Latest / Your Leo Nation / Supreme Court Ruling JUST Changed Second Amendment Rights
Transcript
- Mark Garrett: Ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States just handed down one of the most significant Second Amendment decisions since Brune in 2022. And I want to be direct with you right out of the gate. This is not just a legal headline. This ruling has real, practical, immediate implications for law enforcement officers, active and retired. And for every law abiding gun owner in this country. I'm going to break it all down for you today. The case, what the court actually decided, what it means for officers carrying off duty and what's coming next. Because here at Yorle Nation, we believe in the rule of law and understanding it matters. I'm the chief, Mark Garrett. Let's get into it. In the interest of being thorough and fair, something we always try to do here. Let me give you The background. The case is Wolfert vs. Lopez. It came out of Hawaii. And here's what it's about. Hawaii had what I'd call a default prohibition rule. If you were a licensed concealed carry holder, and by the way, getting a license in Hawaii was always an uphill battle. But even if you had one, you could not carry it into a hotel or store unless that business had explicitly and affirmatively posted that firearms were permitted. Think about that for a moment. The default was no carry unless a private business owner gave you permission. The burden was on the gun owner to prove he was allowed to be there, not on the state to prove he wasn't. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a fundamental reversal of how constitutional rights are supposed to work. You don't have to prove you're allowed to speak freely before you walk into a room. You don't have to prove you're allowed to practice your faith. before you enter a building. The Second Amendment, as the Supreme Court has now confirmed, deserves the same level of respect. Now I want to be precise here because the details matter. This ruling builds directly on Brune from 2022. If you remember that case, you'll also remember what Justice Thomas established that any firearm regulation must be rooted in the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. That Is the constitutional test, not policy preferences, not public safety arguments in the abstract, historical tradition. Wolford versus Lopez applied the same test to Hawaii's default prohibition rule. And the court found clearly that you cannot use a private property default framework to functionally nullify the Second Amendment right to carry outside the home. The state cannot outsource a carry ban to private owners and call it something other than what it is. Now, I've heard some people push back already and say, well, shouldn't a business owner be able to set the terms on their own property? And look, I think that is not an unreasonable question. But here's where I come down on it. When a state deliberately designs a default prohibition to effectively end rights for law-abiding citizens, that is a Second Amendment violation dressed in property rights clothing. The majority of the court agreed. The vote wasn't unanimous on this one, but how often is it unanimous? There was a dissent. And I'd encourage you to read the full opinion. I always say that. Read the primary sources. But the majority ruling here is substantial. It is grounded in Brune and it is going to reverberate. Here's why this matters well beyond the state of Hawaii. Ladies and gentlemen, Hawaii was not alone in this framework. New Jersey, Maryland, California, Illinois, these states have similar or analogous carry restrictions that are now in very serious legal jeopardy following this decision. Cases are already working their way through the federal circuits. The Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Has multiple Second Amendment challenges in the pipeline right now. What Wolfert does is give those plaintiffs considerably stronger ground to stand on. And I want to bring up a second ruling from mid-June that I think deserves more attention than it's getting. On June 18th, just before Wolfort, the Supreme Court ruled nine to zero unanimously that the categorical federal ban on firearm ownership for marijuana users does not pass. Constitutional muster under the Brune standard. Now, I want to be very careful and transparent with you. This is not the court saying, go ahead and carry while you're impaired. That's not what this ruling says. What it says is that blanket categorical prohibition on an entire class of people with no individual assessment does not survive the historic traditional analysis that Brune requires. I'll be honest with you. Personally, as somebody who spent thirty years watching what drugs do in communities and on the street, I have complicated feelings about that particular ruling. But the rule of law is the rule of law. Even when I'm not completely comfortable with the result, I respect the process that produced it. And that's something we have always believed in here. Now here's where I want to spend some real time with you. Because this is your Leonation and we owe it. To this community to go beyond the headlines and talk about what this means specifically for the men and women in law enforcement. First, off duty carry. We have LEOSA, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. That statute gives qualified active and retired law enforcement officers the right to carry concealed anywhere in the country, regardless of state or local law. In theory, that should have protected officers in Hawaii already. But in practice, Hawaii's default prohibition created a gray area. If you're an off-duty detective visiting from the mainland, are you technically in violation of state law by walking into that hotel even with Leosa protection? That ambiguity was real. Wolford versus Lopez clears it. It removes that patchwork of uncertainty that puts officers in a legal gray zone simply for carrying as they are trained, authorized, and sometimes legally obligated to do. When your officers carry off duty and something happens, your department's legal exposure is tied directly to whether that officer was acting within the law. Murky state carry frameworks have created genuine liability concerns for departments in restrictive states. This ruling helps clarify that environment for departments, for union attorneys, and for the officers themselves. And the third thing I want to say, and I'll say this as directly as I know how, this ruling is a reminder of why elections matter, why judicial appointments matter, and why the organizations and groups that have been fighting these battles in courts for years deserve your support. Because between Brune, Rahimi, and now Walfert versus Lopez, The Supreme Court has built a consistent, coherent body of Second Amendment law. That didn't happen by accident. That happened because people fought for it. In the near term, expect immediate legal challenges in New Jersey and California. The attorneys and advocacy groups who litigated Wolford are not rusting. The next cases are ready. I believe that within the next twelve to eighteen months. We are going to see more states forced, not willingly, but forced to revise their carry frameworks because they are going to lose in court if they don't. I also want to say something to those of you who are in restrictive states and have been fighting these battles at the local level through your county sheriffs, through your state legislature, through local advocacy groups. Keep fighting these Supreme Court rulings, give your attorneys. And other groups, the legal ammunition they need to push back. The constitutional framework is on your side right now. And I'll add one more thing that I think is critically important to watch. There are currently active challenges to assault weapons bans in Virginia and New Jersey. There are challenges to magazine capacity limits in California. All of these cases are going to be evaluated by district court and circuit courts. Through the lens of the Brune standard that Wolford just reinforced. This is a moment with real momentum. And I want this community to be aware of it. Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you the Second Amendment is fully secure. It's not. The fight is ongoing. It always has been, but right now, in the summer of 2026, the court is on the right side of the This and it matters. Ladies and gentlemen, let me leave you with three clear takeaways. Number one, Wolfort versus Lopez is a major win, but it's one battle in a long war. Don't celebrate and go back to sleep. Stay engaged, stay informed. Number two, this ruling has direct practical implications for law enforcement. Off-duty carry ambiguity in restrictive states has just gotten significantly clearer. If you're a retired LEO, if you are carrying under Leosa, if you're advising officers on carry policies, this ruling matters to you professionally and personally. Number three, the Supreme Court has now built a consistent body of Second Amendment law rooted in the Brune standard. Between this case, Brune, Rahimi, and the marijuana ruling, there is a framework here. And while it will continue to be challenged, it is strong. I want to hear from you. What state are you in? Are you a retired officer who has been dealing with carry restrictions on the road? Have you had a run-in with these laws? Are you an attorney following these circuit cases? Drop it in the comments. I read them. I mean that. If this was valuable to you, please share it. Share it with your fellow officers, share it with your families, share it with anyone who cares about. these rights and of course about the rule of law. We are your Leonation and we believe in the rule of law. I'm the Chief Mark Garrett. God bless you. Stay safe and we'll see you next time.