Supreme Court Accepts Case Challenging Hawaii’s Ban on Carrying Guns on Private Property

Reader Warning: This case has only been accepted for review—no ruling yet. Hawaii’s “vampire rule” remains in effect while the Supreme Court considers the matter, and other states with similar provisions are also still enforcing their laws. Don’t change your carry practices based on headlines alone.

What’s This Case About?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wolford v. Hawaii (captioned below as Wolford v. Lopez), a direct challenge to Hawaii’s “default no-carry” provision—often called the “vampire rule.” The law flips the normal presumption on its head by banning carry on privately owned property open to the public (think grocery stores, gas stations, theaters) unless the owner affirmatively gives permission. In other words, you’re out unless invited in.

This kind of approach is unusual. For most concealed carriers in America it is a lot to wrap your head around. I feel bad for my gun toting friends in Hawaii who deal with this. Instead of a handful of business posting no gun signs (what I'm used to dealing with), in Hawaii you have a handful of businesses posting guns allowed signs. Everywhere else guns are effectively prohibited. Nuts right?

Why It Matters After Bruen

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court said modern gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. A statewide default ban on carry across virtually all public-facing private property looks a lot like a near-total carry prohibition by another name—precisely the kind of post-Bruen workaround that courts are now scrutinizing.

The Background: A Circuit Split and a Fast Track to SCOTUS

This issue has been litigated heavily since states like Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland adopted post-Bruen “sensitive places” expansions and the no-carry default rule. Notably, the Ninth Circuit first ruled the California Vampire Rule as unconstitutional before now upholding Hawaii’s default ban., Additionally the 2nd Circuit Court also ruled this type of law as unconstitutional — creating a conflict ripe for Supreme Court review.

What SCOTUS Did (and Why It’s Significant)

On October 3, 2025, the Court granted certiorari, zeroing in on whether the Ninth Circuit erred by allowing Hawaii to presumptively prohibit licensed carry on private property open to the public unless owners expressly allow it. That narrow grant signals the justices want to decide this core question, not every other piece of Hawaii’s broader “sensitive places” law.

Ally: The U.S. Department of Justice

In a notable move, the U.S. Department of Justice urged the Court to take the case—arguing the default-ban approach contradicts the American tradition where carry on private property has generally been permitted unless the owner says otherwise. DOJ’s amicus brief framed Hawaii’s law as a sharp departure that affects tens of millions of Americans across multiple states.

What’s at Stake for Gun Owners Nationwide

• The default rule everywhere: A ruling against Hawaii would reinforce the traditional presumption: carry is allowed unless an owner posts or tells you otherwise. That would also put similar provisions in CA, NJ, NY, and MD on the chopping block.
• Practical carry reality: Default no-carry effectively makes ordinary errands “gun-free” unless you chase down managers for permission—undermining the right recognized in Bruen.
• Signs and property rights: Even if Hawaii loses, property owners retain the right to prohibit firearms on their premises with clear notice. A pro-2A ruling would protect carry as the default while respecting posted “no guns” policies.

Watch This: The “Mootness” Gambit

There’s a real possibility Hawaii could repeal or rewrite the law mid-case to make the dispute disappear—just like New York did in 2020 to derail a Supreme Court carry case. If that happens, the Court could dismiss the case as moot, delaying a definitive nationwide ruling on the default-ban tactic.

Bottom Line

Pro-2A outlook: The Court took the case with a tight question presented, the DOJ is on the side of historical tradition, and the record is clean enough for a decisive opinion. If the justices reach the merits, Hawaii’s “vampire rule” faces an uphill battle. Until then, follow the law where you live and watch this space for updates.

Editor’s note: For continuing coverage of Wolford v. Hawaii and other major gun-rights cases, subscribe to our newsletter at ConcealedCarry.com.