The United States Supreme Court issued a 6‑3 ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, holding that Hawaii may not require licensed gun owners to obtain explicit permission before carrying firearms onto private property that is open to the public.
The decision overturns the state’s “vampire rule,” which forced lawful gun owners to be invited in before entering businesses while armed.
Attorney Kevin O'Grady, who represented the plaintiffs, condemned Hawaii’s reliance on a Reconstruction‑era Black Code, describing it as a disgraceful attempt to base modern gun restrictions on a law designed to strip Black Americans of constitutional rights.
Hawaii had sought to justify the rule by invoking the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which requires modern firearm regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, rejected the historical argument, labeling the 1865 Louisiana statute cited by Hawaii as a “tainted artifact” enacted to disarm newly freed Black citizens and therefore unsuitable as evidence of the Second Amendment’s original meaning.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the Court should first determine whether the Louisiana law itself violated the Second Amendment or whether its discriminatory enforcement raised an equal‑protection issue.
Jackson noted that dismissing the Black Code without analysis leaves the Bruen framework incomplete, suggesting either the restrictions were constitutional but racially enforced, or they were unconstitutional on their own merits.
Gun‑rights advocates praised the majority opinion, asserting that laws rooted in oppression cannot define the historical limits of the Second Amendment.
The Court clarified that while businesses may continue to post or enforce “no firearms” policies, Hawaii can no longer treat all private venues as off‑limits to licensed gun owners unless the owners explicitly permit firearms.
