Supreme Court Takes Up Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” on Gun Possession
The state law bars gun permit holders from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission.
By Jonathan Turley
Just in time for Halloween, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to rule on Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule” on gun possession in Wolford v. Lopez. The state law bars gun permit holders from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. So, like vampires, gun owners must be invited in with their weapons.
Wolford is one of the cases viewed as Bruen 2.0, expanding on the foundation laid by the Supreme Court. After New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, states like New York sought to use language from the opinion to create de facto bans in certain areas. After Bruen was handed down, recognizing that some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Gov. Kathy Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places.
.
At the time, the Court stressed that few locations historically met such a definition:
“Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. … We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were ‘sensitive places’ where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.”
However, gun control states piled on with long lists of “sensitive places” to constructively create a broad ban. In Hawaii, the legislature listed 15 categories of property. It also imposed a different “default rule” that said that permit holders are barred unless a property owner expressly allows them, either verbally or in writing, to enter with a weapon.
A federal court in Honolulu issued a preliminary injunction in August 2023, blocking portions of the law. When the state appealed, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the injunctions as to bars and restaurants serving alcohol as well as beaches, parks and adjacent parking areas. The panel also upheld the default rule.
That stands in contradiction of the Second Circuit’s opinion in Antonyuk v. James (2024), striking down New York’s ban on firearm possession by a permitee onto private property open to the public unless the owner or lessee expressly consents to bring the firearm onto the property.
The individual plaintiffs — Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford and Atom Kasprzycki allege that they were able to carry handguns at beaches, parks, restaurants serving alcohol and other private properties open to the public before Hawaii’s law took effect.
The plaintiffs challenge the historical foundations for the Hawaii law, cited by the Ninth Circuit: an 1865 Louisiana statute and a 1771 New Jersey statute. The New Jersey law is challenged as applying to private property that is not open to the public.
One issue presented to the Court would have focused on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of certain historical sources. The plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court was referencing, first and foremost, sources from the founding period while the state and the Ninth Circuit relied on laws from the Reconstruction period.
The Supreme Court notably did not accept that question for review. Instead, the sole question granted review was:
“Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?”
Lower courts have repeatedly rejected these “vampire laws,” but the case will now allow the Court to clarify what it means by a “sensitive place” where Second Amendment rights can be abridged.
With the briefing to be completed in mid-November, oral arguments may not be held until early 2026, with a possible opinion in June or July of that year.
*********
(TLB) published this article from Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for this perspective
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Header featured image (edited) credit: Org. post content.
Emphasis added by (TLB)
••••
••••
Stay Tuned…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply