Advocates and experts urge SCOTUS to adopt uniform gun laws across the country

Just the News ^ | January 21, 2026 | Andrew Rice and Emily Rodriguez

[Twotone]

Advocates and legal experts urged the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt uniform gun laws across the country after justices heard arguments in a case on whether to uphold Hawaii's gun control law.

Wolford v. Lopez challenges a Hawaii law that prevents concealed carry permit holders from going to gas stations, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, beaches and public parks without written or verbal consent from the property owner.

During the arguments on Tuesday, several gun rights advocates came out to the steps of the Supreme Court to express support for Second Amendment protections.

“Private property owners certainly have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property, but it is gross overreach for the government to decide that for them,” said Katie Novotny, a demonstrator outside the court.

An argument analysts were particularly watching was in drawing a distinction between free speech rights and gun rights on private property open to the public. Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said without the state law store owners could still place signs restricting guns in their businesses.

“What's not permissible is the state forcing you to put up the sign the other way and having the default be that no one may carry even with a valid permit on that private property,” Severino said.

---

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; scotus

[fredhead]

There IS a uniform gun law - “The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.”

[Opinionated Blowhard]

The Supreme Court should not be in the business of creating uniform laws. It should enforce the Constitution and strike down gun laws that violate the Second Amendment. But beyond that, each state needs to make its own laws.

[The Louiswu]

Advocates and experts urge SCOTUS to adopt uniform gun laws across the country

---

Tell me you don't understand how our government works without actually saying it.

[ClearCase_guy]

An argument analysts were particularly watching was in drawing a distinction between free speech rights and gun rights on private property open to the public.

The First Amednment says "Congress shall make no law". I understand that this has been broadened and that Speech is supposed to be pretty widely unrestricted by any level of government. Just about everybody seems to agree to this sweeping freedom for speech.

The Second Amendment says the right "shall not be infringed". By anybody. The courts. The legislature. Private business. Nobody can infringe. And yet we have a million gun control laws in this country and everybody feels they can get in on the act. Infringing seems fine.

At a minimum, the Supreme Court needs to see the 2nd in the same way they see the 1st.

[Bonemaker]

There should be ZERO gun laws and those who try and and pas5 them JAILED.

[TheDon]

Agreed. The premise is not lost on other posters as well I see.

“Advocates and experts urge Congress to adopt uniform gun laws across the country”

Would be better.

[Carry_Okie]

There IS a uniform gun law - “The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.”

The 2A is the only affirmative requirement in the BOR, but it requires the government to assure that the militia is "well regulated"; i.e., combat ready. That falls upon the President as CIC. We were to be a nation of "Minute Men." That might seem the Founders' intent was to override private property rights in that respect, but I doubt it.

[Ex-Con777]

Plus 1

EC

[Bshaw]

“There IS a uniform gun law - “The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.”

Seems simple and straightforward to me.

[drypowder]

No state law should supersede, circumvent or ignore the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution. As the Constitution states, (paraphrasing) any law enacted that is contrary to the Constitution is null and void and unenforceable.

[Georgia Girl 2]

There shouldn’t be any gun laws.

[gunnut]

There needs to be a way for people to recover significantly from the states and possible state officials if a law is struck down. As it is, it is a game of whack a mile where they put in a new law and then it has to be challenged. In some case courts dismiss cases if there has not been an actual arrest so you have to risk incarceration and loss of rights as well as spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight laws that will eventually be struck down. The states have “unlimited” resources and sovereign and legislative immunity.

In the old days, tar and feather stopped some of these laws.

[DesertRhino]

“ “Private property owners certainly have the right to prohibit firearms on their I strongly disagree with that. If it’s a private residence, or your property, sure. You set the rules for what happens there. But if you’re a business, open to the public, I don’t think you have any right to do that. they would never tolerate a restaurant or store that had a policy on the door that said no homosexuals, no blacks, no moslems, no Jews. If you’re open to the public as a business, I don’t think you have any right to prohibit concealed carry.. it places an unbelievable burden on people as they go through their day, and it denies them their civil rights. Second amendment rights always seem to get second class, citizen, rights. All the other rides are respected, same with the second amendment should apply.

[DesertRhino]

That’s just a supporting phrase, something that was in their mind. And explanation. But the opera phrase is the right to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed. That’s the only part that matters.

[DownInFlames]

We do, it’s call the 2nd amendment?

[JZelle]

SCOTUS refused to hear challenge to MD law requiring 4 hour class before purchase of handgun.

[Carry_Okie]

That’s just a supporting phrase, something that was in their mind.

Nonsense. Madison was effectively citing the Swiss system, with which he was quite familiar:

Madison, James Jr.; The Federalist, No. 46, New York Packet. 1788. " . . . the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. . . . a militia amounting to near half a million citizens [~1/5 of the free population] with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Madison, James Jr.; Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 29: "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Halbrook, Stephen P.; The Swiss Confederation In the Eyes of America’s Founders

To compile these ideas, I wrote this.