NodeBB

FPC Challenges Hawaii's 'Vampire Rule' at Supreme Court This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Gun laws change frequently—always consult current statutes and qualified legal counsel. Why it matters: The Firearms Policy Coalition just filed a Supreme Court brief that could save your carry rights from getting steamrolled by the same court that covers Idaho. Hawaii's got this backwards rule where every business is automatically gun-free unless they post signs saying you can carry—and the Ninth Circuit said that's just fine. Here's the kicker—that same Ninth Circuit covers Idaho too. So when they rubber-stamp Hawaii's nonsense, it creates precedent that could bite us later. The 'Vampire Rule' Explained The legal reality: Hawaii flipped the script on carry rights in Wolford v. Lopez. Instead of assuming you can carry in public-facing businesses (the normal deal), their law assumes every private business open to the public bans guns unless the owner explicitly posts permission. It's called the "vampire rule" because you need an invitation to enter. Except vampires are fictional and this stupidity is real. Between the lines: This isn't some old tradition—it's a 2020 academic pipe dream designed to gut public carry. The Ninth Circuit bought it anyway, relying heavily on 1865 Louisiana "Black Codes" that were specifically written to disarm freed slaves. Yeah, you read that right. They're using racist laws to justify modern gun control. Why Idaho Gun Owners Should Care What this means for you: Even though Idaho's laws are solid, federal court precedents shape future fights. The Ninth Circuit just gave anti-gun states a playbook for flipping carry presumptions upside down. FPC President Brandon Combs nailed it: "Authoritarian states want to resist the Constitution and the Supreme Court so badly that they are using racist statutes from some of the darkest chapters of American history to justify their immoral laws today." The big picture: After Bruen in 2022, gun laws have to match historical tradition from the Founding era. But courts are playing games with which history counts—some are cherry-picking from any era that supports gun control, including explicitly racist laws. FPC argues the Ninth Circuit weighted 1865 laws equally with 1791 precedents, which violates Supreme Court guidance. They also dispute Hawaii's reliance on colonial anti-poaching laws, pointing out those targeted trespassers hunting deer on estates, not citizens carrying for protection. The Broader Fight By the numbers: FPC has successfully challenged similar "vampire rule" variations in: California Maryland New Jersey New York What's next: The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case. Given ongoing circuit splits over carry rights and the Court's recent Second Amendment focus, Wolford v. Lopez looks likely for full review. FPC notes that what they call the "Axis of Authoritarianism"—California, New York, and New Jersey—are actively trying to circumvent Bruen by selectively citing post-Founding historical precedents instead of constitutional traditions from 1791. The bottom line: This case could finally clarify which historical sources courts must consider when evaluating gun laws. That benefits gun owners throughout the Ninth Circuit's territory—including Idaho. The question of "which history applies" has monumental importance for Second Amendment rights nationwide. If courts can cherry-pick from any era of American history to justify gun control, constitutional rights become dangerously malleable. Because apparently, even zombie movies have better rules about what stays dead than some legal precedents do. Read the original article in The Handbook | By Steve Duskett Join the Discussion If the Supreme Court rules against Hawaii's "vampire rule," how do you think it could actually change what carry laws look like here in Idaho compared to other states?

FPC Challenges Hawaii's 'Vampire Rule' at Supreme Court This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Gun laws change frequently—always consult current statutes and qualified legal counsel. Why it matters: The Firearms Policy Coalition just filed a Supreme Court brief that could save your carry rights from getting steamrolled by the same court that covers Idaho. Hawaii's got this backwards rule where every business is automatically gun-free unless they post signs saying you can carry—and the Ninth Circuit said that's just fine. Here's the kicker—that same Ninth Circuit covers Idaho too. So when they rubber-stamp Hawaii's nonsense, it creates precedent that could bite us later. The 'Vampire Rule' Explained The legal reality: Hawaii flipped the script on carry rights in Wolford v. Lopez. Instead of assuming you can carry in public-facing businesses (the normal deal), their law assumes every private business open to the public bans guns unless the owner explicitly posts permission. It's called the "vampire rule" because you need an invitation to enter. Except vampires are fictional and this stupidity is real. Between the lines: This isn't some old tradition—it's a 2020 academic pipe dream designed to gut public carry. The Ninth Circuit bought it anyway, relying heavily on 1865 Louisiana "Black Codes" that were specifically written to disarm freed slaves. Yeah, you read that right. They're using racist laws to justify modern gun control. Why Idaho Gun Owners Should Care What this means for you: Even though Idaho's laws are solid, federal court precedents shape future fights. The Ninth Circuit just gave anti-gun states a playbook for flipping carry presumptions upside down. FPC President Brandon Combs nailed it: "Authoritarian states want to resist the Constitution and the Supreme Court so badly that they are using racist statutes from some of the darkest chapters of American history to justify their immoral laws today." The big picture: After Bruen in 2022, gun laws have to match historical tradition from the Founding era. But courts are playing games with which history counts—some are cherry-picking from any era that supports gun control, including explicitly racist laws. FPC argues the Ninth Circuit weighted 1865 laws equally with 1791 precedents, which violates Supreme Court guidance. They also dispute Hawaii's reliance on colonial anti-poaching laws, pointing out those targeted trespassers hunting deer on estates, not citizens carrying for protection. The Broader Fight By the numbers: FPC has successfully challenged similar "vampire rule" variations in: California Maryland New Jersey New York What's next: The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case. Given ongoing circuit splits over carry rights and the Court's recent Second Amendment focus, Wolford v. Lopez looks likely for full review. FPC notes that what they call the "Axis of Authoritarianism"—California, New York, and New Jersey—are actively trying to circumvent Bruen by selectively citing post-Founding historical precedents instead of constitutional traditions from 1791. The bottom line: This case could finally clarify which historical sources courts must consider when evaluating gun laws. That benefits gun owners throughout the Ninth Circuit's territory—including Idaho. The question of "which history applies" has monumental importance for Second Amendment rights nationwide. If courts can cherry-pick from any era of American history to justify gun control, constitutional rights become dangerously malleable. Because apparently, even zombie movies have better rules about what stays dead than some legal precedents do. Read the original article in The Handbook | By BGC Staff Join the Discussion If this case goes FPC's way and changes how courts evaluate gun laws, do you think it'll actually move the needle on carry rights here in Idaho, or is there still going to be a bunch of legal back-and-forth before we see real changes?