In a sweeping 6-3 decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s rigid concealed carry statute that had been in effect for the last two years.

The decision in Wolford v. Lopez targets the contentious “default rule” laid down by leftist lawmakers in the Aloha State. Hawaii’s Act 52, passed in the direct aftermath of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 Bruen decision, mandated licensed, law-abiding citizens to be preemptively barred from carrying concealed firearms onto private property open to the general public unless they received express permission from the owner of the establishment. Critics have dubbed the ban the “vampire rule,” pointing to the fact that it required citizens to wait for an invitation to exercise a constitutional right.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito stressed unanimously that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments are and must remain immune to dilution by innovative state-level measures.

“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Alito wrote. “We hold that the law is unconstitutional.” 

The Rejection of ‘Gun-Free Zone’ Subversion

Succeeding the Supreme Court’s recognition in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen of the right to keep and bear arms beyond the home, progressive sanctuaries like Hawaii, California, New York, and Maryland recklessly passed defensive legislation. Their goal was and remains strikingly simple: if there was no longer a course to deny permits arbitrarily, they would resort to making it a crime to possess a firearm in virtually any public setting by turning ordinary businesses, like gas stations, grocery stores, and malls, into gun-free zones.

Advocates, such as the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and several Maui residents who prompted the suit, contended that this unfounded restriction effectively nullified the right to carry in daily life. If someone with their concealed carry was out running ordinary errands and stopped to pump gas or buy groceries, they would potentially face misdemeanor charges and up to a year in prison.

The Trump administration adamantly endorsed the challengers, arguing that Hawaii’s law was a severe abuse of constitutional law. The ruling that came Thursday substantiates that position, preserving the presumption of liberty for Hawaiians.

Poor Past Substitutes

In an attempt to justify the unfounded law under the historical framework instituted by Bruen, Hawaii’s legal team endeavored to identify centuries-old anti-poaching statutes and pre-Civil War restrictions taken from Louisiana’s antebellum “Black Codes.”

The majority roundly discarded these attempted comparisons. Alito contended that these anti-poaching laws were contextually established to preserve private game, rather than to strip citizens of self-defense means. He went on to blast the state’s dependence on racist 19th-century codes contrived to keep black minorities defenseless.

“Unless we put history entirely out of our minds, Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously,” Alito declared. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a step further in a searing concurring opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “It is beyond me why Hawaii would claim that these vile laws can justify its present-day restriction,” Barrett wrote, detailing the hypocrisy in using historical tools of oppression to safeguard gun control.

The Dissents

Expectedly, the court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Elena Kagan asserted that property laws dating back to the Founders-era provided states the authority to implement anti-carry defaults. Alongside her was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who issued a pointed dissent accusing the majority of exploiting judicial tests to benefit firearms over the greater state legislature.

“Today’s decision makes one thing clear: the court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law,” Jackson penned. 

Despite these objections, the majority held to the foundational principle that constitutional rights do not simply disappear when a citizen steps onto a public sidewalk or enters a storefront. While the ruling widely steers clear of infringing upon the right of the individual, maintaining the business owners’ right to post “No Guns” signs if they have the inclination to do so, it abolishes the state’s role in disarmament as the legal default to an absolute.

What’s Next for the Other Safe-Haven States

The ramifications of Wolford v. Lopez reach far beyond the Hawaiian Islands. A devastating blow is dealt to similar and pending “default rules” in the states of California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, where legislatures have tried the same workaround to muzzle the Bruen precedent.

With this decision, the Supreme Court has delivered an unmistakable message to gun control proponents nationwide: the Constitution reigns as the supreme law of the land, and fraudulent attempts to relegate the Second Amendment to a substandard status will not abide.