Supreme Court Takes Aim at Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” — A Case That Could Shape Carry Rights Nationwide

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on January 20 in Wolford v. Lopez, a Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s infamous “vampire rule”—a law that effectively bans licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto publicly accessible private property unless they receive explicit permission from the property owner.

Opponents dubbed the rule the “vampire rule” because much like the fictional creatures, lawful gun owners may not enter unless they are invited. During oral arguments, however, Hawaii’s defenders tried a different tactic altogether: insisting the Second Amendment issue was practically invisible. That strategy didn’t fool much of the Court.

The case sits squarely in the shadow of the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s discretionary “may-issue” carry scheme and reaffirmed the controlling test for gun laws: If the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct, the government must show the restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

After Bruen, states like Hawaii responded not by complying—but by re-engineering carry bans under new labels. The vampire rule was the most audacious of these efforts, flipping the traditional presumption of carry on its head by defaulting all private property to “no carry,” while simultaneously expanding “sensitive places” to absurd extremes. The result? A constitutional right that exists in theory but is nearly impossible to exercise in practice.

Under Hawaii’s regime, a licensed individual cannot:

• Stop at a grocery store

  
  

• Get gas or coffee

  
  

• Walk through a park or beach

  
  

• Attend religious services

  
  

• Drop off children at school

  
  

• Enter most businesses

  
  

• Even walk into a gun store to buy ammo

  
  

Defenders argued licensees could simply ask for permission. But as several justices recognized, that argument collapses under real-world scrutiny. The entire point was to make lawful carry the rare exception, not the rule.

Americans do not ask permission to carry books, political pamphlets, religious materials, or clothing expressing political views. The default assumption—long recognized in American law—is that a person invited onto private property may enter with lawful personal effects unless told otherwise. Several justices appeared deeply skeptical of Hawaii’s position.

Justice Kavanaugh cut straight to the heart of the issue: “Why are we making it complicated? The text of the Second Amendment covers arms… there’s no sufficient history supporting the regulation, end of case.” Justice Gorsuch rejected the idea that the case had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, warning that governments cannot redefine property rules in ways that nullify constitutional rights.

Justice Alito highlighted the absurdity of Hawaii’s argument by comparing it to a hypothetical rule requiring permission to wear political apparel in restaurants—an analogy Hawaii conceded would violate the First Amendment, while insisting the Second somehow deserves less respect.

Even more troubling, Hawaii leaned on racist antebellum laws—including Black Codes from Louisiana—to justify its scheme. Justice Alito called out the irony of citing laws enacted to suppress the Second Amendment as proof of its historical limits.

The National Rifle Association’s friend-of-the-court brief was referenced repeatedly during arguments, particularly its historical research showing that unenclosed land was traditionally open to arms bearing at the founding. Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general under the Trump administration, delivered the bulk of the argument for the challengers—ensuring the Second Amendment issue could not be brushed aside. Arguing for Hawaii was Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general under the Obama-Biden administration.

While no decision has been made yet, the questioning strongly suggests Hawaii’s vampire rule is in serious trouble. Based on the oral arguments, a 6–3 decision in favor of the Second Amendment appears likely, though nothing is final until the opinion is released. This case matters far beyond Hawaii.

Blue states across the country, including Minnesota, are watching closely. The same playbook used in Hawaii has been floated elsewhere: default carry bans, compelled signage, massive sensitive-place expansions, and bureaucratic obstacles designed to quietly erase carry rights. If courts allow this approach to stand, it won’t stop at the Pacific.

At 2 If By Sea Tactical, we don’t just operate Southern Minnesota’s Premier Indoor Range and Store we track the court cases, legislation, and legal battles that determine whether your rights exist in reality or only on paper. We’ll continue following Wolford v. Lopez closely and break down the ruling the moment it drops. Because when it comes to the Second Amendment, vigilance isn’t optional it’s required.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.