Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wolford v. Lopez, a case that could reshape the landscape of lawful carry in America by deciding whether citizens can carry firearms on private property open to the public — places like shopping malls, restaurants, office buildings, and supermarkets.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) is celebrating the decision, calling it a critical step toward ending what Chairman Alan Gottlieb described as “half of a right.”
“The time has come for such questions to be decided,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.
“There are tens of millions of legally-armed private citizens who almost daily find themselves barred from entering business establishments, office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants and even supermarkets, simply because they are exercising their Second Amendment rights,” he added.
A Right “Only on Paper”
He said laws which are deliberately designed to put a stranglehold on the right to bear arms are simply unconscionable, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
“We cannot continue living in an environment where restrictive laws essentially create a situation where we have half of a right,” Gottlieb observed. “The Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, and laws specifically designed to restrict that right amount to an infringement the Court cannot allow to stand. A right which exists only on paper is no right at all.”
Everyday Americans, Everyday Emergencies
“Everyday, somewhere in this country, a private citizen suddenly finds himself or herself in the middle of an emergency,” Gottlieb continued. “In those instances, where their lives or the lives of other persons hang in the balance, their right to self-preservation hinge upon whether they can exercise their right to keep and bear arms. That’s really what this case is all about, and we are eager to see how the high court will decide this thorny issue.”
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court convenes Monday for the start of its 2025–26 session, and Wolford v. Lopez is expected to be one of the term’s most significant Second Amendment cases.
For updates, visit CCRKBA.org.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
What I would like to see is that SCOTUS say it is legal for those of us that have legal carry permits to be able to carry nation wide, in stead of not being able to carry across state lines. In Connecticut (the 3rd smallest state) you have a legal carry permit but it stops at the Mass and Ny & RI boaders. Wouldn’t it be nice if the legal carry permitees could carry nationwide.
If I go to a restaurant and they post one of those stupid little ‘no guns’ signs I have two choices. Either abide by it, which means I’m leaving and going to a restaurant with more broad minded owners, because I’ll be damned if I’ll go back to my car, leave the gun, then patronize some anti-gun/anti-constitution restaurant owner and put my hard earned money in their pocket.
OR — I’ll walk right in, armed, sit down and eat, pay my bill, and leave. They’ll be none the wiser, because they’ll never know I’m armed. I think open carry is foolish and dangerous. You might as well hang a bullseye around your neck. That’s just MY personal opinion. All the open carry “Rambo’s” out there will argue with that. To each is own …
I’ll never allow myself or my family to become another ‘Luby’s Restaurant’ shooting statistic. I carry carefully and in deep concealment. You’ll never know when I’m armed, or what with. Been carrying for 50 years and never felt the need to draw my gun, and I pray I never will. But if I need to, you can bet your ass my last thought won’t be wishing I had my gun on me because it’s back in the glove compartment.
If memory serves me, that is exactly what happened to that young lady who watched her mother get shot and killed because her gun was “in the car” because she abided by that stupid sign on the door. She said she had the perfect chance to end that tragedy, save lives, and take out that SOB if she only had her gun. That sign didn’t stop the murderer, did it? Seems like I also remember her saying it’d be a cold day in hell before she got caught in that situation again.
But it was too late to save her mother. Choose your battles …
Exactly, Unless they have metal detectors and are searching people at the door, I pretend I don’t see those stupid little signs. Better to ask forgiveness later than to be denied permission now, because sure as Hell the criminals and crazies aren’t going to obey the signs. Only sheeple willingly disarm!
Yeap – better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6 – as the old saying goes …
This article doesn’t quite describe the case accurately. It’s not about whether you can carry on private businesses open to the public. Regardless of the ruling, a private business open to public will still have the ability to deny carry on their property.
The case is about whether or not a state law can make non carry the DEFAULT standard in those areas, requiring the business to “opt in” to allow carry. So it flips on its head the way the vast majority of states handle that, where a business has to specifically deny you access, otherwise carry is presumptively legal. This law makes it much easier for those businesses to deny your rights because they would have to be convinced to allow carry, as opposed to being convinced to not allow carry.
The government striped our right to carry many years ago when they required us to get a permit to carry a weapon.
A permit to practice a right, is not a right.
should be a slam dunk if they would abide by the 2A