Just in time for Halloween, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to rule on Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule” on gun possession in Wolford v. Lopez. The state law bars gun permit holders from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. So, like vampires, gun owners must be invited in with their weapons.
Wolford is one of the cases viewed as Bruen 2.0, expanding on the foundation laid by the Supreme Court. After New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, states like New York sought to use language from the opinion to create de facto bans in certain areas. After Bruen was handed down, recognizing that some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Gov. Kathy Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places.
At the time, the Court stressed that few locations historically met such a definition:
“Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. … We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were ‘sensitive places’ where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.”
However, gun control states piled on with long lists of “sensitive places” to constructively create a broad ban. In Hawaii, the legislature listed 15 categories of property. It also imposed a different “default rule” that said that permit holders are barred unless a property owner expressly allows them, either verbally or in writing, to enter with a weapon.
A federal court in Honolulu issued a preliminary injunction in August 2023, blocking portions of the law. When the state appealed, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the injunctions as to bars and restaurants serving alcohol as well as beaches, parks and adjacent parking areas. The panel also upheld the default rule.
That stands in contradiction of the Second Circuit’s opinion in Antonyuk v. James (2024), striking down New York’s ban on firearm possession by a permitee onto private property open to the public unless the owner or lessee expressly consents to bring the firearm onto the property.
The individual plaintiffs — Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford and Atom Kasprzycki allege that they were able to carry handguns at beaches, parks, restaurants serving alcohol and other private properties open to the public before Hawaii’s law took effect.
The plaintiffs challenge the historical foundations for the Hawaii law, cited by the Ninth Circuit: an 1865 Louisiana statute and a 1771 New Jersey statute. The New Jersey law is challenged as applying to private property that is not open to the public.
One issue presented to the Court would have focused on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of certain historical sources. The plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court was referencing, first and foremost, sources from the founding period while the state and the Ninth Circuit relied on laws from the Reconstruction period.
The Supreme Court notably did not accept that question for review. Instead, the sole question granted review was:
“Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?”
Lower courts have repeatedly rejected these “vampire laws,” but the case will now allow the Court to clarify what it means by a “sensitive place” where Second Amendment rights can be abridged.
With the briefing to be completed in mid-November, oral arguments may not be held until early 2026, with a possible opinion in June or July of that year.
Biden’s FBI spied on GOP senators. Not state senators, US senators. This should be interesting as it all unravels.
I think you mean Obama’s FBI, third term crew. It only takes good men to remain silent.
Didn’t O-dumber do the same thing?
It wasn’t spying. It was looking at who was involved in the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol building by looking at calls placed between Trump and these senators. They should welcome transparency of government.
Recall that Jim Jordan, on a day when national news was riveted by masked men climbing the walls of the Capitol building, carrying a Confederate flag through the halls of Congress, people shouting to grab House of Representative members and the Vice President, that Jim could not recall what he might have talked with President Trump about, though he was sure he talked with President Trump (as this assault happened during the Trump administration) almost every day.
“. . . looking at calls placed between Trump and these senators.”
BS.
Biden’s FBI spied on 93 Republicans and Republican groups.
I’ll look up the specifics on this vampire law. Private property can ban guns. The law doesn’t say everyone shall be armed.
^^^ in the case of private property open to the public and CCP , the feds permit is sufficient as 2nd amendment. If it’s a restaurant or such check it at the door with permit.
*. OT
PERSONALLY, I’m a pessimist. I don’t see how the Republicans will manage to keep the US intact. There are serious mental health issues, vices abound. I just don’t see it.
Debbie Downer
There are problems – but this is far from the worst stresses this country has seen.
There will be no “civil war” – there is an increase in left wing violence. There is likely to be even more.
There may be more assassinations like that of Kirk or my Luigi.
Lots of bad things will happen – that is unfortunate.
But I believe we are PAST “peak woke” but dying ideologies can often be very violent.
Regardless the end of the world is NOT nigh.
There is actually a limit to the total number of violent angry left wing nuts.
Given the opportunity to self immolate they will do so.
@John
I think so too, John. These are the last, desperate vestiges. Woke is dying, just not with the whimper it warrants.
We are not talking about private individuals banning guns on their property – no one is arguing they can not do that.
Not only can they, but they can do so arbitrarily – that is what individual liberty means.
The fight here is where the STATE – aka Govenrment can specify that guns are AUTOMATICALLY BANNED on private property absent the affirmative consent of the property owner.
If you want an appropriate analogy that explains WHY these laws will be struck down as unconstitutional.
A STATE law that barred free speech on private property EXCEPT where the private property owner explicitly allowed it would be struck down.
Government can not infringe on constitutional rights.
It can not play games to do so.
But the DEFAULT in ALL cases of natural rights, constitutional rights, civil rights is LIBERTY.
Did those killed in the Minneapolis church have their liberty protected? The Buffalo grocery store? The Boulder King Soupers? The Orlando night club? The San Bernadino office Christmas party?
What you fail to understand is that the Constitution was created toward the goal of public order, because that is the precondition all other freedoms.
Ask any school kid how “free” they feel when they see a shootup like Vivalde TX?
You are not doing a good job of balancing freedoms. Your concept is 100% solipsistic, translation: my freedom outweighs that of others.
“You are not doing a good job of balancing freedoms.”
We should ask school kids what they feel about mass murders carried out by Democrat Trannies, by un-indicted felons left in school by Obama, or Democrats’ Favorite Muslim Terrorists at Orlando and San Bernadino?
First: you are doing a sophomorically pathetic attempt at cherrypicking – ignoring the good to “the public order” (that has nothing to do with it’s intended purpose) the Second Amendment provides.
As one example, the 2.5 – 3 million defensive uses of firearms each year. You want another 2.5 – 3 million victims of violent felons each year while claiming your specific list of mass shootings would have been prevented if you got your wet dream of disarming all law abiding Americans? Not enough murder victims to satisfy you yet in those Democrat gun banning utopias like Chicago, Washington DC? etc?
Second, the Constitution is NOT about “public order” – that’s countries like Canada whose Constitution is about “good governance”, NOT individual rights, freedom, and liberty.
So… do you fail to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or is this a nakedly obvious attempt at being Democrat Willfully Blind?
Oh thanks. I did not see that switchback, John. I thought it was as simple as check your firearm at the saloon door like a hatcheck thing. So owners of private property would post –> guns allowed? 😂 or signs saying we have guns.
Am I missing it?
Open to the public…
You have a hard time framing a coherent question. While you’re looking it up, figure out what “shall not be infringed” mens.
Also when you look it up, check the Fourth Amendment to see if it doesn’t apply on private property unless the owner specifically gives notice that it does.
Well it’s the government saying it 😂. What’s the purpose?
Is that Stephen J. Miller creeping up those stairs? Any resemblance to Nosferatu is purely coincidental.
Well, we can be assured it isn’t potato Joe Biden cause he’d be in a pile at the bottom!
Do they check for knives, machetes, and scalpels that have the same vampiric effect and abortive affirmative action? Perhaps just an awl for a sympathetic progression.
Would Turley ever defend a Democrat in the manner of Voltaire?
He has. Have you actually been here very long ?
Why have a place where you can learn new things when you’re expected to already know everything and no one tells you?
So this is private property open to the public? I guess it’ll close to the public with no trespass? The owner doesn’t want to do security checks?
I don’t get it…
Should Trump have the Supreme Court arrested for ruling against him?
President Trump should petition Congress to impeach and the Senate to convict the Supreme Court for allowing courts to usurp and exercise executive power.
They can “adjudicate” all day long, they can issue “determinations,” but they cannot exercise executive power precisely because they have none, not one scintilla.
To wit,
“THAT POWER HAS BEEN RESISTED BY A FORCE TOO STRONG FOR ME TO OVERCOME.”
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
“Should Trump have the Supreme Court arrested for ruling against him?”
On what ? Trump is doing extremely well with SCOTUS – 20-21 Straight Wins.
While he is not winning 100% of every point on every case, he is doing incredibly well.
Should Democrats seek help for having wet dreams in the Democrat Borg that Trump is actually going to help them out by ordering the arrest of their communists they installed in the Supreme Court?
And if he did, would Justice Brown have an insanity defense, claiming that the fact she doesn’t know what a woman is after giving birth several times is clear evidence she is mentally deficient/insane?
The Dems are rallying around Jay Jones and his violent rhetoric where he said he wants his political opponent’s children dead, and he wants to put two bullets into the head of his rival. They’re even condoning such rhetoric from church pulpits:
https://x.com/EWErickson/status/1974907347920474517
If a Republican had said the same vile things about his Democratic rival, all other Republicans would pressure him to drop out. We know that’s true. But with Dems, they love this kind of thing. It’s not something to be forgiven or overlooked, but celebrated. That’s the lesson from the Dems standing by their man in this instance.
No one is coercing you to read or hear their words.
If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
Yeah lets elect a mad man who thinks murder is a good idea.
The left just loves this stuff.
You keep proving day after day!
What is the proof?
Their words.
What good did it do for Marsha Clark to prove that OJ Simpson committed murder?
Proving something doesn’t mean anything.
OldManFromKS,
Well said and spot on. A Republican would have the moral standing to step down or out of the race. Seems Democrats have no such moral compass. But then again, they would not even think of such thoughts in the first place, let alone text it to someone.
Why don’t you believe in freedom of conscience?
Do you fancy yourself the Thought Police?
Upstate – there could be Republicans with evil intent, but if they expressed it the way Jones did, the rest of the GOP would condemn it publicly and pressure the person to drop out. Here, that’s not happening: Dems are excusing it and saying it doesn’t matter, even rallying around their man to stay in the race. To me, this is analogous to the thousands of Dems gleefully cheering and celebrating on social media after Charlie Kirk was murdered, and making a folk hero out of the person who shot a health insurance CEO in the back.
While generally I agree with you, what is important is to Judge each and every person on this and their response to it.
There is a long list of specific democrats that have defended this.
Hopefully voters will remember that at the ballot box.
Morals and politician do not go together.
Republicans politicians with few exceptions are at best LESS immoral than democrats.
Regardless, what matters is how people respond to this – do voters elect Jones ? Do they elect those that stand by Jones ?
“when someone shows you who they are – beleive them, the first time”
Maya Angelou.
Or Sun Tzu
When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interfere.
What if the bullets are surgically implanted with the rival’s consent? What’s the harm in this?
https://jayjonestexts.com/
hysterial that this website was “PAID FOR BY REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION”
it has the text messages from Jay Jones. just awesome
Are you saying that free people are freely expressing themselves in the land of the free? Oh, the horror.
I’m not saying they are breaking the law by expressing themselves that way, if that’s what you’re asking. I never said they broke a law by rallying around a candidate who has sent texts wishing death for children and wishing his political rival would get two bullets in the head. I criticized them for doing so without saying they broke a law. Can you see the difference?
OMFK
He didn’t WISH for two bullets in the head of his rivals, he hypothetically said HE would put two bullets in their heads, comparing them to Communists, National Socialists and Fascist dictators…irony at its best!
Zelensky gets ridiculed for requesting financial assistance, but
George Washington did the same thing:
George Washington to [The Convention of New Hampshire]
Valley Forge, [Pennsylvania], December 29, 1777.
Letter signed, 5 pages.
Head Qrs: Valley Forge Dec 29th: 1777
Gentn:
I take the liberty of transmitting you the Inclosed Return, which contains a
state of the New Hampshire Regiments. By this you will discover how deficient, –
how exceedingly short they are of the complement of men which of right
according to the establishment they ought to have. This information, I have
thought it my duty to lay before you, that it may have that attention which it’s
importance demands; and in full hope, that the most early and vigorous measures
will be adopted, not only to make the Regiments more respectable but compleat.
The necessity and expediency of this procedure are too obvious to need
Arguments. Should we have a respectable force to commence an early Campaign
with, before the Enemy are reinforced, I trust we shall have an Opportunity of
striking a favourable and an happy stroke; but if we should be obliged to defer it,
It will not be easy to describe with any degree of precision what disagreable
consequences may result from It. We may rest assured, that Britain will strain
every nerve to send from Home and abroad, [2] as early as possible, All the
Troops it shall be in her power to raise or procure. Her views and schemes for
subjugating these States, and bringing them under her despotic rule will be
unceasing and unremitted. Nor should we, in my opinion, turn our expectations to,
or have the least dependance on the intervention of a Foreign War. Our wishes on
this head have been disappointed hitherto and perhaps it may long be the case.
However, be this as it may, our reliance should be wholly on our own strength
and exertions. If in addition to these, there should be aid derived from a War
between the Enemy and any of the European Powers, our situation will be so
much the better. If not our Efforts & Exertions will have been the more necessary
and indispensable. For my own part, I should be happy, if the idea of a Foreign
rupture should be thrown entirely out of our Scale of politicks, and that it may not
have the least weight in our public measures. No bad effects could flow from it,
but on the contrary many of a salutary nature. At the same time I do not mean
that such an Idea ought to be discouraged among the people at large because the
event is probable. [3]
There is one thing more to which I would take the liberty of solliciting
your most serious and constant attention; to wit, the cloathing of your Troops, and
the procuring of every possible supply in your power from time to time for that
end. If the several States exert themselves in future in this instance, and I think
they will, I hope that the Supplies they will be able to furnish in aid of those,
which Congress may immediately import themselves, will be equal and
competent to every demand. If they do not, I fear, I am satisfied the Troops will
never be in a situation to answer the public expectation and perform the duties
required of them. No pains, no efforts on the part of the States can be too great
for this purpose. It is not easy to give you a just and accurate idea of the
sufferings of the Army at large – of the loss of men on this account. Were they to
be minutely detailed, your feelings would be wounded, and the relation would
probably be not received without a degree of doubt & discredit. We had in Camp,
on the 23rd Inst. by a Field Return then taken, not less than 2898 men unfit for
duty, by reason of their being barefoot and otherwise naked. Besides this number,
sufficiently distressing of itself, [4] there are many Others detained in Hospitals
and crowded in Farmers Houses for the same causes. In a most particular manner,
the
I flatter myself the care and attention of the States will be directed to supply of
Shoes, Stockings and Blankets, as their expenditure from the common operations
and accidents of War is far greater than of any other articles. In a word, the
United and respective exertions of the States cannot be too great, too vigorous in
this interesting work, and we shall never have a fair and just prospect for success
till our Troops (Officers & Men) are better appointed and provided than they are
or have been. We have taken post here for the Winter, as a place best calculated
to cover the Country from the Ravages of the Enemy and are now busily
employed in erecting Huts for the Troops. This circumstance renders it the more
material that the Supplies should be greater and more immediate than if the men
were in comfortable Quarters.
Before I conclude, I would also add, that it will be essential to inoculate
the Recruits or Levies, as fast as they are raised that their earliest services may be
had. Should this be postponed, the work [5] the work will be to do most probably
at an interesting and critical period, and when their aid may be very materially
wanted.
I have the Honor to be
with great respect
Gentln.
Your most Obed Servt
Go: Washington
“[The] U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to rule on Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule….”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
The owner of private property shall decide on trespass and bearing arms.
Only the owner of private property may “claim and exercise” dominion.
No person shall be deprived of private property.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No power of any court to “interpret,” modify, or amend statutory or fundamental law exists in the Constitution.
That one does not enjoy a law does not nullify the law.
All parties must obey the law and adapt to it.
__________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
____________________
2nd Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Why wouldn’t a private property owner want to know if someone has a gun?
What if I brought a poisonous snake onto private property?
Firearms can’t shoot people, they’re inanimate.
Can words hurt people?
“Want” vs. “Need”…..