Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule,” the Supreme Court Challenge, and a State in Panic
Hawaii’s restrictive approach to concealed carry is once again under national scrutiny as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could reshape how states regulate where lawfully armed citizens may carry.
At the center of the controversy is Hawaii’s so-called “vampire rule”—a law that treats nearly all private property as gun-free by default unless the property owner gives explicit permission to carry. Even places clearly open to the public, such as gas stations, grocery stores, or retail shops, are covered by this presumption.
The rule is now being challenged before the US Supreme Court in Wolford v. Lopez, and early signals from oral arguments suggest the justices are deeply skeptical of Hawaii’s position.
For a deeper breakdown of how the vampire rule works and why it is being challenged, see our earlier coverage here:
Supreme Court Accepts Case Challenging Hawaii’s Ban on Carrying Guns on Private Property.
Why the Supreme Court Case Matters
The core question before the Court is whether a state may flip the presumption of a constitutional right—treating carry as illegal everywhere unless permission is granted—rather than recognizing carry as lawful unless expressly prohibited.
This is one of many big gun rights questions we've been working to get before SCOTUS for years along with things like the “Assault Rifle” bans, magazine capacity limits, and more.
During oral arguments, several justices appeared unconvinced that Hawaii’s approach is compatible with the Second Amendment or with the framework laid out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, states must justify modern gun restrictions by pointing to a well-established historical tradition—not isolated outliers or post-Civil War experiments.
Observers of the argument noted pointed questions from multiple justices, comparisons to First Amendment activity on private property, and strong resistance to Hawaii’s reliance on historically suspect laws, including racially motivated Black Codes. Taken together, the early read of the hearing looks favorable for gun rights supporters.
Hawaii’s Legislative Response: Not Reform, but Escalation
Rather than waiting for the Court’s decision, Hawaii lawmakers have responded by introducing a slate of new bills—an unmistakable sign that the state expects to lose, or at least fears a broad ruling.
Two proposals in particular stand out for their scope and, frankly, their absurdity: SB 3039 and SB 3041.
SB 3039: Mandatory Stun Guns for Concealed Carriers
SB 3039 is not a subtle workaround or a clever legislative adjustment. It is a blunt, punitive proposal that would require anyone lawfully carrying a concealed firearm to also carry an “electric gun,” such as a stun gun.
Under the bill, a concealed carry permit holder who is carrying a handgun but not also carrying a stun gun could face revocation of their permit.
In practical terms, this would condition the exercise of a constitutional right on compliance with a completely unrelated equipment mandate—one with no historical analogue, no demonstrated public safety benefit, and no grounding in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
This one is out of left field. I've never seen anything like it before and I struggle to understand the justification on such a ridiculous proposal. To be clear, I'm an advocate for having carrying less lethal defensive tools and having more options to defend oneself. But this oddly specific measure seems more likely to just prevent people from exercising their rights… and that might be the point.
SB 3041: Vague Mandates and Burdens on Every Business
SB 3041 takes a different approach, but it is no less problematic.
The bill would impose sweeping and poorly defined obligations on businesses across the state, effectively shifting the burden of navigating Hawaii’s carry laws onto private property owners. Its language is broad, its standards are unclear, and its compliance requirements are anything but straightforward.
In short businesses that allow the public on their property would have to post a color code sign that communicates if they do or don't allow concealed carry (guns and/or large knives) at the business. Wowzers. Apparently Hawaii doesn't think its good enough that some businesses don't want to be part of the drama at all. Neutral would no longer be an option.
From SB 3041: […]a yellow placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows either firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises, but not both[…]
This Case Is Bigger Than Hawaii
Although Wolford v. Lopez arises from Hawaii law, the implications extend far beyond the islands.
If the Supreme Court rules narrowly, Hawaii may be forced to abandon the vampire rule while other states continue experimenting with similar frameworks. But if the Court issues a broader decision—clarifying that constitutional rights cannot be nullified through default prohibitions or expansive sensitive-place designations—the impact could be nationwide.
States such as California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have relied heavily on post-Bruen strategies that designate large swaths of public life as off-limits to lawful carry. A strong ruling in Wolford could place many of those laws on constitutionally shaky ground.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision later this year. If Hawaii’s vampire rule is struck down, the state’s newly proposed bills are almost certain to face immediate legal challenges of their own.
What is clear already is that Hawaii’s response has not been one of restraint or recalibration. Instead, lawmakers appear to be testing how far they can go—even as the Supreme Court weighs whether their existing framework violates the Constitution.
