuana) which the government has deemed to be illegal, even if they are not carrying arms while impaired?

Both cases have the potential to further clarify the standard set in the Bruen decision for how courts are to decide Second Amendment issues. The Bruen decision was straightforward. If the case involved an infringement of Second Amendment rights, as provided by the text of the Second Amendment, the burden of showing that such limitations were necessary was on the government. The government had to show that there was a longstanding tradition of such limitations dating back to the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

If the government could show a longstanding tradition, then it was shown that such a limitation was considered understood as part of the right to keep and bear arms at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

[marktwain]

Both Wolford and the Rahimi decisions will be published before the end of June. Controversial decisions are usually announced at the end of the term. Restoration of Second Amendment rights is controversial as we fight to keep a constitutional Republic.

[Red Badger]

What part of ‘infringe’ do they not understand?...............

[MortMan]

They understand “infringed”. Their having a problem with “not”.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

” such limitations were necessary ... longstanding tradition “

A difference only a lefty lawyer would love.

[Big Red Badger]

The Pistol Brace is Still in Muddy Waters.
The way I see it is
‘If They Want You They’ll Get You’
Matt Hoover of CRS on YouTube is a prime example.

[dljordan]

“What part of ‘infringe’ do they not understand?”

They don’t care.

[DCBryan1]

All I want to see is "18 USC 922 (o) is hereby repealed"......

as well as chapter 4 of GCA68

[DownInFlames]

Exactly!

[Clutch Martin]

I never understood the pistol brace argument. Why wouldn’t you want to have a more accurate pistol? Wouldn’t that be safer?

[Big Red Badger]

The deal is If you can Shoulder the brace as I understand it and the Barrel is under
16 inches in length,that makes it a Short barrel Rifle needing a Tax Stamp. ATF released a Statment that seemed wishy-Washey to me.
.
Homey don’t play That.