Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of gun owners, striking down Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ in Wolford v. Lopez.
- This ruling states that Hawaii cannot automatically prohibit carrying firearms on private property open to the public without explicit permission.
- The decision reinforces Second Amendment rights, rejecting Hawaii’s argument for a regional exception based on local customs.
- The ruling also sets a precedent that may challenge similar carry laws in other states like California and New York.
- While Hawaii’s default rule was struck down, its list of ‘sensitive places’ remains in effect for now.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today handed gun owners a second straight win, striking down Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule” in a 6-to-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez.
I have been waiting on this one. The ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, holds that Hawaii cannot presume carry is forbidden on private property open to the public unless the owner first gives express permission. The Court found that default violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Here is what the law actually did. Most states let you lawfully carry into a business open to the public unless the owner posts a sign saying otherwise. Hawaii flipped that. Under Act 52, a permit holder committed a misdemeanor by carrying into a store, gas station, restaurant, or pharmacy unless the owner had affirmatively said yes, in writing, verbally, or by posted signage. Carrying without that permission carried up to a year behind bars.
The practical effect was a near-total carry ban. One judge below noted the law presumptively barred carry on more than 96 percent of the publicly accessible land in Maui County.
The Court did not buy it. The majority held the rule “hobbles what the Second Amendment protects,” forcing peaceable people to seek permission before walking into the businesses they visit every day.
The Court also shut the door on Hawaii’s regional-exception argument. Justice Alito wrote that the Second Amendment “cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii” any more than it bends to local attitudes anywhere else.
The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief urging exactly this outcome, joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.
More from USA Carry:
“This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut put the principle plainly, arguing the burden belongs “on the proprietor, not the private citizen,” the same way we all live with “no soliciting” signs.
The case was brought by three Maui County residents, led by Jason Wolford, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the California Gun Rights Foundation also backed the challengers, as did the federal government, which filed a brief and shared argument time on their side.
One important point of clarity, since I am already seeing it muddied online. This decision struck Hawaii’s private-property default rule. It did not touch Hawaii’s separate list of “sensitive places” like beaches, bars, parks, and schools, which were not before the Court. Those provisions stand for now, and the fight over them continues elsewhere.
The reach goes well past Hawaii. Four other states, California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, adopted similar default rules after Bruen, and several were already blocked in lower courts. With this precedent in hand, those copycat statutes are squarely in the crosshairs, and I will be tracking the follow-on litigation closely.
Read the full article here
