The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wolford v. Lopez and its decision to take up two cases involving modern semiautomatic firearms Tuesday outline a pattern in which states and localities hostile to the Second Amendment may be unintentionally assisting gun owners in securing their rights across the country.
In Wolford v. Lopez, the high court struck down Hawaii’s “sensitive places” law, while two Virginia judges issued injunctions blocking the state’s ban on modern semiautomatic rifles, and the Justice Department (DOJ) filed suits against Virginia and California over bans on firearms. In the Wolford ruling, Associate Justice Samuel Alito slammed attorneys representing Hawaii for citing a Louisiana law passed shortly after the Civil War to justify the restrictions in the “vampire law.”
“It was adopted by the Louisiana Legislature between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of Reconstruction,” Alito wrote in his Wolford opinion. “When the war ended, the legislatures in defeated Confederate States quickly enacted so-called Black Codes that aimed to perpetuate the subjugation of blacks. The statute Hawaii cites was part of Louisiana’s Black Code, and it provided a tool for disarming blacks and thus leaving them defenseless against attacks… Unless we put history entirely out of our minds, Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.”
Hawaii’s “sensitive places” law was passed in the aftermath of the June 2022 Bruen decision, which declared that discretionary issue of concealed carry permits was unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.
Similar laws were passed in other states, including Maryland, New York, California and New Jersey in the aftermath of the Bruen decision, drawing legal challenges that will likely be successful in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Second Amendment advocates dubbed the new protocols the “vampire rule,” referencing legends that the creatures could only enter if they were explicitly invited.
Since Thursday, judges in Virginia’s Lancaster County and Washington County issued preliminary injunctions preventing enforcement of a ban on modern semiautomatic firearms, while Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger had to request that the state Legislature delay the effective date of a ban on carrying such firearms.
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sued Virginia Wednesday, stating in its complaint before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that a ban on modern semiautomatic firearms violated the Second Amendment. The DOJ also filed a lawsuit against California Wednesday targeting California’s ban on Glock pistols and its Handgun Roster, which lists the only semiautomatic pistols state residents can purchase.
One legal officer with a pro-Second Amendment organization seemed dubious when asked if the governors who signed legislation into law were inadvertently helping the cause of gun rights.
“I’d call that a stretch,” Second Amendment Foundation Senior Director of Legal Operations William Said told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Better than having to spend years and millions restoring American’s rights, would be if legislators around the country respected them to begin with.”
Similarly, by granting writs of certiorari in two cases involving bans on modern semiautomatic firearms imposed by Cook County, Illinois, (which includes Chicago) and Connecticut, those two states could lead the Supreme Court to rule on whether bans on so-called assault weapons are constitutional. That decision would decide the fate of the litigation over the ban on so-called “assault weapons” Spanberger signed into law in Virginia.
“No matter how emboldened these lawmakers are by their most extreme supporters, they cannot evade their sworn responsibility to uphold the Supreme Court’s clear and decisive rulings,” NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford told the DCNF. “Whenever they try, they will face swift and certain legal consequences.”
The Supreme Court will hear Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois and Grant v. Higgins in its 2026 term starting in October.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].