The Supreme Court dealt a new blow to state efforts to tighten gun control by declaring unconstitutional a Hawaii law that prevented the carrying of firearms on private property open to the public without the express consent of the owner.

In a split 6-3 decision, the high court's conservative majority found that the legislation violated the protections of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

The ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, represents a victory for gun rights groups and will have repercussions beyond Hawaii, as states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland maintain similar rules that could face new legal challenges.

Hawaiian law established that those who had a concealed carry permit could only enter businesses, restaurants and other private establishments open to the public armed if the owner expressly authorized entry with weapons.

Most believe the law imposed an undue burden

In the majority opinion, Alito held that the rule significantly restricted the daily exercise of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

The magistrate argued that, although owners retain the power to prohibit the entry of armed people into their establishments, it is up to each owner to establish that restriction voluntarily and not to the State to impose a general prohibition.

Likewise, he rejected that Hawaii could justify the law through historical references to regulations on private property or 18th century rules related to hunting, considering that these antecedents are not related to the modern right to bear arms for personal defense.

The majority also dismissed old 1865 Louisiana legislation cited by the state, saying it was part of the so-called "Black Codes" used after the Civil War to restrict the rights of newly freed African Americans.

Liberal judges defend the rights of property owners

The three liberal members of the Court voted against the ruling. In the lead dissenting opinion, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson held that the case should not be analyzed as a Second Amendment conflict, but rather as a property rights issue.

In his opinion, no citizen has a constitutional right to enter private property armed without the authorization of its owner, so the law simply defined the way in which that consent should be expressed.

Jackson also asserted that Hawaii's legislation was consistent with several historic regulations requiring authorization for armed access to private lands, and criticized the majority for again expanding the scope of the Second Amendment.

For her part, Judge Amy Coney Barrett presented a concurring opinion in which she explained that, although owners fully retain the right to prohibit weapons in their establishments, when it is the State that establishes general rules on the carrying of weapons, the Second Amendment does come into play.

The decision represents the latest judicial victory for gun rights advocates and strengthens the doctrine established by the Supreme Court in recent years, limiting the ability of states to impose new restrictions on the legal carrying of firearms in public spaces and private establishments open to the public.