The United States Supreme Court handed a significant victory to gun rights advocates on Thursday, striking down a Hawaii law that effectively banned carrying firearms in most public-facing businesses. The 6–3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez marks the second consecutive week that the high court has ruled in favor of firearm owners on key constitutional challenges.
At the center of the case was a state statute nicknamed the “Vampire Rule” by gun rights organizations. The law made it a criminal offense for licensed concealed-carry permit holders to enter any private property open to the public—such as grocery stores, restaurants, and gas stations—unless the property owner explicitly posted a sign allowing firearms or gave unambiguous verbal or written consent.
This policy inverted the traditional common-law rule, which assumes the public has an implied license to enter commercial spaces unless a proprietor affirmatively posts a notice to exclude them.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with several other gun rights groups, had filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn the law, arguing that flipping the default rule created a de facto public carry ban.
“Our stance is that one of the most fundamental underlying principles of the Second Amendment is the right to carry in public for self-defense,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “If a business does not want you to carry a firearm on the premises, the burden should be on the proprietor, not the private citizen, which would be in line with the ‘no soliciting’ or ‘no shoes, no shirt, no service’ signs we’re all familiar with. Today the Supreme Court told Hawaii that such transparent attempts at banning constitutionally protected conduct will not be tolerated.”
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The majority found that Hawaii’s law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by severely hindering law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to self-defense during their daily routines. The court also rejected Hawaii’s historical justifications, ruling that colonial-era anti-poaching laws and a discriminatory 1865 Louisiana Black Code did not serve as legitimate historical precedents for the modern commercial restriction.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Barrett emphasized that state property regulations must still respect individual constitutional rights, noting that when a state enacts a law regulating arms-bearing conduct, it triggers federal constitutional scrutiny.
The ruling was met with sharp dissents from the court’s three liberal justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the case was fundamentally an issue of state property law rather than gun rights, stating that there is no constitutional right to enter private land without permission. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented, writing that she would uphold the law because it aligned with the historical principle of regulating the potential dangers of firearms on another person’s property.
The legal challenge received broad backing from across the gun rights movement. SAF was joined in its amicus brief filing by several prominent organizations, including:
- The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
- The Connecticut Citizens Defense League
- The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus
Advocates say the high court’s ruling sets a powerful precedent that will impact similar “default-ban” laws currently enacted in states like California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey.
“The Supreme Court rightfully overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Wolford and now the Second Amendment rights of Hawaii’s residents are one step closer to being fully restored,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens, and we’re grateful the Supreme Court saw through the ruse. With this precedent-setting ruling in hand, other states that have similar laws in place should be on notice – SAF is coming after you and will not hesitate to challenge the continued disenfranchisement of our members and the public.”
The Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further legal proceedings consistent with the ruling.
READ: Just Across The Line: Supreme Court Rules Immigrants In Mexico Haven’t Legally ‘Arrived’ In The U.S.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
