Today the Supreme Court vindicated the Second Amendment in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule” in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The Court held that Hawaii’s law criminalizing licensed concealed-carry on private property open to the public absent the owner’s express consent imposes an impermissible burden on the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense.
Mastagni Holstedt, APC was privileged to file an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP), and the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) asking the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez. That brief supplied empirical support for the position the Court adopted today, demonstrating that “sensitive place” and default-prohibition regimes like Hawaii’s do not enhance public safety, that studies purporting to validate them are methodologically flawed (including failure to account for differences in permitting regimes), and that right-to-carry laws have not increased violent crime.
This decision also blocks California from enacting its own version of Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule.” Our firm filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting the challenge to California’s stricter default restrictions in May v. Bonta, a case the court considered at the same time as Wolford. The Ninth Circuit struck down California’s more aggressive rule. Had the Supreme Court upheld Hawaii’s law, California would almost certainly have fixed the defects in its own restrictions simply by copying the Hawaii model. By rejecting Hawaii’s approach outright, Wolford eliminates that workaround for good.
Hawaii had inverted the longstanding common-law default: property open to the public welcomed armed citizens unless the owner affirmatively prohibited entry. By flipping that presumption solely for those exercising a constitutional right, the State imposed a novel and substantial burden unsupported by history. The Court rejected Hawaii’s proffered analogs, including its unbelievable reliance on a racist 1865 Louisiana Black Code statute enacted to disarm newly freed Americans, as inconsistent with our constitutional tradition.
The Holding
In an opinion that will shape carry rights across the nation for years to come, the Court held that Hawaii’s law forbidding licensed concealed carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public, absent the express consent of the owner, violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and returned the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Given the Ninth Circuit's efforts to chip away at the right to bear arms one ruling at a time, the significance of that reversal cannot be overstated.
The majority recognized that the right to carry a firearm for self defense does not evaporate the moment a person steps onto a sidewalk, into a store, or through the doors of any of the countless private places that the public freely enters every day. At the heart of the ruling is the framework the Court announced in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that framework a court first asks whether the conduct a person wishes to engage in falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Court had little difficulty concluding that it does. Carrying a handgun for self defense is precisely the conduct the Amendment protects, and the people who hold valid permits are precisely the people the Amendment protects.
The Court then explained why Hawaii’s law imposes a new and substantial burden on that right. The common law had long followed a simple default rule. A member of the public was free to enter property open to the public unless the owner expressly forbade it. Hawaii inverted that rule for anyone carrying a firearm, forbidding entry unless the owner expressly allowed it. By flipping the default in this way, the State transformed a presumption of welcome into a presumption of exclusion, and it did so only for those exercising a constitutional right. That, the Court held, is a meaningful and modern burden that history does not support.
Why Hawaii’s History Failed
Because Hawaii could prevail only by pointing to a genuine historical tradition of comparable regulation, the State assembled a collection of old statutes and asked the Court to treat them as analogues. The Court found them wanting. Colonial laws aimed at poaching addressed a different problem in a different way and bore no meaningful resemblance to a sweeping prohibition on carry in modern commercial spaces. An Oregon statute from 1893 fared no better, both because it was far from clear that the law even reached property open to the public and because a lone statute enacted nearly a century after the Second Amendment, and well after the Fourteenth, tells us almost nothing about the original understanding of the right.
The most striking moment of the opinion came when the Court confronted Hawaii’s reliance on an 1865 Louisiana statute. That statute was part of Louisiana’s Black Code, one of the notorious laws enacted across the defeated Confederacy to keep newly freed Black Americans subjugated and defenseless. The Court refused to dignify it as evidence of our constitutional tradition. Drawing on its earlier decision in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court reminded the nation that the right to keep and bear arms was understood by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to be of critical importance to vulnerable Black citizens in the South after the Civil War, who needed firearms to protect themselves when no one else would. Against that backdrop the majority wrote that, in its words, “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.”
That single sentence does a great deal of work. It confirms that the historical inquiry Bruen demands is a serious and disciplined one, not an exercise in which a State may pull any racist statute from the shelf and call it tradition. It signals that laws born of oppression will not be repurposed to justify modern disarmament. And it makes clear that the Court intends Bruen to be applied with rigor by the lower courts that have too often resisted it.
What This Means for California
Although Wolford arose in Hawaii, its consequences reach directly into California. For some time California has defended its own restrictions on where permit holders may carry, restrictions so far reaching that critics have fairly described them as a measure that drains the permit of its value in the very places people most need protection. California had reason to believe it might preserve those restrictions by pointing to the Hawaii approach the Ninth Circuit had blessed. That path is now closed. By reversing the Ninth Circuit and rejecting the historical case for laws of this kind, the Supreme Court has effectively foreclosed California’s effort to rescue its own regime by conforming it to a model the high court has now condemned.
The ruling carries a further benefit for those in law enforcement, including retired officers. For years, Ninth Circuit precedent had taken a narrower view of these rights. In Mahoney v. City of Seattle (2017), the court rejected officers’ self-defense claims in challenging overly restirct use of force policies, in part because “current case law does not support the existence of a freestanding fundamental right to self-defense outside of the the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Relying on that erroneous understanding of the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit upheld restrictions on officers’ use of firearms in self-defense under intermediate scrutiny and the government-as-employer doctrine. The Seattle law at issue in Mahoney was silimar to early version of AB 931 and AB 392 in California.
Wolford decisively rejects this cramped analysis of Second Amendment and self-defense rights. By reaffirming that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of arms for self-defense as law-abiding citizens move through public spaces and private property open to the public the Supreme Court undercuts the reasoning in Mahoney. The Court unequivically held that such restriction are subject to a rigorous history-and-tradition test rather than deferential balancing. This ruling provides peace officers with significantly stronger constitutional footing to challenge restrictive California laws that impinge on their fundamental right to bear arms for protection, both on and off duty. For the retirees, the ruling sets a high floor on carry restrictions for those who must confront the lingering risks of a career in public safety.
The Road Ahead
The lasting importance of Wolford lies in the uniform national standard it reinforces. The Second Amendment means the same thing in Honolulu, in Sacramento, and in every community in between, and the historical test that governs its application will be applied with discipline rather than evaded. Restrictive carry regimes that purport to honor the right while quietly disarming permit holders in the spaces the public routinely accesses now stand on far weaker ground. Litigation will continue, particularly within the Ninth Circuit, and not every question is settled. The Court has drawn a clear line in favor of the law abiding citizens, the sworn officers, and the retirees who simply wish to protect themselves and their families.
We will continue to monitor how the lower courts apply this decision.
