After Wolford: Can You Carry Into a Store, Restaurant, or Gas Station?

This article reflects federal and state law as of October 2026. Laws in this area change frequently; verify current law in your state before relying on it. This is general information, not legal advice.

If you hold a carry permit in Hawaii, the answer to "can I walk into the gas station with my handgun?" changed on June 25, 2026. For permit holders everywhere else, the more useful question is what the Supreme Court's reasoning means for the handful of states that wrote similar rules, and what it does not change about signs, property owners, and the long lists of places where carry is still off-limits.

What Wolford v. Lopez decided

In Wolford v. Lopez (No. 24-1046), argued January 20, 2026 and decided June 25, 2026, the Court held 6–3 that "Hawaii's law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner's express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments."

Justice Alito wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Barrett also wrote a concurrence, joined in part by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Justice Kagan dissented, and Justice Jackson dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.

The rule that was struck down

Hawaii's 2023 law (Act 52, now codified as Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.5) flipped the traditional default. Under the common-law rule the Court described, opening a business to the public carries an implied license for people to enter unless the owner gives notice otherwise. Hawaii's law said the opposite for licensed carriers: you could not enter or remain on another person's private property while carrying unless the owner gave express authorization, either through "clear and conspicuous signage" or unambiguous written or verbal permission. Violating it was a misdemeanor.

The practical effect was that a permit holder running errands needed an affirmative "yes" at every store, restaurant, and gas station, and the majority noted that many owners would be reluctant to post a pro-carry sign for fear of alienating customers. The majority concluded that this default had no adequate historical analogue under the test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which our overview of the Second Amendment after Bruen walks through.

The dissents' view

The dissents saw the case differently. Justice Kagan pointed to colonial-era laws that protected landowners against armed trespassers. Justice Jackson characterized Hawaii's rule as a property-law default rather than a gun regulation, and argued the state was entitled to strike that balance. Those views did not carry the day, but they help explain why the Court's holding is drawn narrowly: it addresses the default rule, not a property owner's right to say no.

What Wolford did not change

This is the part that matters most day to day.

Property owners can still prohibit carry

The majority said so plainly: "Owners of establishments that are open to the public can admit or exclude persons who are carrying guns for self-defense under either the common-law rule or Hawaii's law." Wolford moves the starting presumption back to "allowed unless the owner says otherwise." It does not create a right to carry onto someone's property over the owner's objection.

Advocates on both sides agree on this point. Everytown's explainer notes that Hawaii's law still applies to private property that is not open to the public, and that nobody has a right to bring a gun into your home without permission.

Sensitive-places laws are a separate question

Wolford did not rule on "sensitive places" lists, such as schools, government buildings, polling places, hospitals, or parks. Hawaii has its own list of prohibited locations that sits alongside the private-property rule, and the Court treated it separately. The majority opinion quotes the familiar line from District of Columbia v. Heller that nothing in that case should cast doubt on "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

So the patchwork of state sensitive-places laws, and federal rules like 18 U.S.C. § 930 (which bars firearms in most federal facilities, meaning buildings where federal employees regularly work), stays in place unless and until a court rules otherwise. Litigation over those lists continues in several circuits, and in August 2026 the U.S. Department of Justice sued Montgomery County, Maryland, alleging that a county carry ordinance violates the Second Amendment as read in Wolford. That suit is an allegation, not a ruling.

You still need a permit where your state requires one

Wolford concerned licensed carriers. The Court described Hawaii's licensing requirements at length and did not strike them down. If your state requires a permit to carry, or if you are traveling and relying on reciprocity, those rules still apply. Our guide to concealed carry reciprocity covers how permits travel, and open carry vs. concealed carry covers the separate rules for how you carry.

Which other states had similar rules?

The Court noted that after Bruen, several of the states whose licensing laws were singled out in that decision "flipped this default rule." Alongside Hawaii's statute, the opinion cited four others:

• California (Penal Code § 26230(a)(26)): In September 2024 the Ninth Circuit concluded the provision was likely unconstitutional, leaving a preliminary injunction against it in place.
• New York (Penal Law § 265.01-d(1)): The Second Circuit held the provision likely unconstitutional as applied to private property open to the public (Antonyuk litigation).
• Maryland (Crim. Law § 6-411(d)): The Fourth Circuit struck down the default rule in Kipke v. Moore (January 2026), while upholding a number of other location restrictions.
• New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-4.6(a)(24)): A district court's preliminary injunction against the provision as applied to property open to the public was upheld by a Third Circuit panel. The full Third Circuit then granted rehearing en banc of the broader case, which is pending. Challengers argued in a July 2026 brief that Wolford settles the issue.

In other words, the private-property defaults in California, New York, and Maryland were already blocked or struck down by federal appeals courts before Wolford, and New Jersey's was enjoined while the appeal continued. Wolford gives those rulings a clear Supreme Court foundation. But how each state's statute is formally treated now depends on its own litigation and any legislative response, so check current status in your state rather than assuming. Maryland's Attorney General, for example, issued a statement disagreeing with the decision while acknowledging the ruling.

In Hawaii, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision on remand on August 10, 2026, affirming in part the preliminary injunction, including as to the private-property provision.

How "no guns" signs actually work

With the default back to "allowed unless told otherwise," the question becomes: what counts as being told otherwise, and what happens if you ignore it? The answer varies a lot by state.

States where a compliant sign carries criminal force: Texas as the example

Texas is the most frequently cited example because its signs are spelled out by statute. Under Texas Penal Code § 30.06 (concealed carry) and § 30.07 (open carry), a license holder commits an offense by carrying on another's property after receiving notice that it is prohibited. Notice can be oral, a card, or a posted sign. To count, the sign must:

• use the exact statutory wording,
• appear in both English and Spanish,
• use contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch high, and
• be displayed conspicuously and be clearly visible to the public (for § 30.07, at each entrance).

A violation is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $200. It becomes a Class A misdemeanor if the license holder was personally given oral notice and then failed to leave. A generic "no guns" sticker without the statutory text is not § 30.06 or § 30.07 notice, although the owner can still tell you to leave.

States where the sign alone is not a crime: Indiana as an example

Many states have no statute giving posted signs criminal effect for carry. Indiana is an example: as of October 2026, no Indiana statute makes carrying past a "no weapons" sign a crime in itself. What Indiana does have is a general criminal trespass law. Under Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2, knowingly or intentionally refusing to leave someone's property after being asked to leave by the owner or the owner's agent is a Class A misdemeanor. Practically, a sign tells you the owner's wishes, and the legal exposure starts if you're asked to go and don't.

Between those two models sits a wide middle: states that give signs force only if they meet certain size or placement rules, states that make it a minor infraction, and states that treat signs as one form of trespass notice. Because the details vary so much, read your own state's statute (state police or attorney general websites often summarize it) rather than relying on a national chart.

If you're asked to leave

Whatever your state's sign law, the practical rule is the same: if the owner, a manager, or an employee with authority asks you to leave because you're carrying, leave. Arguing the point on the spot rarely helps, and in many states refusing turns a non-issue into a trespass charge. In Texas, staying after oral notice raises the offense from Class C to Class A.

A few habits help:

• Look for signs at the entrance, especially in states where signs have legal effect.
• Know the difference between a business policy and a statute. A store's handbook or a website policy isn't necessarily legal notice, but staff can still ask you to leave.
• Keep the firearm concealed and holstered where your state requires it, and don't remove it to secure it in a parking lot unless you can do so safely and legally.
• Remember that Wolford protects carrying on property open to the public. Private homes, offices closed to the public, and other non-public property were never part of the holding.

The bottom line

Wolford v. Lopez struck down Hawaii's rule that permit holders needed express permission before carrying into private businesses open to the public, and its reasoning undercuts similar rules in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, most of which lower courts had already blocked. It did not take away a property owner's right to exclude armed visitors, did not decide which "sensitive places" a state may protect, and did not change permit requirements. Your day-to-day obligations are still set mostly by your own state's carry, sign, and trespass laws.

Planning your carry setup for everyday errands? Browse our dealer directory to find dealers near you.