Wolford v Lopez - Hawaii "Vampire" Carry Law

[Euler]

On September 6, 2024, the 9th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that prohibited carry onto private property in Hawaii unless the owner specifically permitted it, while simultaneously affirming a similar injunction in California.

On April 1, Wolford filed a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court. (Docket)

Petition for certiorari said:

The questions presented are:

1. 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?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?
...

This petition for certiorari regards (reinstating) the preliminary injunction in Hawaii.

On April 8, Hawaii filed a motion to extend the deadline to respond.

On April 10, the Court extended the deadline to respond to June 4.

Edited April 12, 2025 at 05:23 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On May 1, NAGR and DOJ separately filed amicus briefs in support of petitioners.

The petition is still about a preliminary injunction rather than a fully litigated case. I wonder whether it's another opportunity to address the Gray v Jennings question of whether suspension of a 2A right is the same kind of irreparable harm that suspension of any other constitutionally protected right is.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rarely grants petitions on preliminary injunctions.

[Upholder]

26 States have now also filed an Amicus brief in support of SCOTUS accepting the case

 

 

[Euler]

On June 4, Hawaii responded to the petition.

[Euler]

On June 16, Wolford replied.

[Euler]

The petition has been scheduled for conference in September.

[Euler]

On September 15, Wolford supplemented the record with three additional, recently decided cases, indicating a deeper circuit split on the issues.

Koons v Platkin: The 3rd Circuit ruled that NJ's "vampire" law is not constitutional as applied to most private property which is open to the public. It did hold that places where vulnerable populations congregate (such as schools, hospitals, and public transit), could be deemed "sensitive," and arms could be banned from them. (Unloaded and encased arms could be transported on public transit.) Arms could also be banned from gatherings which required a permit on public property.

Schoenthal v Raoul: The 7th Circuit ruled that bans on firearms, unless unloaded and encased, on public transit are constitutional.

Giambolvo v Suffolk County: The 2nd Circuit ruled that the requirement of "good moral character" for a carry license is constitutional, contrary to the Supreme Court's Bruen decision.

For places where Koons found bans to be constitutional, it relied on post-Founding era laws and private codes. Both Schoenthal and Giambolvo also relied on post-Founding era laws and precedents. All three cases employ high levels of generality of circumstances to justify their conclusions. Other circuits have held close to Bruen that post-Founding-era laws can be informative, but only as confirmation of Founding-era tradition, not contradiction of it.

Wolford also refers to the Iryna Zarutska case and points out the need for immediately accessible, immediately useful weapons on public transit.

[bcook619]

Supreme Court takes Second Amendment case challenging Hawaii gun law

[ealcala31]

What does IL CCL Holders stand to gain in this case? We don't have a "vampire" CCL law. Or could this stave off IL trying to enact a "vampire" law.

[Euler]

On October 3, the Court granted certiorari for only the first question presented.

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?

The question it did not grant certiorari is:

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?

[Euler]

A favorable decision should prevent IL from enforcing a vampire law, should the ILGA pass one. A rising tide lifts all boats.

BTW, the Court granted cert in this case with only a single conference. Somebody apparently thinks it's going to be a really important, really easy decision.

Edited October 3, 2025 at 09:06 PM by Euler

[EdDinIL]

On 10/3/2025 at 4:04 PM, Euler said:

A favorable decision should prevent IL from enforcing a vampire law, should the ILGA pass one. A rising tide lifts all boats.

A vampire law would turn "you can't carry if it's posted"  to "you can't carry unless it's posted", right?  Cool, new Browning stickers!

[Euler]

On October 3, 2025 at 04:35 PM CDT, EdDinIL said:→

A vampire law would turn "you can't carry if it's posted" to "you can't carry unless it's posted", right? ...

Yes.

[Upholder]

Predicting the actions of the court is a fool's errand, but a ruling in the case could be very narrow and only discuss vampire laws (default that you cannot carry unless invited, hence the name) or it could be broader and put down a framework for rulings about sensitive places.  A framework for sensitive places could be very useful in Illinois because we have so many places that are prohibited.

 

They could also decide that they want to be more forceful about the Heller methodology and what burdens are on which party at which step (which is already pretty clear, but the courts are "confused" about things).

[Euler]

On October 3, 2025 at 06:15 PM CDT, Upholder said:→

...
They could also decide that they want to be more forceful about the Heller methodology ...

If they wanted to do that, I think they would not have excluded the second question. Expanding the first question to specify criteria for sensitive places is plausible, I think. Either way, we'll probably find out next summer.

[gunuser17]

My impression is that the second question, for which cert was not granted, is so intimately intertwined with the first question that there was no reason to have the second question. 

[ealcala31]

It's a possibility that SCOTUS couldn't get enough votes to cert Q2. 

[Tango7]

On 10/3/2025 at 4:35 PM, EdDinIL said:

A vampire law would turn "you can't carry if it's posted"  to "you can't carry unless it's posted", right?  Cool, new Browning stickers!

 

On 10/3/2025 at 6:09 PM, Euler said:

Yes.

 

As Euler (and others) probably remembers, identical language was part of Quimby's Amendatory veto of HB 183 back in 2013... more proof they have a reservoir of fabricated filth where they obtain the ink they use to blot out our Rights.

[Euler]

Stamboulieh expects Hawaii to try to moot the case. I still think it would be voluntary cessation, if it tries, and that the court should see through it, but that didn't happen in the first NYSRPA case.

[Upholder]

One difference between the first NYSRPA case and this one is that the case concerned a NYC restriction and the NY State legislature made re-implementing that restriction a violation of state law.

 

In this instance, the legislature passed this original law and if it repealed it in an effort to moot the case, they could very easily simply pass it again once the case was dismissed.

 

That may be seen as a significant enough difference to keep the case alive as there is precedent for doing so when the court believes the system is being "gamed".

[davel501]

On 10/5/2025 at 10:07 AM, Upholder said:

One difference between the first NYSRPA case and this one is that the case concerned a NYC restriction and the NY State legislature made re-implementing that restriction a violation of state law.

 

In this instance, the legislature passed this original law and if it repealed it in an effort to moot the case, they could very easily simply pass it again once the case was dismissed.

 

That may be seen as a significant enough difference to keep the case alive as there is precedent for doing so when the court believes the system is being "gamed".

 

That law seems like such a low bar. The legislature could repeal it as part of the bill passing it again. I'm guessing a state court would strike it on first amendment grounds too. 

[Euler]

On November 12, the Court set oral argument for January 20.

[Upholder]

On November 24, the US Department of Justice filed an Amici brief supporting the plaintiffs and the Second Amendment

 

 

[Upholder]

On November 25th, the Department of Justice asked for 10 minutes to participate in the oral arguments

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2025 at 05:57 AM by Upholder
Link to the request

[Euler]

On December 17, Hawaii filed its brief.

[Euler]

On January 9, the Court granted the motion of the DOJ to participate in oral argument. Also, Wolford replied to Hawaii's response.