SCOTUS Set to Rule on Whether Property Owners Must ‘Allow’ the Second Amendment

In his latest video, attorney Tom Grieve says the Supreme Court has taken up what might be the most consequential gun-rights case since Bruen – and the stakes are enormous. According to Grieve, five states – Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York – now comprise “over 20%” of the U.S. population living under a regime where the default rule on private property is “no guns” unless the owner expressly authorizes carry.

If SCOTUS upholds that framework, he argues, the Second Amendment risks becoming a hollow promise for tens of millions of people whose daily lives unfold in stores, offices, apartment buildings, and parking lots that are technically “private property” but open to the public.

The “Vampire Rule” In Plain English

Mark W. Smith, the constitutional attorney who hosts The Four Boxes Diner, calls Hawaii’s approach (and similar laws elsewhere) the “vampire rule”. Like a vampire needing an invitation to enter, a lawful carrier cannot set foot – with a holstered firearm – on private property open to the public without express permission from the owner or manager. Smith’s practical point: in real life, you don’t know who the “owner” is at a gas station, you don’t plan which grocery you’ll stop at two hours into a road trip, and businesses almost never post “guns welcome” signs. As a result, he says, carry is effectively shut down across vast swaths of normal life.

From Hawaii To SCOTUS: Wolford v. Lopez

Both Grieve and Smith center this on Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s post-Bruen carry law. Grieve walks through the posture: a federal district court enjoined the default “no-carry-on-private-property” rule; the Ninth Circuit reversed, writing that “nothing in the text of the Second Amendment… suggests that a private property owner… must allow persons who bear arms to enter.” SCOTUS granted review. Grieve calls the Ninth Circuit’s framing a “gaslight,” not because owners must be forced to allow guns, but because the case is about who decides the default – owners or the state.

Property Rights Or State Mandate?

Grieve stresses that no one is arguing a café, church, or landlord lacks the right to say “no guns”. The controversy, he says, is the state making that decision for every owner, everywhere, and then forcing owners to “opt in” to the Constitution by posting special permissions. His baseline: private property owners already possess the right to exclude – by policy or sign – and trespass laws handle violators. Turning the default against carry, he argues, flips a recognized right on its head in a way we do not do for other constitutional freedoms.

A Narrow Question With Big Ripples

Grieve also notes the Court granted review on a single, tight question: the constitutionality of the private-property default rule. The justices did not take up broader “sensitive places” issues (e.g., bars, parks), nor did they agree to recalibrate Bruen’s “history and tradition” time horizon. Still, that narrow question has big ripples: if the state cannot set a universal anti-carry default across private property open to the public, a major post-Bruen work-around used by several states collapses. If the Court approves it, lawmakers everywhere get a template for throttling public carry without ever saying “ban.”

A New Supreme Court Trend, Per Mark Smith

Smith adds a procedural twist: Wolford arrives on what lawyers call an interlocutory posture – mid-case, after a preliminary injunction – not a final judgment. Historically, he says, SCOTUS avoided such grants, but 2025 looks different. Smith points to three recent examples: a Tennessee case on transgender medical restrictions, the Lisa Cook Federal Reserve case about presidential removal powers, and now Wolford – all taken on interlocutory appeal. His takeaway is that the Court may be more willing to resolve big constitutional disputes earlier, especially where lower courts have largely previewed the merits.

An Unusual Push From Washington

Both commentators say the federal government urged the Court to take Wolford. Grieve describes a rare, direct “friend of the court” push to grant review. Smith reads from the Solicitor General’s brief – filed by the Trump administration – arguing there was “no need for more percolation” because the Ninth Circuit’s 81-page decision already resolved the merits and “all but foreordains the final outcome”. If you accept Smith’s framing, the message to SCOTUS was: don’t wait; the legal question is ripe, the record is thick, and millions are affected right now.

If The Default Falls, What Changes?

A ruling against the default “no guns” rule would not force any proprietor to allow firearms. It would restore the traditional baseline: owners decide, not the state. In practice, that means lawful carriers could enter most private property open to the public unless a business posts “no guns” or otherwise communicates that rule. Grieve argues this aligns with how we treat other rights in everyday spaces – no one needs affirmative permission to wear a cross, read a Quran app, or don a campaign hat inside a grocery store; the owner can still say “not here,” but the government doesn’t pre-ban it. To me, that’s the cleanest, most liberty-respecting line.

If The Default Stands, What Follows?

Grieve warns that upholding the default invites a slow-motion nullification of public carry. If the government can make you “opt in” to a constitutional right on nearly all privately owned, publicly accessible ground – malls, gas stations, restaurants, rideshares, apartment lobbies – then carry becomes lawful only on sidewalks and a shrinking list of public parcels. Smith underscores the real-world friction: almost no business will affirmatively publish gun-friendly permission, confusion will chill participation, and enforcement becomes a booby trap for the unwary. I’d add: once “opt-in rights” are normalized for the Second Amendment, expect the idea to travel.

Defaults Should Favor Liberty And Owners

My view tracks the two lawyers on a core point: the state should not commandeer private property to diminish a constitutional right by flipping the default. The better rule is owner choice plus existing trespass law. That approach respects both sides of the ledger, individual rights and property rights, without turning the Bill of Rights into a permission slip regime. We do not require “express authorization” to carry a Bible into a bakery. We shouldn’t require “express authorization” to carry a lawfully possessed handgun into a hardware store – unless the owner says “not here.” Those who want “no guns” can and should post it.

Real-World Friction: Signs, Liability, And Enforcement

Even with a pro-carry ruling, businesses will need clarity. What counts as “express authorization”? A sign in the window? A policy on a website? A location in an app? Could an employee’s on-the-spot “that’s fine” bind the owner? Conversely, if a store posts “no guns,” what’s the penalty? Trespass? An enhanced firearms offense? States should keep enforcement proportional and simple, and they should avoid turning property owners into unwilling enforcers. To Smith’s point, if we want normal people to comply, the rules must be understandable at the speed of daily life.

Timeline, Curveballs, And The Road Ahead

Grieve says to expect oral arguments this winter and a decision late spring to summer. Smith cautions that Hawaii could try to “moot” the case by tweaking the statute mid-litigation, though that would invite its own complications. However it unfolds, watch for two bigger arcs: first, whether SCOTUS cements a practice of taking high-impact interlocutory appeals; and second, how lower courts apply Bruen’s “history and tradition” test to the remaining sensitive-places fights that SCOTUS did not take up here. On the narrow question presented, who sets the default on private property, I think the best reading of the Constitution is also the simplest: let owners decide, not the state.

A Small Question With Huge Consequences

Credit to Tom Grieve for hammering home how a clever “default rule” can sidestep a Supreme Court precedent in practice. And credit to Mark W. Smith for spotting the procedural sea change that got this question to the justices fast. However SCOTUS frames its opinion, the outcome will either reaffirm that constitutional rights don’t require an invitation, or it will normalize the idea that some rights do. If the Bill of Rights must be “opted into” on most of the ground where we actually live our lives, then the Constitution means less tomorrow than it did yesterday. I don’t think the Court wants to write that story.

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.