Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Hawaii's "Vampire Rule" Gun Law

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of *Wolford v. Lopez*, which challenges Hawaii's "vampire rule." This law prohibits concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public, such as beaches, bars, and gas stations, without the owner's explicit consent. The case has significant implications for gun rights and the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The Center Square

During the proceedings, attorneys for Hawaii defended the law by referencing historical gun control measures, specifically the Black Codes enacted in the post-Civil War era. Neal Katyal, representing Hawaii, argued that these laws demonstrated a historical precedent for restricting firearm access on private property. He contended that the Black Codes, while a "shameful part of our history," illustrated that individuals historically did not have the right to carry firearms onto someone else's property without permission.

The Center Square

Conversely, Alan Beck, representing gun rights advocates, argued that using the Black Codes as a basis for current gun laws is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. He emphasized that the presumptive ban on carrying firearms in public spaces contradicts national and historical traditions of gun ownership. Beck stated, "We can’t use a racist, discriminatory law to apply to a law that applies to the general public."

The Center Square

The justices expressed skepticism regarding Hawaii's arguments. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the relevance of the Black Codes in this context, suggesting that citing such laws could be seen as ironic given their historical purpose of disarming African Americans. Justice Samuel Alito echoed this sentiment, stating that the intent behind the Black Codes was to facilitate the oppression of Black individuals.

New York Post

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defended the inclusion of the Black Codes, asserting that they were relevant under the legal test established in the *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen* case, which requires an examination of historical traditions in assessing gun regulations. Jackson argued, "The fact that the Black Codes were at some later point determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make."

Daily Caller

The Supreme Court's decision, expected by late June 2026, will have significant ramifications for gun owners and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The case not only addresses Hawaii's specific law but also sets a precedent for similar regulations in states like New York, New Jersey, and California, which have enacted comparable restrictions.

The Center Square

While the majority of justices appeared uneasy with Hawaii's law, the exact outcome remains uncertain. The justices' differing interpretations of historical context and the relevance of the Black Codes highlight the complexities involved in adjudicating Second Amendment rights in relation to contemporary gun control measures.

New York Post

• “You are just regulating the Second Amendment to second-class status,” — Justice Samuel Alito

New York Post

• “I want to understand how you think Black Codes should inform this court’s decision-making. It’s quite astonishing,” — Justice Neil Gorsuch

New York Post

• “The presumptive ban is inconsistent with our national and historical tradition,” — Alan Beck, attorney for gun rights advocates

The Center Square

• “Even the opponents of the Black codes recognized that you have no right to carry a firearm onto someone’s property,” — Neal Katyal, attorney for Hawaii

The Center Square