Wolford v Lopez - Hawaii "Vampire" Carry Law

[mauserme]

Thank you for keeping us so well informed on so many of these cases.  Your efforts and insights are greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

[Yeti]

I second that Thank You!

 

As a side note, I enjoyed this comment:

 

"Why is this a big deal? If they want people carrying guns to stay out, just put up a sign," Alito said.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-strike-down-california-law-banning-guns-in-stores-and-restaurants/ar-AA1UBEBG

[ealcala31]

I wanted to piggy back on this case. I listened to oral arguments a few weeks ago, yes, I have all the time in the world being a local truck driver. Somewhere around the 1hr mark, Justice Barrett said, if you win this case. I was told you don't win cases before in this forum. I guess someone should email the associate justice and tell this former law professor that you don't win cases.

[EdDinIL]

Vampire rule overturned 6-3!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf 

[Yeti]

On 6/25/2026 at 9:57 AM, EdDinIL said:

Vampire rule overturned 6-3!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf 

Nice!  Here’s some media take:

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2026/06/25/supreme-court-hawaii-handgun-limits/90692056007/

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

I'm reading Justice Barrett's (Thomas and Gorsuch) concurring opinion starting on pg29.    This is important, because it looks like a whole section on how to apply Bruen's tests, and it looks helpful to us.  

 

Oof...  I spoke too soon, pg 37.   

 

It appears that she just reopened the door to interest balancing and is using Rahimi.  They are going to use "mass shootings" as a specific threat and abuse from here on out.  I can't believe Thomas and Gorsuch signed off on this opinion.   

Quote

Today, the right to bear arms is misused in other ways that were unknown to our forebears but pose an equivalent risk to persons or property. The antipoaching laws support the principle that when a State identifies specific places that are prone to particular “abuse” of the right, W. Rawle, View of the Constitution of the United States of America 123 (1825), it can respond with “focused regulations” to address the threat, Rahimi, 602 U. S., at 700. So the problem with Hawaii’s default rule is not that it targets a regulatory problem besides poaching. It is that the rule does not target any particular abuse of firearms at all. Rather than identifying a specific threat to public peace and safety, Hawaii admits that it enacted the rule because many of its citizens oppose the public carry of guns. In other words, Hawaii is responding to the general danger associated with the presence of firearms, not to any specific, heightened risk of their misuse. See 2023 Haw. Sess. Laws 114 (invoking general “risks to public health, safety, and welfare associated with firearms and gun violence”). And rather than confining the rule to specific places where firearms are likely to be misused, Hawaii applies it to all private property, even property held open to the public. From the hardware store, to the gas station, to the fast-food restaurant—individuals cannot carry weapons for self-defense unless they obtain express consent.6

 

Quote

 

Edited June 25, 2026 at 04:42 PM by Dumak_from_arfcom

[Euler]

Not the essential part of this particular opinion, but a bit amusing nevertheless:

Opinion said:

... [T]he Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States. ... It cannot give way to "the spirit of Aloha" in Hawaii, ... any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). It applies in the same way to our 50th State (where about 8% of adults possess guns) and our 49th State (where the figure is roughly 59%). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. ...

[Euler]

Just a reminder: this case isn't over. This Supreme Court petition regarded an interlocutory appeal on the preliminary injunction against the law, which covers a lot more than the vampire rule.

Now the case goes back down to the district court for the trial, which will probably still uphold all the other "sensitive" places. Wolford strategically elevated only the vampire rule to the Supreme Court in this petition. We could see the rest of the case come back later in another petition. Of course, there are several "sensitive" place challenges across the country, so Hawaii's isn't unique.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 6/25/2026 at 3:40 PM, Euler said:

Not the essential part of this particular opinion, but a bit amusing nevertheless:

 

Yeah, I really enjoyed the smackdown of the "Spirit of Aloha".    I was hoping we'd see something to the effect of...  if we were to take spiritual guidance into account, the "Spirit of '76" rules with strict scrutiny.  

[EdDinIL]

On 6/25/2026 at 4:11 PM, Euler said:

Of course, there are several "sensitive" place challenges across the country, so Hawaii's isn't unique.

Hawaii will probably pass a bill declaring the entire state to be a sensitive place.  The government there needs to be kicked in a sensitive place.  (Here in IL, too!)

[Yeti]

On 6/25/2026 at 11:38 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'm reading Justice Barrett's (Thomas and Gorsuch) concurring opinion starting on pg29.    This is important, because it looks like a whole section on how to apply Bruen's tests, and it looks helpful to us.  

 

Oof...  I spoke too soon, pg 37.   

 

It appears that she just reopened the door to interest balancing and is using Rahimi.  They are going to use "mass shootings" as a specific threat and abuse from here on out.  I can't believe Thomas and Gorsuch signed off on this opinion.   

What Amy Coney Barrett can tell us about the future of gun control

 

"In providing a concurring opinion, though, she does two things. First, she makes clear that  the Court isn’t going to make Second Amendment rights second class rights. And second, it shows the narrow path forward that states have to regulate guns. States wishing to impose gun control regulations must now focus on laws aimed at specific places where firearms present specific risks."

[Tvandermyde]

On 6/28/2026 at 8:26 PM, Yeti said:

What Amy Coney Barrett can tell us about the future of gun control

 

"In providing a concurring opinion, though, she does two things. First, she makes clear that  the Court isn’t going to make Second Amendment rights second class rights. And second, it shows the narrow path forward that states have to regulate guns. States wishing to impose gun control regulations must now focus on laws aimed at specific places where firearms present specific risks."

yea that last part smells like Schenthal is ripe to be revisited with a better strategy. I also think this was the velvet glove to the lower courts

 

sorry I've been out of touch, I've been on an Alaska Cruise with Amy

[EdDinIL]

On 6/28/2026 at 8:26 PM, Yeti said:

First, she makes clear that  the Court isn’t going to make Second Amendment rights second class rights.

Trick statement:  Many legislatures and courts already treat Second Amendments rights as second class rights, there's no need to make them that way.

[Yeti]

On 6/29/2026 at 9:01 AM, EdDinIL said:

Trick statement:  Many legislatures and courts already treat Second Amendments rights as second class rights, there's no need to make them that way.

Agreed, just quoting the article and hoping the pendulum starts to swing the way of proper 2A treatment.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 6/29/2026 at 10:35 AM, Yeti said:

Agreed, just quoting the article and hoping the pendulum starts to swing the way of proper 2A treatment.

 

They aren't going to interpret what I highlighted in red like the author of the article did.  They are going to see the same thing I did, and exploit it.  Just like in common use for legal purposes became in common use only for self defense.   Just like dangerous and unusual became dangerous or unusual. 

When we read these briefs and opinions, we should read them from the perspective of both sides. What can we use, and what can they use.  

 

 

[BobPistol]

On 6/25/2026 at 10:53 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Yeah, I really enjoyed the smackdown of the "Spirit of Aloha".    I was hoping we'd see something to the effect of...  if we were to take spiritual guidance into account, the "Spirit of '76" rules with strict scrutiny.  

 

There is no spirit of '76.  The constitution wasn't passed until 1791.  So it should be the spirit of '91

[Euler]

The Constitution was ratified in 1787. It was the Bill of Rights that was (mostly) ratified in 1791.

[SiliconSorcerer]

Was this posted if so delete i think it's good.

Jackson decent, she's on who's side?

[TomKoz]

On 6/30/2026 at 7:36 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Was this posted if so delete i think it's good.

Jackson decent, she's on who's side?

BUT lower courts, and anti 2A legislators will continue to ignore !!

[mab22]

On 6/29/2026 at 11:52 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

They aren't going to interpret what I highlighted in red like the author of the article did.  They are going to see the same thing I did, and exploit it.  Just like in common use for legal purposes became in common use only for self defense.   Just like dangerous and unusual became dangerous or unusual. 

When we read these briefs and opinions, we should read them from the perspective of both sides. What can we use, and what can they use.  

 

 

💯

As Sun Tsu said, To know your enemy, you must become your enemy. 
Personally I really don't think of them as an enemy, in America you have the right to be a dumb @55, unless your annoying me with it then I care. 

 

[mab22]

Washington Gun Law had some interesting takeaways from Wilford V Lopez.

Lots of clarifications for thing like Rahimi, Bruen, historical analogs, etc. 
Plus he uses a 1st amendment analog, suppose someone wearing a head scarf is not allowed into a place because of head scarf prohibitions....