The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday regarding a Hawai‘i law restricting concealed firearms. The case challenges the state’s 2023 amendment to its gun control regulations, often referred to as the “vampire rule.”
The law prohibits individuals from carrying concealed firearms onto private property without the owner’s explicit consent, and also restricts firearms in locations such as beaches, parks, and restaurants serving alcohol.
Legal Challenge and Plaintiffs
Three Maui residents—Jason and Alison Wolford, and Atom Kasprzycki—along with the Hawai‘i Firearms Coalition, filed a lawsuit challenging the law. All three individual plaintiffs hold licenses to carry concealed handguns and, according to court filings, previously carried firearms on private properties without issue.
Arguments Presented
Alan Beck, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Hawai‘i had overstepped its authority under the Second Amendment, lacking sufficient justification for the law. Neal Katyal, representing Hawai‘i, countered that there is no constitutional right to assume that an invitation to private property includes an invitation to bring a gun.
Precedent and Historical Laws
A significant portion of the arguments centered on whether Hawai‘i’s law had legal precedent. Hawai‘i’s court filings cited an 1865 Louisiana law and a 1771 New Jersey law as examples of similar restrictions.
Beck raised concerns about the historical context of the Louisiana law, noting it was part of the “Black Codes” enacted after the abolition of slavery to restrict the rights of newly freed Black citizens. He also stated the New Jersey law was an anti-poaching measure focused on specific enclosed lands and predates the country’s formation. Katyal acknowledged the problematic origins of the Black Codes but maintained they still hold legal significance.
Court Decision
The Supreme Court did not issue a ruling on Tuesday and a decision is anticipated in the coming months.
