Supreme Court Signals Hawaii's 'Vampire Rule' Will Fall

Why it matters: Hawaii's bizarre "vampire rule" that bans you from carrying on any private property without written permission is about to get constitutional fangs driven through its heart—and that means similar nonsense laws nationwide are in trouble too.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Wolford v. Lopez, and based on how the justices grilled Hawaii's lawyers, this law is headed straight for the constitutional graveyard.

The legal reality: Hawaii prohibits carrying firearms on private property without explicit written consent from the property owner—even on property open to the public like shopping centers or restaurants. Gun rights folks dubbed it the "vampire rule" since, like vampires in old movies, you can't enter without an invitation.

The case tests how courts should apply the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which says gun laws need historical precedent from the founding era to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Hawaii's Weak Historical Defense

Hawaii's attorneys showed up with what they thought was colonial-era ammunition:

• 1771 New Jersey law: Barred guns on "any Lands not his own" without written permission
• 1763 New York statute: Similar rule for "inclosed Land"
• Reconstruction-era Louisiana: Prohibited carrying on plantations without owner consent

Between the lines: These historical examples have more holes than a target after a bad day at the range. Plaintiffs' attorney Alan Beck pointed out the fatal flaws—those old laws typically covered private property not open to the public, and at least one included self-defense exceptions. Big difference from Hawaii's blanket ban.

Justices Weren't Buying It

All six conservative justices looked skeptical during arguments. Chief Justice Roberts made the obvious comparison to First Amendment protections, noting states can't prohibit door-to-door campaigning on private property. His question cut right to the point: "Why should the Second Amendment be read to allow states to bar this person from carrying a gun?"

Justice Alito was even more direct, accusing Hawaii's attorney of "relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status." Even Justice Barrett, who pressed both sides hard, seemed unconvinced by Hawaii's historical cherry-picking.

The Critics Miss the Point

What they're saying: Gun control advocates claim Bruen's historical test is "unworkable" and the justices are struggling with "mutually exclusive principles."

That's complete nonsense if you actually listened to the arguments. Two colonial-era laws don't establish a "national tradition" of banning firearms on private property open to the public—especially when those laws dealt with completely different situations.

What this means for you: A ruling against Hawaii would clarify that property owners can't just ban lawful carry by posting signs or making policies. This could affect similar restrictions nationwide, particularly in states that love broad private property gun bans.

The Court's reasoning will also give lower courts better guidance for applying Bruen's historical test—something judges have been struggling with as they try to separate legitimate historical precedent from random outlier statutes.

The bottom line: The Court will likely decide by summer, and given the justices' skepticism plus Hawaii's paper-thin historical evidence, gun rights advocates should feel pretty good about this one.

For a legal framework that critics claim is "falling apart," Bruen keeps providing a clear path for evaluating gun laws. The real question isn't whether the test works—it's whether lawmakers will craft regulations that respect both property rights and constitutional carry, or keep passing laws destined for the judicial wood chipper.

After all, even vampires eventually learn to avoid places where they're not welcome.

---

Read the original article in The Handbook | By BGC Staff

---

Join the Discussion

If Hawaii's "vampire rule" gets struck down, do you think other states will try to pass similar laws, or will this effectively kill the concept nationwide?