Additional Coverage:
The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on Thursday, striking down Hawaii’s private-property concealed-carry restriction in a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez. The Court found that licensed gun owners cannot be required to obtain explicit permission before carrying firearms onto private properties open to the public-a policy critics had dubbed the “vampire rule” because it demanded that gun owners be “invited in” before entering businesses armed.
Kevin O’Grady, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, sharply criticized Hawaii’s defense of the law, which leaned on a Reconstruction-era Black Code from 1865. This Louisiana statute, enacted after the Civil War, made it illegal to carry firearms onto another person’s property without the owner’s consent. O’Grady called it “disgraceful” that Hawaii relied on such a law, one originally designed to strip Black Americans of constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.
The Court’s majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, rejected Hawaii’s historical justification. He described the Louisiana statute as a “tainted artifact,” enacted with the clear intent to disarm newly freed Black Americans, and said it “cannot be taken seriously” as evidence of the original public meaning of the Second Amendment.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, acknowledging the racist origins of the Black Codes but contending that the Court should have first examined whether the Louisiana law violated the Second Amendment itself or if the issue was its racially discriminatory enforcement. She argued that under the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision-which requires modern gun laws to align with historical traditions-such laws should not be dismissed outright without a thorough constitutional analysis.
Jackson posed two possibilities: either the Black Codes’ firearm restrictions were constitutional but applied in a discriminatory way, making it an equal protection issue, or they were unconstitutional restrictions on gun rights. She expressed concern that the Court did not address this foundational question before excluding the law from its historical analysis.
Her dissent prompted swift criticism. Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Association of Gun Rights, pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted precisely to address and remedy the kinds of discriminatory laws represented by the Black Codes. She suggested Jackson should reconsider her stance in light of the constitutional protections now in place.
Tyler Yzaguirre, president of the Second Amendment Institute, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that laws like the Black Codes were not legitimate reflections of America’s constitutional traditions but rather examples of government overreach used to deny fundamental rights. He praised the Court for rejecting such laws as a basis for limiting Second Amendment rights.
While the ruling invalidates Hawaii’s requirement for express permission to carry firearms on private property open to the public, businesses themselves retain the right to prohibit guns by posting or enforcing “no firearms” policies. However, Hawaii can no longer treat all private businesses as off-limits to licensed gun owners unless each business owner explicitly permits firearms.
This decision marks a notable victory for gun-rights advocates and further clarifies how historical context is applied in evaluating modern firearm regulations.