A new lawsuit filed March 7, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii is the latest — and potentially most powerful — step toward making nationwide concealed carry a reality. Solinsky v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2026) challenges Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-9(a), the state’s residency requirement for concealed-carry permits. The attorneys behind it? Alan Beck and Kevin O’Grady — the same team that just finished arguing Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, before the U.S. Supreme Court on January 20, 2026.
The Core Question: Can Hawaii Lock Out Non-Residents?
Hawaii’s law is blunt: if you don’t live in Hawaii, you cannot obtain a concealed-carry permit, and a permit is the only legal means to carry a firearm for self-defense in the state. Under Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), once the conduct a plaintiff seeks to engage in falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, the burden shifts entirely to the government to demonstrate a longstanding historical tradition of analogous regulation going back to 1791.
That’s where Hawaii is going to have a catastrophic problem.
Beck and O’Grady devoted 35 of their 52-page complaint to historical research demonstrating that, far from restricting non-resident travelers from carrying firearms, American legal tradition has consistently permitted them to do so. We’re talking pre-founding, post-founding, and throughout the 19th century. The government cannot manufacture a historical tradition that never existed, and the tradition that does exist runs squarely against them. That is a devastating combination under the Bruen framework.
An Outlier Law in a Permitless-Carry Nation
Context matters here. We now have 29 states with permitless carry. The vast majority of jurisdictions maintain reciprocity agreements with one another — Utah’s carry license, for instance, is recognized across dozens of states. In this environment, Hawaii’s complete ban on non-resident permits is not just restrictive — it is a screaming outlier.
The Supreme Court has made no secret of the fact that it views outlier laws with deep suspicion. When a regulation is so far outside the mainstream of how Americans actually govern themselves, it is very difficult to argue that it reflects any deep-rooted historical tradition. New York lost its fight against non-resident carry. California lost its fight against non-resident carry. Hawaii is standing in the same corner, holding the same losing hand.
The Perfect Plaintiff — And Why It Matters
I have been hammering this point for years, and Solinsky is a masterclass in getting it right. Lead plaintiff Jonathan Solinsky is a Virginia resident who spent eight years in the U.S. Marine Corps as an infantryman and sniper, including a stint stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii between 2011 and 2016. He is currently employed as a senior shooting instructor under contract with the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service. He has more firearms training than the vast majority of the American population — civilian or military.
Here is the key fact: Hawaii has already conceded that Solinsky qualifies for a carry permit in every respect. Every single box checked. The state’s only objection is the residency requirement.
Compare that to United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, currently pending at the Supreme Court — a case pushed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer involving a defendant who allegedly had ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and was found with cocaine alongside his firearm. Or United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the Biden-era test case involving a man subject to a domestic-violence restraining order who had engaged in multiple shootings in Arlington, Texas. Bad facts make bad law. Good facts make good law. Solinsky is the kind of plaintiff you build precedent with.
Beck and O’Grady also preserved an important secondary argument. Footnote three of the complaint makes clear that the plaintiffs are not conceding the broader proposition that any permit, license, or pre-approval is constitutionally required to exercise Second Amendment rights. That is exactly the right posture — win the battle in front of you without surrendering the larger war.
Island-Hopping Toward Nationwide Carry
The analogy I keep coming back to is World War II. You don’t land on the beach at Normandy and then immediately demand Tokyo’s surrender. You island-hop. You take Guadalcanal, then Tarawa, then Iwo Jima. Each island is a platform for the next assault.
That is exactly how the Second Amendment litigation strategy has to work. The immediate objective in Solinsky v. Lopez is straightforward: every jurisdiction in America must, at a minimum, allow all Americans to apply for concealed-carry permits — regardless of residency. That is a necessary precondition for everything that comes after: true nationwide carry, reciprocity, and ultimately the full vindication of what District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), already told us — that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not just to the residents of whichever state happens to be in a permissive mood.
My prediction is straightforward: Hawaii will lose this case. The historical record they would need to defend their residency ban does not exist. The tradition that does exist points the other direction. They have an extraordinarily sympathetic plaintiff they have already admitted qualifies for everything except the address on his driver’s license. And they are fighting attorneys who just finished arguing in front of the nine Justices on Constitution Avenue.
Alan Beck and Kevin O’Grady are not getting an invitation to the Hawaii Attorney General’s holiday party anytime soon. But Solinsky v. Lopez may well be the next great brick in the wall of American Second Amendment rights — and I, for one, can’t wait to see it placed.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.