In a recent video, gun rights journalist Cam Edwards says a new Supreme Court filing doesn’t just push back on Hawaii’s latest gun law.
He says it “drives a stake through the heart” of what activists now call the state’s “vampire rule.”
That rule flips the normal idea of private property on its head and treats every store, business and parking lot like a “no guns” zone unless the owner explicitly invites concealed carriers in.
According to Edwards, the plaintiffs’ new brief in Wolford v. Lopez lays out, step by step, why that rule collapses under the Supreme Court’s own Bruen test.
What Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” Actually Does
Edwards explains that Wolford v. Lopez is the first Second Amendment case the Supreme Court took this term.
Oral arguments are set for January 20, and he predicts the decision could arrive early next spring instead of being buried at the end of the term like past gun cases.
The law at the center of the case is Hawaii’s “default rule” for private property.
As Edwards describes it, the state has made it a crime to carry a concealed handgun on any private property open to the public unless the owner gives express permission.
Gun policy analyst Rob Romano of the Firearms Policy Coalition dubbed this a “vampire rule,” and Edwards leans into that label.
Just like vampires in old stories can’t come into your house unless invited, a lawful gun carrier in Hawaii can’t step onto private property open to the public with a firearm unless the owner has clearly said, “Yes, you may carry here.”
That may sound cute as a nickname, but the practical effect is anything but.
The Petitioners’ Brief: State Power vs. Property Rights
Edwards walks through the main brief filed by attorneys Alan Beck, Kevin O’Grady and Mark Pennak of Maryland Shall Issue, who represent the gun owners challenging the law.
Hawaii has tried to argue that this isn’t really a “state restriction” at all.
Officials claim the law just “effectuates” private owners’ choices, as if the government is simply helping landowners keep guns off their property.
The plaintiffs, as Edwards reports, call that argument nonsense.
They point out that the law is absolutely state action, because it uses government power and criminal penalties to bar people from carrying firearms onto private property that is open to the public.
If you violate the rule, you’re not getting a nasty note from the store manager.
You’re facing arrest and prosecution under a state statute.
Edwards says the brief is careful to stress that the challengers have “no quarrel” with the basic right of property owners to exclude anyone, including armed visitors.
The right to say “no” at your own doorstep is one of the core parts of owning property.
But the key point in the brief is this: that right belongs to the property owner, not to the government.
If Hawaii had simply passed a law saying you must leave when a business or homeowner tells you “no guns,” the plaintiffs say they wouldn’t even be in court.
The problem, as Edwards explains it, is that Hawaii went much further, making silence from the owner a crime trigger all by itself.
A Post-Bruen Backlash Disguised As “Safety”
Edwards notes that, according to the brief, only five states currently have anything like Hawaii’s default “no carry” rule.
And historically, he says, the number of states with such a rule was basically zero – maybe one at most.
The rest, he explains, are all brand-new creations that popped up after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022.
When Bruen said states couldn’t play games with carry permits anymore, several anti-gun states pivoted.
If they couldn’t keep people from getting permits, they decided they would keep those people from actually carrying anywhere meaningful.
Edwards says Hawaii’s law fits that pattern perfectly.
In the plaintiffs’ words, it’s “the same sort of broad prohibitionary regime” the Court has already rejected, because it leaves almost no place in daily life where you can legally carry.
One statistic in the brief really grabbed Edwards’ attention.
He says the plaintiffs calculated that Hawaii’s web of “sensitive places” plus the vampire rule make concealed carry illegal on about 96.4% of publicly accessible land in Maui County.
In plain language, that means the right to carry is technically recognized but practically erased.
The brief bluntly argues that Hawaii has “effectively nullified” the right to bear arms for millions of residents who simply want to go about their day armed for self-defense.
Hawaii’s History vs. National Tradition
Edwards also highlights one of the more unusual arguments coming from Hawaii’s side.
In earlier filings and in a related case called Wilson, Hawaii has tried to justify its rules by pointing to old laws from the time of the Kingdom of Hawaii in the 1800s.
The state basically claims that its own local history shows a long tradition of heavy restrictions on carrying weapons in public.
The plaintiffs, as Edwards reports, say that argument runs straight into a wall called the Supremacy Clause.
Under Bruen, the Supreme Court didn’t ask for a “Hawaii tradition.”
It asked for a national historical tradition of firearm regulation that lines up with the modern law.
Edwards agrees with the brief that you can’t let one island kingdom’s 19th-century preferences override the constitutional understanding at the Founding and at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment.
He notes that in his view, a real “national tradition” would need similar laws from a wide range of states and regions, not one or two outliers cherry-picked from distant decades.
And when it comes to bans like Hawaii’s vampire rule, the plaintiffs argue there just isn’t any such broad, nationwide tradition to be found.
The “Dead Ringer” Laws That Aren’t
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals nevertheless upheld Hawaii’s law, relying mainly on two old statutes it claimed were historical twins.
Edwards spends time walking through why the new brief says the Ninth Circuit got that wrong.
The first is an 1865 Louisiana law that made it illegal to carry firearms on the “premises or plantations” of a citizen without consent.
The plaintiffs, as summarized by Edwards, note that this law applied to private agricultural land that was already closed to the general public.
It had nothing to do with walking into a store, restaurant or gas station that invites customers in.
Worse, they point out that the 1865 law was part of the infamous “Black Codes” designed to strip newly freed slaves of their rights.
Using a racist Black Code as a model for modern gun control is not just historically weak, they argue – it’s morally offensive.
The second supposed “dead ringer” is a 1771 New Jersey law.
On its face, that statute barred carrying a gun on “lands not his own” for which the owner paid taxes unless the visitor had written permission.
The Ninth Circuit treated that as a statewide ban on armed entry onto all private property without express consent.
But the petitioners, as Edwards explains, say the judges simply misunderstood property law from that era.
In 1771, New Jersey only taxed “improved” or enclosed land — fields, houses and developed plots.
Wild, unimproved land wasn’t taxed and wasn’t covered by the statute.
So even under that law, someone could still lawfully walk armed on large amounts of privately owned ground.
By contrast, Edwards says, Hawaii’s vampire rule applies to every piece of private property, improved or not, so long as it’s open to the public.
The bottom line in the brief is that these old laws are not true analogues.
They don’t justify a modern, statewide default ban that flips the presumption against carry everywhere.
A Rule Designed To Make Carry Impossible
Edwards also points out a strange contradiction inside Hawaii’s own statutes.
For a list of specific “sensitive places,” like banks, Hawaii carved out an exception for adjacent parking lots.
Under that part of the law, a permit holder can park at the bank, store their gun lawfully in the car and still go inside unarmed to do business.
But the vampire rule for private property has no such safety valve.
If you need to go to a restaurant or store that falls under the default ban, Edwards says, you can’t legally bring your gun onto the parking lot to lock it in your vehicle – and you can’t carry it inside either.
The plaintiffs argue this kind of structure forces people to disarm for their entire day if they plan to visit any place that doesn’t explicitly opt in to allowing carry.
Edwards agrees with their description that this doesn’t “regulate” the right to bear arms.
It “eviscerates” it.
When almost every normal stop in a day – store, gas station, coffee shop, mall – is presumptively off-limits, the right to carry moves from theory to fiction.
Will The Supreme Court Finally Kill The Vampire Rule?
Looking ahead, Edwards says he’s surprisingly optimistic.
He believes the strength of this brief and the weakness of Hawaii’s analogies make Wolford v. Lopez a powerful vehicle to push back on post-Bruen overreach.
He even suggests this might not be a narrow 6–3 split.
In his view, one or more of the Court’s liberal justices could join the majority in striking down a law so extreme it wipes out carry rights on more than 90 percent of publicly accessible land.
Edwards is careful to admit he doesn’t know how broad the final ruling will be.
The justices might stick closely to Hawaii’s vampire rule or they might also say things that make it harder for other states to play similar games with “sensitive places.”
But on one point, he sounds almost certain.
He tells his audience he is “very confident” that this decision will mark the end of Hawaii’s vampire rule.
If that happens, the brief he just walked through may be remembered as the moment someone finally drove a legal stake through its heart.
This article first appeared on Survival World.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
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.
The article New brief delivers “stake to the heart” to Hawaii’s vampire rule first appeared on Survival World.
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.
