After Years of Silence, the Supreme Court Accepts a Major Second Amendment Case

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major gun-rights case out of Hawaii, and it’s already reshaping the national conversation. Reporter Ray Lewis at KOMO News confirms the Court accepted Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s rule that presumes private property open to the public is a gun-free zone unless the owner gives permission. That’s not a small procedural blip. It’s the Court stepping into a fight that began right after Bruen and has since spread across multiple states.

What the Case Actually Asks

Ray Lewis explains the core question clearly: Did the Ninth Circuit err when it allowed Hawaii to ban licensed handgun carry on publicly accessible private property unless the landowner says “yes”? The petitioners – Jason and Alison Wolford, Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition – argue the Ninth Circuit misread Bruen and relied on the wrong historical analogies. They say the decision turned the right to carry into an illusion, because everyday places like stores, gas stations, and theaters would be off limits by default.

How the Court Took It – And How Much

Attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law notes that the grant came on a Friday “miscellaneous orders” list and is limited to Question One in the petition. That narrow scope matters. The Justices are focusing on the default rule for private property open to the public, not the entire web of “sensitive places” Hawaii created. Kirk treats the grant as a big deal anyway, because the Court rarely takes Second Amendment cases – especially when they’re still at the preliminary-injunction stage.

The Ninth Circuit’s Path to This Moment

Lewis reports that the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court injunction and allowed Hawaii to enforce its default no-carry rule, alongside other sensitive-place restrictions like bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, and beaches. Kirk walks through the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning: the panel said carry is covered by the Second Amendment’s “plain text,” but then upheld Hawaii’s rule by leaning on historical examples. He highlights two cited laws – one from New Jersey in 1771 and one from post-Reconstruction Louisiana – as the supposed “dead ringers” the Ninth used to justify the modern default.

Petitioners Say Bruen Was Misapplied

Lewis reports that the Wolford petition calls out the Ninth Circuit for relying on analogies Bruen did not permit. In the petitioners’ view, the decision effectively lets Hawaii eviscerate the right to carry by flipping the presumption: instead of carry being lawful unless a property owner opts out, carry becomes unlawful unless a property owner opts in. The language quoted by Lewis is blunt – the Ninth Circuit’s rule “renders illusory the right to carry in public,” and should not be allowed to stand.

Hawaii’s Counter: Property Rights and Patience

According to Lewis, Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez argues the Ninth Circuit got it right. She says the state’s default rule vindicates the rights of citizens to exclude armed individuals from their private property and that the Court should either deny review or wait for more “percolation” in the lower courts. In her view, the decision follows precedent and finds adequate historical support for both the default property rule and the state’s list of sensitive places.

Kirk’s Take: The “Vampire Rule” Problem

Kirk calls Hawaii’s approach the “vampire rule,” because lawful carriers can’t enter private property open to the public unless invited in. He emphasizes how impractical it is: you’d be hunting for “guns allowed” signs or chasing down owners for permission everywhere you go. He also underlines the Ninth Circuit’s thin historical footing and the unusual reliance on two scattered laws to build a national “tradition.” In his read, Bruen rejected that kind of interest-balancing dressed up as history.

Copper Jacket TV: Limited Grant, Huge Stakes

William at Copper Jacket TV stresses that the Court granted review only on Question One, but he argues that’s the question that counts. He ties the moment back to Bruen, noting how one carry case from New York reshaped Second Amendment law nationwide. He warns against seeing this as a token gesture – “throwing peanuts,” as he puts it – and urges close attention to the decision’s wording. Even a tightly framed ruling on Hawaii’s default rule could ripple across the entire “sensitive locations” debate in multiple states.

Four Boxes Diner: A Split, DOJ’s Role, and an Unusual Posture

Attorney Mark W. Smith at The Four Boxes Diner frames the grant as “major breaking news.” He says the Ninth Circuit itself treated similar laws differently – finding California’s version unconstitutional while green-lighting Hawaii’s – creating the kind of conflict that draws Supreme Court review. Smith also highlights something unusual: he says the U.S. Department of Justice urged the Court to take the case, which he views as a positive signal for the Second Amendment. He flags the interlocutory posture too, arguing the Court took this early because the question is clean and the Hawaii rule is so sweeping that it’s an “easy” problem to fix.

Why the Default Rule Matters in Real Life

Here’s why this fight hits home. Most of public life happens on private property open to the public – stores, malls, theaters, gas stations. If carry is illegal in all of those places unless you track down specific permission, the practical right to carry collapses. The “vampire rule” doesn’t just chill exercise; it freezes it. You’d be constantly at risk of committing a crime by stepping across a threshold. That’s what makes this case feel bigger than a narrow property rule. It’s about the line between a theoretical right and a usable one.

The Mootness Trap and the Clock

Smith raises a savvy warning: a state can sometimes pull the plug on a challenged law after the Supreme Court grants review, mooting the case and dodging a decision. He points to how fast legislatures can move when court stakes get high. If Hawaii repealed or rewrote the default rule now, local carriers might win relief, but the broader legal question would go unanswered. That would keep the national map fractured and push the fight into another case, another term, and more uncertainty for everyone else.

What This Could Clarify About Bruen

Both William at Copper Jacket TV and Mark W. Smith expect the Wolford ruling to influence how courts handle sensitive places and historical analogies. Even though the grant is limited to the private-property default, any explanation of what counts as valid history – and how far states can stretch analogies – will echo across ongoing battles. If the Court says default no-carry rules are out of bounds, it will also signal how strictly Bruen’s method constrains creative workarounds in the lower courts.

The Road Ahead

Kirk says there’s no oral-argument date yet, but the case is on the docket and moving. Lewis’s reporting shows both sides are dug in: petitioners saying the Ninth rewrote Bruen, and Hawaii insisting it’s protecting property rights within historical tradition. William at Copper Jacket TV is watching for careful language that can travel; Mark W. Smith is watching for last-minute legislative games. However the Court rules, this grant finally breaks a long quiet streak on the Second Amendment and puts a real-world carry question squarely before the Justices.

Setting the Tone for Carry Rights

Ray Lewis confirms the Supreme Court has taken Wolford v. Lopez. William Kirk explains the grant is limited to the core question and came through a rare Friday order. William at Copper Jacket TV underscores how even a narrow ruling could reshape the sensitive-places landscape. Mark W. Smith sees strong signals in the grant itself, the DOJ’s stance as he describes it, and the possibility that the Court was willing to take this early because the issue is ripe. After years of silence, the Justices are back in the 2A arena – and what they say about Hawaii’s “vampire rule” will set the tone for carry rights across the country.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.