New Supreme Court Ruling | Gun Owners Don't Need to Beg

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.

The Supreme Court handed down a major Second Amendment ruling today. In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the justices struck down Hawaii's so-called "vampire rule,". The law required licensed concealed carry permit holders to get explicit permission from a property owner before entering any business or establishment open to the public with a firearm.

Under Hawaii's law, every stop in your day from gas stations, to restaurants, to the hardware store required you to seek prior permission just to exercise a right the Constitution already guarantees. The bureaucratic obstacle was designed to make lawful carry practically impossible.

Hawaii's Act 52 made it a misdemeanor for a permit holder to carry a firearm onto private property open to the public unless the property owner or operator gave express authorization. That authorization could be given verbally, in writing, or through clearly visible signage. In other words, the default was "no guns,". Gun owners had to navigate a patchwork of individual business decisions just to legally move through daily life. Three concealed carry permit holders and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition sued Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez in federal court, arguing the law effectively turned much of the public sphere into a gun-free zone. 

The Supreme Court Ruling

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito summed it up well:  

"This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives… We hold that the law is unconstitutional." 

The majority also directly confronted Hawaii's attempt to find historical cover for the law. The state leaned on an 1865 Louisiana statute as evidence of a historical tradition of requiring permission before carrying firearms onto another's property. The Court rejected this attempted framing, because the law was part of the post-Civil War Black Codes. Ironically, its intent was to specifically disarm newly freed Black Americans.  

The ruling also likely invalidates similar laws in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. These states all adopted similar default bans after the Court's 2022 Bruen decision. They were all trying to find a new workaround to restrict carry after their old disarming methods were struck down.

The Dissenters

The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, framed the issue as one of property rights rather than gun rights. Jackson accused the majority of manipulating its 2022 Second Amendment decision into something that "lets the judiciary thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else."

While property rights do matter, the ruling does not strip property owners of anything. Private property owners may still prohibit firearms on their premises. The onus now simply falls on those owners to post signage banning guns. The default should land on the side of freedom above restriction. A business owner who wants to ban firearms on their land still can. 

The Fear-Mongering Ensues

In predictable fashion, Governor Josh Green went on Hawaii News Now  this morning and predicted more gun violence as a result of the ruling, stating it will encourage gun owners to “carry more aggressively". The angle we can likely expect in the next legislative session is the attempt to require liability insurance for gun owners. 

Green’s claims are nothing but fear mongering. Forty-five states already presume it is lawful to carry on private property open to the public unless owners post otherwise.  If the "vampire rule" were a meaningful safeguard against violence, you would expect those 45 states to be swimming in shooting incidents at gas stations and grocery stores. It’s a baseless manufactured narrative that’s been way overplayed.

As Alito put it: 

"The Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States." 

The full Supreme Court ruling is publicly available. The SCOTUSblog case page also has a solid breakdown of the procedural history and all filings in the case.

Join or Donate to LPHI