On Thursday, an attorney who played a role in convincing the Supreme Court to dismantle Hawaii’s concealed carry restrictions criticized the state’s use of outdated laws from the Reconstruction era to justify its regulations.
In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the court ruled that licensed gun owners in Hawaii don’t need special permission to carry their firearms onto privately owned properties that are accessible to the public. This particular policy had been nicknamed the “Vampire Rule” since it required legal gun owners to be “invited” before entering a business with their weapons.
Kevin O’Grady, representing the plaintiffs, expressed his disappointment, stating, “It’s disgraceful that any state would rely on a law designed to strip Second Amendment rights from Black individuals at that time.” He added that it was unsurprising for Hawaii, a state seemingly opposed to the Second Amendment, to lean on such outdated legislation. O’Grady mentioned they expected the Supreme Court to deem this law as fundamentally flawed.
A significant point of contention was Hawaii’s justification of its law, referencing the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Following Bruen, courts assessing firearm regulations typically consider whether these laws align with the historical context of firearm regulation in America.
Hawaii pointed to various historical laws, including an 1865 Louisiana statute included in the Black Codes, which prohibited carrying firearms onto another’s property without consent.
Justice Samuel Alito, representing the majority opinion, dismissed this justification outright, branding the Louisiana law as a “tainted product” meant to disarm freed Black Americans after the Civil War. He concluded that this law held no serious weight in discussing the Second Amendment’s original meaning.
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, contended that the court overlooked significant constitutional factors. She didn’t defend the Black Codes, acknowledging their oppressive intent, but questioned whether the Louisiana law violated the Second Amendment or if the issue was instead about its racially discriminatory enforcement.
Jackson noted, “It’s possible that the Black Code does not fit Bruen’s criteria.” Still, she suggested the court should have clarified why such laws had been dismissed as historical evidence.
She proposed two scenarios: either the gun regulations were constitutional but enforced unfairly based on race—warranting Equal Protection concerns—or they violated the Second Amendment. Jackson asserted that the court failed to address this issue before discarding the Louisiana law.
She further argued for a thorough examination of historical contexts, hinting at the complexity surrounding these laws. Criticism followed her remarks, with opponents highlighting that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in direct response to discriminatory laws like the Black Codes.
Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Gun Rights Association, emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment was created to challenge such laws, suggesting Jackson needed to revisit her legal education. Others, like Tyler Yzaguirre from the Second Amendment Institute, echoed these sentiments, asserting that such regulations don’t represent the country’s constitutional heritage and reflect governmental overreach to remove fundamental rights.
While businesses still have the authority to prohibit firearms through specific policies, the court clarified that Hawaii cannot make all businesses off-limits to licensed gun owners unless explicitly stated otherwise.
