The Supreme Court is confronting a question that goes to the heart of how constitutional rights function in everyday life: Can a state presume that private businesses are gun-free unless owners explicitly say otherwise?
That issue took center stage Tuesday as the Court heard arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii law that requires concealed-carry permit holders to obtain express permission before bringing firearms into most private businesses open to the public, such as grocery stores, shopping centers, hotels, and gas stations.
The case places two foundational principles in direct tension—the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the rights of private property owners—and asks how far states may go in resolving that conflict by default.
The Hawaii Law and the “Vampire Rule”
Under Hawaii’s statute, lawful gun owners may not carry firearms onto most private property unless the owner has clearly consented, either verbally or through posted signage. Silence, under the law, means no firearms allowed.
Gun owners challenging the statute argue that this flips long-standing assumptions about public accommodation on their head. They describe the rule as a “vampire law,” referencing the folklore notion that a vampire cannot enter a home without an invitation. In their view, the state has criminalized otherwise lawful conduct based solely on the absence of a sign.
Violating the law carries significant penalties, including up to one year in prison.
Importantly, the statute does not apply to government property such as parks or public buildings, which are governed by separate regulations. The case also does not address so-called “sensitive places” like beaches, bars, or churches—rules governing those locations were left untouched by the Court for now.
A Post-Bruen Test Case
The law was enacted shortly after the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded the right to carry firearms outside the home and required gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition.
That decision has triggered a wave of new litigation as states attempt to test the boundaries of permissible regulation. Hawaii’s approach—making gun-free spaces the default unless owners opt in—represents one of the most aggressive interpretations yet.
Several other states, including California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, have adopted similar consent-based frameworks.
Sharp Divisions on the Bench
During oral arguments, the justices revealed deep disagreement over whether Hawaii’s rule improperly treats the Second Amendment as a lesser constitutional right.
Justice Samuel Alito was particularly skeptical of the state’s position, warning that the law effectively demotes gun rights below other constitutional protections.
“You’re just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status,” Alito said, questioning whether the state could justify such a presumption under the Court’s post-Bruen framework.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, by contrast, framed the issue as one of basic property rights. She argued that there is no constitutional entitlement to enter someone else’s property with a firearm absent consent—explicit or implicit.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed that reasoning, suggesting that property owners’ interests should prevail when states regulate access to private spaces.
The First Amendment Comparison
Chief Justice John Roberts introduced a different angle, drawing a comparison to the First Amendment.
Roberts noted that political candidates are generally permitted to approach private homes to speak with voters, a long-recognized First Amendment activity—even though the property is privately owned. He questioned why the Second Amendment should be treated differently when both rights are explicitly protected by the Constitution.
The comparison underscored a central tension in the case: whether carrying a firearm is more akin to speech—presumptively allowed—or to a regulated activity that requires affirmative permission.
Hawaii’s Defense: History and Public Safety
Hawaii officials defended the law by pointing to the state’s historical restrictions on weapons, dating back to the era when Hawaii was a monarchy. They argued that a gun-free default aligns with local tradition and public safety norms, particularly in a state with extremely low rates of gun ownership.
According to state filings, fewer than one percent of Hawaii residents—about 2,200 people—hold concealed-carry permits, making the statute’s impact narrow in scope, at least numerically.
The state also argued that nothing in the Constitution guarantees that an invitation to shop or dine includes an implicit right to carry a firearm.
Broader Stakes for Gun Policy
The outcome of Wolford v. Lopez could have sweeping implications beyond Hawaii. A ruling striking down the law would threaten similar statutes in other states and further constrain how legislatures respond to the Court’s expanding Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The case is part of a broader wave of gun-related disputes now before the Court, including challenges to bans on firearm possession by illegal drug users, restrictions on non-violent felons, and limits on high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles.
Gun rights have become one of the most active—and divisive—areas of constitutional litigation this term.
What Comes Next
The Court is expected to issue a ruling by early summer. Whatever the outcome, the decision will help define how constitutional rights operate in shared public spaces—and whether states may presume silence means “no” when it comes to the right to bear arms.
At stake is not just Hawaii’s law, but a broader question about how far governments can go in reshaping everyday constitutional norms after Bruen.
