Supreme Court Justices React to Hawaii’s Gun Carrying Rules

On Tuesday, Supreme Court justices expressed surprise as attorneys defending Hawaii’s “vampire rule”—which prohibits carrying guns onto private property without permission—mentioned racist laws as part of their argument for gun control.

During the proceedings, they pointed to the Negro Act, a post-Civil War law aimed at limiting the rights of African Americans, suggesting it reflects a long-standing restrictive tradition in U.S. gun laws.

Justice Neil Gorsuch challenged attorney Neil Katyal, asking, “How do you believe these black codes should influence this court’s decision? This is genuinely astonishing.”

The discussion revolved around whether Hawaii could restrict handguns from being carried onto publicly accessible private properties like hotels, without the property owner’s explicit consent.

Katyal acknowledged the Negro Code as a “shameful time” in history but claimed that some elements of the law could be viewed as “race-neutral.”

He went on to argue that this historical context supports the idea that individuals don’t have a right to carry firearms onto someone else’s property without consent.

However, Justice Samuel Alito raised a compelling point, inquiring, “Wasn’t the objective of these laws to disarm African Americans in the post-Reconstruction South, thereby infringing on the rights the Second Amendment is designed to protect?”

Alito noted the irony in citing these laws, saying, “They aimed to disarm black individuals to control them. The Klan terrorized them, after all. Isn’t it paradoxical to refer to this?”

Justice Clarence Thomas later agreed, emphasizing that the 14th Amendment was created to counteract racially biased laws like the Negro Code, which could complicate Hawaii’s case.

The Supreme Court is expected to provide a ruling by late June, making this among the most significant Second Amendment cases in recent years.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier upheld Hawaii’s legislation, and multiple states, such as New York, New Jersey, and California, have enacted similar measures.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defended mentioning the Negro Code, explaining it was relevant for the legal standards required in a recent case that eliminated New York’s previous “special cause” requirement for handgun carry permits.

She stated, “Historical context is crucial here. The fact that the Black Code was deemed unconstitutional at some point doesn’t diminish its relevance to the inquiry we’re facing.”

Throughout nearly two hours of oral arguments, there appeared to be widespread concern among justices regarding Hawaii’s law, even as liberal justices heavily scrutinized the lawyers advocating for its repeal.

Justice Alito remarked to Katyal, “You’re effectively placing the Second Amendment in a subordinate role.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh speculated that this case might be “very straightforward,” given the existing legal precedents that demand an examination of similar histories involving gun control.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted examples where individuals possess an inherent right to move freely, such as walking to a gas station or delivering flyers around neighborhoods.

The justices largely seemed unconvinced by Katyal’s defense of Hawaii’s gun regulations anchored in precedent.

Attorney Alan Beck, representing a gun rights group, contended, “Every private property owner retains the right to post signs prohibiting guns. Our argument centers on how we can correct the historical inadequacies of current laws to specify that firearms are not permitted here.”