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.
My pistol company is a private company; therefore, I can punish my child slaves whenever they complain about their little fingers getting mangled in the machinery. They have no First Amendment protections.
Teacher’s Unions have grown into a cancer: “[T]he National Education Association (NEA) was founded in 1856, modern teachers’ unions gained legitimacy in the 1960s, primarily focusing on collective bargaining for better pay and working conditions. The two major unions, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have since transitioned to become powerful advocates for educational policy and political lobbying”
( https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/teachers-unions-past-and-present ).
Zorro-Ham Mom-Scamie is not qualified to make sweeping changes to educational initiatives. He should stick to making the subways safe again, cleaning the streets of trash, and fighting crime—these things alone would improve the access to education.
The symbol for cancer is a crab.
I can’t imagine having both cancer AND crabs.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg isn’t taking any chances in Hawaii.
Mark Zuckerberg owns a vast, multi-billion-dollar compound on Kaua’i, Hawaii, now spanning over 2,300 acres and valued at over $300 million. The property, known as Koʻolau Ranch, includes two Mansions and a large, 5,000-square-foot underground bunker, and has been expanded through several land purchases since 2014. The development of the property has generated controversy, with concerns from locals regarding the potential impact on sacred indigenous sites and land access.
What I find fascinating is the enduring belief by states such as New York or Hawaii that they can shrink the limits of 2nd Amendment rights. So far, this current case I believe will confirm, that all these states have achieved is funding welfare for lawyers, providing more examples illustrating how to use the phrase “shall not be infringed”, and of course furnishing entertaining fodder for blogs such as this.
The politicians win brownie points with their left-wing constituents by saying, “I tried, but the conservative courts are to blame.” Such politicians are aware that their efforts will result in more precedent protecting 2A, but that is not their concern. Winning political brownie points and thus winning re-election is their only concern.
Well, after recent events in SC, conservatives will get even liberal judges to fall in line, lest they subject their homes to arson and their families to hospitalization.
Oldman, weren’t you the one that said that extremist violence only occurs on the left? That didn’t age well…
You just declared that the fire is the fault of conservatives engaging in political violence. You declared it, but you didn’t back that up with any evidence. You people habitually lie, so I’m not going to just believe you, without seeing any evidence.
No one is coercing you to read their alleged lies.
“after recent events in SC,”
The couple are both politically active for Dems, and the judge wife was (conveniently?) out walking the dogs when the fire occurred. There is as much, or perhaps more, evidence presented so far as to fuel speculation that this may have been a domestic crime of passion (was either partner cheating on the other?) as that it may have been politically motivated violence.
“all these states have achieved is funding welfare for lawyers”
Unfortunately, some of the lawyers work for firearms rights organizations that are funded by contributions from firearms owners and other 2A supporters. By continuously vaporizing money from those sources (which includes me) these jerks do very significant damage, even when they ultimately lose. I would love to see some precedent/mechanism whereby there could be successful class-action suits against those who have pursued and enacted laws and restrictions that are blatantly unconstitutional.
So the Prof JT postings are just entertainment fodder? What a hoot you are. No
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 . . .
All of those are public places, where it is possible to put a guard at the door with a metal detector for the person to walk through. It makes sense to have that kind of security, for example, in a courthouse. You don’t want the public to carry guns into a courtroom; only the bailiff should be armed.
But what does any of that have to do with privately-owned property?
The “sensitive places” doctrine started with Heller and included “schools,” which is conveniently left out here. The justification included both public and private schools under the doctrine.
Thus, the doctrine does not categorically rule out private property.
From Heller: “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Also, many polling places are private locations open to the public – like churches. Do you really think that all polling places are publicly-owned?
Fair enough. But private property owners already have the right to ban firearms on their property. That’s part of the “right to exclude” that is part of what property ownership means. Isn’t it overly paternalistic for the state to say, “Yeah, we know you have that right, and you can exercise it any time you want, but we’re going to exercise it for you as a presumptive matter”? In other words, this law doesn’t really even ban firearms at all, it just says that private property owners are assumed to have privately banned them unless they say otherwise. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? And it even applies to unloaded firearms.
Is that any different from city ordinances, which set decibel limits on noise pollution? Or environmental laws, which prohibit all manner of activity on private property?
Do you think it is “odd” that a city would take “quiet enjoyment” literally by putting limits on how loud you can blare your speakers at night? Zoning ordinances are another obvious one.
And we cannot forget eminent domain (Takings Clause). The government can literally force you to sell your property and provide “just compensation.”
There are a plethora of laws that limit various “sticks” in the “bundle of sticks” that compose our concept of property rights.
It is rather myopic to think that the government cannot put a limitation on a private property’s rights based on societal norms.
Whether this particular limitation is normatively a good decision is, of course, a different story. There is however nothing out of the realm of ordinary with this type of restriction.
Laws that prohibit activities on your private property are aimed at how those activities affect things external to your property (“externalities” in legalese). The government doesn’t limit decibels in one’s headphones, but it does for noises that exit your property and harm other people located on their property.
Here, the government is saying: we’re not outright banning guns on your property, and you yourself have the right to exclude them from your property any time you want; all we’re doing is exercising your right to exclude for you, absent your expressly giving permission. I’m saying, that does seem odd to me. I’m not aware of any similar law. Perhaps you are, but you haven’t yet given me an example.
That’s simply not true. There are plenty of laws that are aimed about things “internal” to your property.
For example, you cannot set traps or spring loaded shotguns on your property, even if states like Texas.
More generally, city ordinances put a bunch of building restrictions on how you build your home, and many of these have no “external” basis for justification. They are usually based on society’s understanding of what you should think is a reasonable level of risk for your own safety.
Finally, to your specific question, trespass law assumes that homeowners do not consent to have individuals access your property. Put differently, why is it assumed that a homeowner wants to exclude others? Based on your logic, we should not make that assumption and allow each homeowner to post a sign that says, No Trespassing, as is the case with solicitation.
Those laws are closer, but still not the same. As for building codes, they are a bit paternalistic – the government is saving you from yourself by having a minimum standard of construction. Part of the reason for that is that most people are not construction experts. Like with licensed professions, there is a minimum standard for contractors to have to build to. By contrast, it takes no expertise to understand exactly what a gun does.
With trespass laws, the government does not decide for you which people are presumed to be allowed on your property and which are not, and then make it a crime for someone to go onto your property absent your express approval. Maybe they didn’t get your express approval, but you don’t mind if they walk on your lawn, so the police aren’t going to intervene if you don’t say anything about it. The government leaves it up to you to decide whether any particular person is there without your permission and how you want to handle that – for example, tell the person to leave, threaten to call the police if they don’t, or file a complaint with the police if they still won’t.
Here, the government is deciding for you that, unless you expressly state that a particular object, legal in itself, is allowed on your property, the presumption is that it’s not and they can charge someone with a crime even if you, the private property owner, do not complain about it. Doesn’t that seem different to you?
I now have no idea what you are arguing….
You originally said this: “But private property owners already have the right to ban firearms on their property. That’s part of the “right to exclude” that is part of what property ownership means.”
My point was that trespass laws and building codes work in precisely the same way as these gun restrictions. Someone could say, “It is my property, and if I want to take the risk, why shouldn’t I be able to build a crappy home? Or, “It is my property. Why should the government assume that, absent my consent, strangers are not welcome to roam my land?”
You dismiss these as “paternalistic,” but that is exactly why they are relevant here. Each of these laws are examples of society restricting rights to private property, in the name of safety.
“Is that any different from city ordinances, which set decibel limits on noise pollution? Or environmental laws, which prohibit all manner of activity on private property?”
Where in the Bill of Rights did you find Amendments similar to the Second Amendment providing protections for those actions? How about “societal norms”?
The only real question is whether Democrats truly are so Marxist Useful Idiot that they don’t grasp the concept of the Bill of Rights’ liberties and freedoms.
Or the alternative: they’re Democrat Willfully Blind.
Who would you like cleaning up the streets of Hawaii?
Dog the Bounty Hunter or Hawaii Five O, Detective Steve McGarrett?
The problem with barring people with guns from a place which is open to the public is obvious. The crooks, scum, nasties, etc. will show up armed in violation of the law and there will be no one to oppose them since those who are law abiding will have left their guns at home. Example. I used to live in Las Vegas. I was a member of the Las Vegas athletic club (the N. Rainbow branch) which had a prominent sign on the entrance barring guns even for those who could carry. I changed my membership to another club for other reasons and after I did so, guess at which club there was an active shooter with fatalities? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb24M4wCUZY Would armed greeters at the front desk and/or armed members have prevented this? I don’t know. But one thing is clear. That sign on the front door barring guns was absolutely useless as is all the left wing malevolent nonsense trying to take away our right to bear arms.
If a criminal is caught doing crime things on private property this will be an additional charge.
There were two dead at that club. The only thing that made it plural was cops shooting the guy who shot one person. One employee was killed and the other 150 people in the place left safe and unharmed. Had some gun licker taken out a weapon, there could have been a very much larger death toll, including from the faux heros shooting people who weren’t the gunman.
OOHHH, an additional charge!!! That will surely deter the guy intent on murdering everyone.
As for your example it seems as if you are happy with one guy getting killed as well as assuming that there will always be cops there in minutes.
“What The FBI & Media Won’t Tell You About Good Guys With Guns” – Colion Noir (YouTube)
*. Are property owners concerned with liability?
We all know that if this sort of lawyerly manipulation isn’t “nipped in the bud” there will eventually be no value to the 2nd amendment. There is no other way of looking at this – just read what hochul said and you can see the end of this. Our right to bear arms is all that stands between us and hochul/mamdani/newsome etc.
You can see the future here and are you brave enough to stop this. The progs/communists are like The Blob from the movie of the same name – they slowly overwhelm the entirety of what is in front of them if not stopped in their tracks.
Tell that to the Branch Davidians, armed to the teeth,
“Tell that to the Branch Davidians, armed to the teeth”
You mean the 73 men, women and CHILDREN that were slaughtered (most horribly burned to death) by the ATF and FBI for believing that the 1st and 2nd Amendments were still in force?
Amy the Vampire Law Slayer
“Gun-free” zones are where all the mass killings happen. Therefore, logic would dictate they should all be eliminated.
If we complied with the simply-worded 2A, there would be no reason to waste time in courts on this issue.
But hoplophobia, although illogical, is real, and is irrational by definition.
Until we protect our schools and churches like we protect banks, airports and courthouses – with armed and trained personnel (including willing teachers) – we will keep seeing these tragedies that don’t have to happen, or be quite as bad as we see today.
It’s never been a hardware problem.
Some 175 heavily armed police, trained and ready, stood around picking their noses as gunshots sounded and children were slaughtered. Guns aren’t protection. For every story about how someone with a gun saved the day, there are dozens of tragedies.
The second amendment is clear – for the sole purpose of a well ordered militia, we need to have gun rights. But the US at the time had no standing army and that was the sole purpose of the second amendment – to have citizen soldiers. Now the US does have a standing army, there is no need nor possibility that the citizens could possibly mount a sufficient resistance except that the US military were to surrender rather than use nuclear or biological weapons.
Imagine that instead of “175 heavily armed police standing around as children got slaughtered” there was a teacher or two that had a gun. You argue against your point.
Anonymous troll: 2A’s operative language says: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You can obfuscate all you want, but the right expressly belongs to the people, and you ain’t gonna change that with sophistry.
“If we complied with the simply-worded 2A, there would be no reason to waste time in courts on this issue.”
Exactly
A string of correctly spelled texts supposedly written by Donald J. Trump has fueled fresh speculation that he has died, experts confirmed on Monday.
According to David Simpson, the nation’s foremost authenticator of Trump’s digital communications, “The texts, notable not only for their correct spelling but also for their proper grammar and sentence structure, were the work of someone with at least a seventh-grade education.”
“It’s impossible to identify the author of these texts, but it was someone capable of putting words together to form complete sentences,” he added. “That rules out most of his Cabinet.”
In the most troubling sign, Simpson said, one of the texts asked if the Nobel Peace Prize could be awarded posthumously—and featured a correct spelling of the word “posthumously.”
Ding dong! The witch is dead!
Children on computers…
Anonymous, at least Trump isn’t misspelling with his autopen and staring agape at the planet Pluto.
I have dirty, fingerless children working in my pistol factory. I make them wear muzzles so I don’t have to hear their constant whining about the working conditions.
Hey Anonymous… If you don’t have something intelligent to say, just say it in the privacy of your own home where it won’t sound so ridiculous…
Zorgas borgas, I just got bit by the love bat, and its driving me MAD!
The number of crimes that did not happen due to the presence of armed citizens is a statistic very hard to determine.
That information would be really helpful to provide some empirical evidence to this debate.
How does one know when an armed citizen is in fact present at the scene of a potential crime scene?
Then, how does one collect that data? Answer: no one can. It does not exist.
Commenters should avoid hypotheticals.
What if a commenter cannot avoid hypotheticals?
From Heritage.org we have:
” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. T “
From Heritage.org we have:
” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. T “
“The number of crimes that did not happen due to the presence of armed citizens is a statistic very hard to determine.”
Only because that statistic has been deliberately obfuscated by those who have skin in the game on the side of infringing the Second Amendment.
Unaccountable: The FBI’s Strange Refusal To Fix Key Crime Stat
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/unaccountable-fbis-strange-refusal-fix-key-crime-stat
“Three years ago, RealClearInvestigations reported that the FBI was undercounting the number of armed civilians who had thwarted active shooters by a factor of three. Even though the FBI acknowledged the issue at the time, it never corrected the error involving the politically fraught issue. In the years since, the problem has only gotten worse.”
Mr. Lott is entirely too kind to the FBI in that column. Note that the uncounted incidents where armed citizens stopped shootings in progress is very nearly equal to the difference between total shooting incidents tabulated by the FBI and those tabulated by independent investigators. One obvious conclusion would be that nearly in all of the incidents in which are stopped by armed civilians, the entire incident is swept under the proverbial rug.
I think that the case illustrates the tension between the right of property owners versus the Second Amendment. The sanctity of property ownership was fundamental to the Founders. Government restrictions on the use of property have been an issue driving the Right for years, due to significant overreach by agencies such as the EPA. To now say that property owners do not have the right to forbid weapons looks to be somewhat inconsistent. I look forward to reading the Courts decision on this matter. It will be interesting, to say the least
It doesn’t say that property owners can’t forbid guns, the argument is that they are FORCED to affirmatively state that you can bring in a gun before a person with a gun can enter. Would you allow a state (say Mississippi) to pass a law that allows bars to make people state affirmatively that they want to ban trans people from teaching before they can enter?
“What doesn’t say… “. Who is what?
The law in Hawaii. Try to comprehend.
Try to make what you express comprehensible. ‘It’ is a pronoun that can represent an infinite number of things.
Try common sense for a change. The topic at hand was THE LAW, the Court is looking into THE LAW as it affects 2nd Amendment rights, Turley disagrees with THE LAW, all of the people commenting are commenting on THE LAW and yet you don’t know what I was referring to when I said “it doesn’t say….”? Seems either odd, dumb or just being a jerk.
What seems odd?
You.
Not the same thing. Someone’s never heard of a special thing that once happened in Greensboro NC
When they bring a gun, you bring a machete, a scalpel for the feminine gender is Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive and a majority report.
Da?
The Supreme Court does not determine the cases it will hear! A petitions for redress and as a last resort upon appeal are made in congress, then if the matter cannot be resolved in congress, a court is assembled to adjudicate the matte. The States have agreed unanimously to both legislative processes, the consideration and determination of All matters and questions by the States in a congress and the adjudication of conflicts and disputes that exist, or may arise, between the States, and all petitions for redress when properly made laws are made by a properly assembled and operated legislative institution disenfranchise, or otherwise disproportionately affect, one or more States. The States have agree to comply with All laws they participate in making as the Union, and the States have agreed to abide by the decisions of the court to resolve their conflicts, disputes, and grievances.
The Court must be “Ordained and Established” to give power to adjudicate and decide these matters of conflict, dispute, grievances, and the States must agree unanimously to the adjudication process, the adjudicators, and what constitutes a decision to resolve the maters under consideration. There was little chance that the states in conflict would agree on the adjudicators, therefore a process to determine the judges that would hear and determine mater had to be agreed to unanimously. This is where “consensus choice” comes to the rescue. Each State was required to choose 3 persons from their own State to be considered by All the States in congress to determine 5 judges to hear and determine the mater by a majority of the 5 judges. Those 3 judges per State was reduced to 1 judge per State by lot to Strike by the litigants involved in the matter in question, that number was then reduced to no less than 7 and no more that 9 by all the States in congress, from which the 5 judges to hear and decide the matter were “drawn out” by lot starting with the petitioner.
Changing to the Constitution of the United States did nothing to change this process of assembly of the court. What did change is the pool of judges, 1 per State, would be continually seated once determined, when vacancies occurred within that pool, the State which suffered the vacancy would have to choose 3 persons from within their own State, where the State would supply the President with a list of persons that the President could nominate 3 persons from that list to be considered in congress to determine the choice by a majority of All the States, then that person would be appointed to the pool to fill the vacancy.
The Chief Justice is not one of the judges serving in the pool and cannot be chosen to hear and decide the matters adjudicated by the court. The Chief Justice presides over the proceedings of the court, they do not participate in those proceedings or in the decisions of the court.
The Supreme Court does not determine the cases it will hear! So says AI.
The issue here is not about armed cops. But “real security” is warped perception of reality, one mans real security is another mans threat to life.
Victor David Hanson is better.
Yes.
When I go into a large public space, it makes me happy to see a large man with a badge and a pistol on his hip. I like seeing armed policemen outside our church and outside our children’s schools. I am also confident that many of the men and women around me are armed. I have a good friend who is always armed in public.
Look, our system of public safety has largely failed. At best, the police can only react. Wherever real security is present, it has been privatized. Even the armed police at our schools and churches are privately employed and paid. Most large companies maintain secure offices and campuses.
The most vulnerable public places are those where weapons are discouraged or illegal: schools, churches, and synagogues. The sensible response is to facilitate armed and privatized security.
The issue here is not about armed cops. But “real security” is warped perception of reality, one mans real security is another mans threat to life.
“At best, the police can only react.”
Further, there is established precedent that police have no legal duty whatsoever to protect us (no matter what motto might be engraved on a cop’s shield); their singular obligation is to investigate and arrest for infractions of the law, after the fact. Defense against thugs is a personal responsibility (or one that needs to be explicitly delegated to another non-governmental party) for each of us. Default on that obligation, and you deserve very limited sympathy from the rest of us.
Established precedent? Citations please.
Supreme Court opinion on police duty to act:
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al. 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
United States Supreme Court
This is why no cop got into any trouble for standing by while children were murdered at Uvalde. They even stopped parents from attempting to rescue their own children. The cops that left a suicidal woman along the side of a dark highway after stripping her of the last shred of hope did not get in trouble for her almost immediately sitting in the middle of the highway to be killed by a truck. The excuse was “insufficient room” in the car, but had that backpack of hers contained $1,000,000 in cash and 40 kilos of cocaine or fentanyl I suspect there would have been room for that and her.
“had that backpack of hers contained $1,000,000 in cash and 40 kilos of cocaine or fentanyl I suspect there would have been room for that and her.”
Sorry, there would have only been room for the backpack. She would have been shot “attempting to escape” to preclude any legal claim she might have retained on the contents.