SCOTUS has agreed to hear two brand-new 2A cases. Here is why Bay State gun owners should care.

The Two Grants

1) Wolford v. Lopez (Hawaii “private property consent” & sensitive-places)

The Court agreed on Oct. 3, 2025 to review Hawaii’s draconian law that flips the default on carry: licensed citizens can’t carry on private property open to the public (stores, restaurants, malls, etc.) unless the owner gives express permission. In no big surprise, the Ninth Circuit upheld that provision; SCOTUS took the issue. This grows squarely out of Bruen’s history-and-tradition test and goes to the heart of how far states can stretch “sensitive places” to nullify public carry.

The implications of such a patently unconstitutional law are staggering. It effectively bans the carrying of firearms outside the home. Massachusetts saw legislation just last year that included such a provision.

2) Hemani / §922(g)(3) (the “unlawful drug user” ban)

Additionally, just yesterday the Court granted review in a Fifth Circuit case striking down the federal “unlawful user of a controlled substance” prohibition, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3)—a law DOJ has leaned on (think: marijuana users). The question: Is a broad, status-based ban on users—not just people actively intoxicated while armed—consistent with historical tradition?

---

What These Cases Could Mean for Massachusetts

Massachusetts just overhauled its gun code in mid-2024 with a sweeping package that expanded the so called “sensitive”-place rules and tightened administration. While the Commonwealth didn’t copy Hawai‘i’s “no carry unless the owner says yes” rule, it did add layers and locations where carry is restricted, and it still leans heavily on licensing gatekeeping. The outcomes in Wolford and Hemani could punch through several of those pressure points.

A. Reining in “Sensitive Places” Creep

• If SCOTUS strikes Hawai‘i’s default-no-carry rule as incompatible with history, that will determine how broadly states can designate ordinary, everyday places off-limits. Expect litigants here to leverage Wolford to challenge Massachusetts’ post-2024 sensitive-place expansions wherever they look more like general public-carry suppression than true, historically grounded exceptions.
• Why it matters for MA: Unlike Hawai‘i, Massachusetts does not require affirmative permission to carry on private property open to the public—but it does maintain an expanded roster of restricted areas. A ruling consistent with the 2nd Amendment in Wolford would give Bay State plaintiffs a stronger hand to pare back overbroad zones that functionally re-impose “may-carry” through geography. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which SCOTUS will not strike down this horrendous law.

B. Clarifying Private-Property Defaults

• A ruling that the default can’t be “no carry” on open-to-the-public private property would set a national baseline: property owners may opt out (signage, notice, trespass law), but states can’t flip the presumption to forbid carry by licensed citizens.
• In MA: Current practice relies on ordinary trespass principles (owners can forbid entry or give notice). That aligns more closely with a pro-2A default. A Wolford win would likely shore up that arrangement and make it harder, at a minimum, for the predictable future Beacon Hill proposals to copy Hawaii’s inversion.

C. The Drug-User Ban and Massachusetts Licensing

• If SCOTUS curtails §922(g)(3): Expect ripple effects for Massachusetts licensing where “controlled substances” and “unsuitability”-procedures have been frequently used to deny or suspend indefinitely LTCs. With recreational marijuana legal in MA but illegal federally, a decision narrowing or striking (g)(3) would blunt attempts to treat past or admitted marijuana (and possibly certain other substances) use—without contemporaneous impairment or danger—as a per se disqualifier. That dovetails with Bruen’s focus on dangerousness and historical analogues, not broad status bans.
• Practical upshot: Fewer lifetime or open-ended disabilities based on status (e.g., “regular user”) and a shift toward conduct-based restrictions (e.g., armed while intoxicated, or demonstrably dangerous behavior). That logic can also bleed into challenges against other status-heavy “unsuitability” determinations embedded in Bay State licensing.

---

Strategic Implications for Pro-2A Litigation in MA

1. Target overbroad zones first. Map the 2024 statute’s sensitive-place provisions against Wolford’s historical guidance. Prioritize venues that look like generalized public-carry bans under another name (large swaths of parks, beaches, transit, or commercial districts without tight historical analogues).
2. Leverage property-rights symmetry. A strong Wolford ruling harmonizes gun rights with property rights: owners may exclude, but the state can’t impose a blanket presumption against carry on open businesses. That framing very arguably plays well with Massachusetts courts that take property doctrines seriously.
3. Reframe “user” cases as “dangerousness” cases. If Hemani pares back §922(g)(3), push Massachusetts police chiefs away from categorical “user” labels and toward specific proof of dangerous conduct or contemporaneous impairment.
4. Clean conflicts with federal law. A narrowed (or nullified) (g)(3) reduces friction for otherwise law-abiding MA marijuana users seeking or keeping LTCs.

---

If both decisions break toward liberty, Massachusetts’ 2024 so called “reforms” will face immediate pressure: sensitive-place expansions become litigation targets, and status-based licensing denials grow far harder to defend under Bruen’s history-and-tradition test.

That’s a real, near-term upside for Bay State gun owners and a path to restore meaningful public carry consistent with the Second Amendment.