The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for concealed-carry permit holders Thursday, ruling that Hawaii cannot require gun owners to obtain a property owner’s explicit permission before carrying firearms into businesses open to the public.
According to Fox News, in a 6-3 decision, the justices concluded that the state’s law violated the Second Amendment, reversing a lower court ruling that had upheld the restriction.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said Hawaii’s policy placed an unconstitutional burden on lawful gun owners exercising their right to carry firearms for self-defense.
“Hawaii’s law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Alito wrote. He added that the requirement interfered with Americans’ ability to carry firearms as they went about their daily lives.
The case, “Wolford v. Lopez,” centered on a Hawaii law enacted after the Supreme Court’s 2022 “Bruen” decision. That earlier ruling recognized a constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Following “Bruen,” Hawaii adopted several new firearm regulations, including a rule requiring concealed-carry permit holders to receive express permission before bringing firearms onto private property open to the public. Gun-rights advocates labeled the policy the “vampire rule” because businesses effectively had to invite firearms through signs or direct authorization.
Alito argued the law exposed permit holders to possible criminal penalties during routine activities such as stopping at grocery stores, pharmacies or gas stations if businesses had not specifically authorized firearms.
The majority also rejected Hawaii’s argument that its cultural traditions justified the restriction.
“The Second Amendment cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple or the Windy City,” Alito wrote.
The court also dismissed Hawaii’s reliance on an 1865 Louisiana law enacted during the Black Codes era, concluding that such legislation could not serve as persuasive historical support for modern firearm restrictions.
Three justices dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan argued the law was consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the dispute centered on private property rights rather than the Second Amendment, arguing that property owners should control whether firearms are allowed on their premises.