The United States Supreme Court has ruled that state laws requiring concealed-carry permit holders to obtain explicit permission before entering private businesses are unconstitutional.

美國最高法院裁定，州法律要求隱蔽攜帶許可持有者在進入私人企業前必須獲得明確許可，此舉屬違憲。

In the case of Wolford v. Lopez, the Court issued a 6-3 decision striking down a Hawaii statute that prohibited the carry of firearms on private property open to the public, such as retail stores and restaurants, absent the owner's express consent. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that such regulations impose an undue burden on the Second Amendment right to self-defense during daily activities. This ruling effectively invalidates similar 'default-ban' frameworks in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, whereas the remaining 45 states generally permit carry on such properties unless otherwise specified by the owner.

在 Wolford v. Lopez 案中，法院以 6 比 3 的投票結果，推翻了夏威夷州的一項法令。該法令規定，在缺乏業主明確同意的情況下，禁止在對公眾開放的私人財產（如零售店和餐廳）攜帶槍械。由大法官 Samuel Alito 撰寫的多數意見指出，此類監管對日常活動中根據第二修正案所享有的自衛權造成了不當負擔。此裁決有效地使加州、紐約州、紐澤西州和馬里蘭州類似的「預設禁止」框架失效，而其餘 45 個州通常允許在該類財產攜帶槍械，除非業主另有規定。

The judicial reasoning relied upon the precedent established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which mandates that firearm regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition. While the state of Hawaii identified colonial-era laws as analogues, the majority dismissed these as pertaining to hunting rather than modern public carry. Conversely, the dissenting justices, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, contended that the majority distorted the historical test to prioritize firearm access over established property rights and state regulatory authority.

司法推論依據 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 建立的先例，該先例要求槍械監管必須與國家的歷史傳統一致。雖然夏威夷州將殖民時代的法律視為類比，但多數派認為這些法律屬於狩獵範疇，而非現代的公開攜帶。相反，包括大法官 Ketanji Brown Jackson 和 Elena Kagan 在內的少數派大法官則主張，多數派扭曲了歷史測試，優先考慮槍械獲取權而忽略了既有的財產權和州監管權。

Parallel to this development, the Court unanimously ruled in the Hemani case that federal law cannot be used to disarm individuals based solely on the use of marijuana if they are not actively impaired. Furthermore, institutional tensions persist as several states, including Maryland, Connecticut, and New York, have recently enacted prohibitions on 'machinegun-convertible' pistols, such as certain Glock models. The Department of Justice has signaled potential litigation against California regarding these bans, arguing that the reclassification of semi-automatic firearms as convertible pistols violates constitutional protections.

與此發展平行，法院在 Hemani 案中一致裁定，若個人並非處於受影響狀態，聯邦法律不能僅因其使用大麻而解除其武裝。此外，體制性緊張局勢依然存在，因為包括馬里蘭州、康乃狄克州和紐約州在內的數個州，近期頒布了禁止「可轉化為機槍」手槍（例如某些 Glock 型號）的禁令。司法部已暗示可能會針對加州的這些禁令提起訴訟，認為將半自動槍械重新分類為可轉化手槍違反了憲法保護。

The judiciary has expanded the scope of the Second Amendment to include publicly accessible private spaces while simultaneously limiting the federal government's ability to disarm drug users.

司法部門擴大了第二修正案的適用範圍，將對公眾開放的私人空間納入其中，同時限制了聯邦政府解除毒品使用者武裝的能力。