In a surprising turn that stunned both legal experts and Second Amendment advocates, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear Wolford v. Lopez, a case challenging Hawaii’s strict firearm carry laws. According to attorney Eugene Volokh’s article for Reason, the DOJ argued that Hawaii’s law “effectively nullifies” the public’s right to bear arms as outlined in the 2022 NYSRPA v. Bruen decision. The DOJ’s brief marks a rare – and possibly historic – moment where the federal government is actively siding with gun owners in a major constitutional case.
The Legal Question at Stake
The case asks a pointed constitutional question: Can a state make it illegal for concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner gives express permission? As Volokh explains, Hawaii’s rule flips the traditional presumption on its head. Instead of allowing carry by default, Hawaii criminalizes it unless a business posts a sign welcoming firearms. That means gun owners can’t legally carry into most public-facing businesses, like grocery stores or gas stations, without risking jail time.
Bruen’s Impact Front and Center
Much of the argument from both the DOJ and pro-gun commentators centers on the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling, which emphasized that the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in American history. The DOJ stated that Hawaii’s law has no meaningful historical precedent and violates Bruen’s framework. “The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose,” the DOJ wrote, claiming the measure targets lawful carriers, not criminals.
William Kirk: ‘A Monumental Day for Gun Rights’
Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk reacted to the filing with enthusiasm, calling it “a monumental day for gun rights and the DOJ.” In a video posted to his YouTube channel, Kirk noted that this may be the first time in U.S. history that the Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief on behalf of gun owners. He said the brief read more like something from a gun rights group like the Firearms Policy Coalition than a government agency, emphasizing how major the shift in DOJ posture is under new leadership.
Trump-Era Appointments Shape DOJ’s Strategy
Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner and a constitutional attorney, credited the DOJ’s shift to recent appointments made under the Trump administration. He specifically named Solicitor General John Sauer and Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon as key figures behind the brief. “This is a sea change,” Smith said in his video. “They are not just supporting Wolford – they are encouraging the Supreme Court to take more Second Amendment cases.” For gun rights advocates, this could signal a long-awaited turn in federal legal policy.
Hawaii’s Law: A ‘Near-Complete Ban’ on Carry
The DOJ brief and all three sources harshly criticized the substance of Hawaii’s law. Because few businesses post signs explicitly allowing guns, the practical result is that concealed carry is nearly impossible anywhere on the islands. William Kirk called the policy “an islandwide ban on concealed carry,” and the DOJ agreed, describing it as “flatly inconsistent” with both historical norms and the Bruen ruling. Volokh’s article pointed out that the law includes questionable carve-outs for off-duty and retired law enforcement, undermining any claim that the law protects private property rights.
Why This Case Matters Now
The DOJ is pushing the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, formal review of the case, despite it still being in an interlocutory phase, which usually makes review unlikely. Still, the DOJ argued that the Wolford case offers an ideal vehicle to clarify where guns may be carried in public. “Personnel is policy,” Smith remarked, underlining how recent Senate confirmations have reshaped the DOJ’s stance. The brief even hinted at future challenges to similar laws in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey.
A Challenge to the ‘Vampire Rule’
Smith and others refer to Hawaii’s policy as a “vampire rule,” because gun carriers are presumed to be in the wrong unless explicitly invited in, much like the fictional vampire needing permission to enter a home. This inversion of legal norms is exactly what the DOJ condemned in its brief. “From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the owner directs otherwise,” the brief said. The shift to requiring express permission represents a radical and unlawful departure from tradition, the DOJ contends.
Gun Control Advocates on the Defensive
While gun rights groups celebrate, the ruling puts states like Hawaii in a tight spot. As Volokh noted, five states representing over 20% of the U.S. population have adopted similar post-Bruen laws. If the Court hears Wolford and rules against Hawaii, those laws could collapse like dominoes. The DOJ’s involvement raises the stakes dramatically. As Smith put it, “The solicitor general’s office is often called the ‘10th Justice’ for a reason.” When it urges the Court to act, the Court often listens.
A Rare Moment of Unity
Let’s be honest – when the Department of Justice sides with lawful gun owners, it’s not something we expect. It’s almost jarring. For decades, DOJ briefs have typically leaned toward gun control or neutrality. This is different. This is proactive support. It’s one thing for advocacy groups to fight these battles – it’s another for the federal government itself to stand behind the Constitution in a meaningful, aggressive way. And for a lot of people, especially those in states like Hawaii, it feels like vindication.
Will the Supreme Court Take the Case?
Here’s the wild card – there’s no guarantee the Supreme Court will agree to hear Wolford. Certiorari is never guaranteed, especially for cases still in preliminary stages. But this case checks a lot of boxes: a split between federal circuits, a direct conflict with Bruen, and now a major federal agency urging review. If SCOTUS does take the case, it could deliver one of the most important gun rights decisions since Bruen or even Heller. And if they pass? Well, the fight isn’t over, but it would be a bitter pill for advocates.
A Turning Point in 2A Law?
The Wolford v. Lopez case may still be in the early rounds, but this week marked a massive shift. With the DOJ filing an amicus brief in favor of gun rights, something almost unthinkable just a few years ago, the legal landscape may be changing. As Smith, Kirk, and Volokh each explained, this could be the beginning of a larger trend: federal institutions taking a stand for the Second Amendment, not against it. Whether or not the Supreme Court hears Wolford, the message is loud and clear – this isn’t business as usual anymore.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.