Supreme Court issued 6-3 opinion in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down Hawaii's law which creates presumption that a person may not carry a firearm onto another person's private property held open to the public w/o express permission from private property owner. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
supremecourt.gov
![Section 922(g)(9) prohibited Jackson from possessing a firearm unless and
until one of the conditions identified in § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) was satisfied. Given the
various ways by which his Second Amendment right may be restored, Jackson’s
penalty was conditional, and not necessarily permanent. See United States v. Gailes,
118 F.4th 822, 829 (6th Cir. 2024) (explaining, for the same reason, the “purported
permanent ban in § 922(g)(9) may not always be so”). His conditional disarmament is
clearly a “lesser restriction” than a permanent ban, the constitutionality of which was
Appellate Case: 23-6047 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2025 Page: 13
14
upheld by this court post-Rahimi. See Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1266 (10th
Cir. 2025). The burden imposed by § 922(g)(9) is consistent with the nation’s
tradition of firearm regulation. In sum, § 922(g)(9), as applied to Jackson, is
“relevantly similar to [the] founding era regimes in both why and how it burdens
[his] Second Amendment right.” Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 698. Section 922(g)(9) therefore
survives Jackson’s constitutional challenge.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreidmik3il63jplb3yumjm7exxhktacv24hcee3zpzzckjtjudvv7ia)
