Supreme Court Takes Wolford v. Hawaii Gun Case

The Supreme Court Steps Back Into the Second Amendment Fight

For the first time since Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to clarify how far states can go in declaring vast portions of public life “gun-free.” On October 3, 2025, the Court granted certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez (Docket 24-1046), a Hawaii case that tests whether a state may criminalize the carrying of firearms on private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission.

This rule — dubbed the “Vampire Rule” — means lawful permit holders are forbidden to carry almost anywhere unless they’re “invited in,” much like vampires needing permission to cross a threshold. The stakes extend well beyond Hawaii: New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) included the same default ban under Penal Law §265.01-d. Whether that model can stand is now in the hands of the nation’s highest court.

How We Got Here: The Post-Bruen Backlash

After NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), states including New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, and Hawaii rushed to rewrite their carry laws. Each enacted sprawling lists of “sensitive locations” and “restricted places,” effectively turning entire cities into gun-free zones. Legislators argued this was necessary to preserve public safety, but critics said it was nothing more than open defiance of Bruen.

The result was a wave of new litigation. In Hawaii, that fight produced Wolford v. Lopez; in New York, Antonyuk v. James and Christian v. James; and in New Jersey, Koons v. Platkin. Each challenged the same idea: that the government could presumptively forbid carry nearly everywhere, shifting the burden to citizens to prove where their rights still applied.

The “Vampire Rule” — Rights Only by Invitation

Under Hawaii’s Act 52, law-abiding citizens cannot carry firearms on any private property open to the public — including stores, restaurants, parking lots, and churches — unless the owner posts a sign or gives express consent. That structure flips the constitutional default: instead of being free to exercise a right unless restricted, citizens are prohibited unless allowed.

This “Vampire Rule” has been derided by judges and scholars as an inversion of liberty. In Koons v. Platkin, U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb likened New Jersey’s near-identical law to a “de facto ban on public carry,” finding it incompatible with Bruen’s mandate. Hawaii’s version survived in the Ninth Circuit — and that disagreement now sits squarely before the Supreme Court.

The Circuit Split: Ninth vs. Second — and the National Impasse

Federal courts are now deeply divided. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule,” claiming it simply enforced private property owners’ rights. The panel accepted the state’s argument that historical analogues — like 19th-century restrictions in “fairs” and “public gatherings” — justified modern carry bans in private stores and malls.

But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion in Antonyuk v. James. There, the court struck down New York’s default ban on carrying in privately owned property open to the public, ruling that the government could not make an entire class of places off-limits without owner involvement. The court left intact other “sensitive location” provisions — such as bans in schools, government offices, and mass transit — but said the state had gone too far with the Vampire Rule.

Elsewhere, the Third Circuit (Koons v. Platkin) and Eighth Circuit (Worth v. Harrington) also invalidated sweeping location bans, while other jurisdictions upheld them. That patchwork has left citizens’ rights varying dramatically by ZIP code — an untenable outcome for a constitutional liberty.

Because lower courts now interpret Bruen in conflicting ways, only the Supreme Court can resolve the split and restore consistency to Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Wolford case is now the vehicle to do exactly that.

Heller, McDonald, and Bruen: The Constitutional Compass

To understand what’s at stake, it’s vital to recall what the Supreme Court has already said. Three landmark cases — District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) — define the modern Second Amendment framework.

Heller (2008)

In Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion made clear that this right is not granted by government — it pre-exists the Constitution and may not be “infringed.” The Court rejected D.C.’s handgun ban and its requirement that firearms in the home be rendered inoperable, emphasizing that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

McDonald (2010)

McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, binding every state and locality to respect the right to keep and bear arms. The Court reaffirmed that states cannot use claims of public safety or “local policy concerns” to override constitutional guarantees.

Bruen (2022)

Bruen completed the trilogy. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion established a new test: any modern gun regulation must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If no analogous law existed at the time of the founding (circa 1791–1797), the restriction is presumptively unconstitutional. The Court also declared that speculative claims of danger or “public good” cannot justify infringing fundamental rights.

Together, these rulings form the constitutional compass for every 2A case: the text controls, history guides, and “public safety” fears cannot displace freedom. Yet many states have acted as if Bruen were merely advisory — continuing to defend laws that flatly contradict it. That defiance is what Wolford is poised to confront head-on.

Why Wolford Matters — and What’s at Stake Nationwide

The question before the Court is simple but profound: can a state flip the default of liberty and make armed self-defense illegal everywhere by default? Hawaii and its allies say yes — that property owners’ theoretical rights justify a statewide presumption against carry. The challengers, led by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, argue that this presumption destroys the core right itself.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Wolford and the FPC, it could invalidate similar “default no-carry” provisions across the country — including in New York, New Jersey, California, and Maryland. It could also rein in the spread of “gun-free zone” expansions that have followed every major 2A victory.

Perhaps most importantly, the Court has an opportunity to reaffirm what Heller, McDonald, and Bruen already made clear: that the government cannot criminalize ordinary citizens based on fear or abstract notions of public good. Rights are not contingent on comfort; they are anchored in history and protected by text. The existence of danger has never been a constitutional basis for prohibition — if it were, every right could be extinguished whenever fear arises.

New York’s CCIA and the Ripple Effect Ahead

For New Yorkers, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wolford could reshape the entire Concealed Carry Improvement Act. Although the Second Circuit struck down the CCIA’s private-property default ban, it left in place a maze of “sensitive location” restrictions covering schools, parks, subways, and even Times Square. Those designations are now on shaky ground. If the Court reiterates that “public good” cannot override rights, those bans will need to be justified by genuine historical precedent — not politics or fear.

As NY SAFE has detailed in our sensitive-locations guide, most of the CCIA’s location restrictions have no equivalent in 18th- or 19th-century law. Wolford could become the catalyst that forces New York to rewrite or repeal them, restoring the presumption of liberty that Bruen demanded.

FAQ: Wolford v. Lopez, the Vampire Rule & the Future of 2A Law