The Second Amendment is not a suggestion, not a privilege, and not a right that evaporates when lawmakers grow uncomfortable with armed citizens.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, this case is about far more than Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule.” It is about whether states—and the federal courts that enable them—may openly defy Supreme Court precedent while pretending to follow it.

Gun owners have seen this playbook before. Legislatures lose at the Supreme Court, panic, and then repurpose the same unconstitutional scheme with new labels, daring the courts to stop them. Hawaii simply said the quiet part out loud.

---

A Right That Requires Permission Is No Right at All

Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” flips the Constitution on its head. Under the law, carrying a firearm on private property open to the public—grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, retail shops—is illegal unless the property owner affirmatively invites armed citizens inside.

Silence means prohibition.

That is not regulation. That is eradication.

The Founders did not fight a revolution so Americans could exercise constitutional rights only when pre-approved by the government or third parties. The Second Amendment was written precisely to prevent that kind of dependency.

---

The Supreme Court Already Settled This

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Justice Scalia emphasized:

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) incorporated this right against the states, ensuring jurisdictions like Hawaii could not treat it as optional or second-class.

Then came New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), where the Court rejected interest-balancing tests and replaced them with a historically grounded standard: modern firearm regulations must conform to America’s historical tradition of gun rights. Hawaii’s law fails that test spectacularly.

---

The Ninth Circuit’s Favorite Game: Pretend Compliance

The Ninth Circuit claims to follow Bruen, but in practice it does the opposite: uphold gun control first, then scour history for excuses. It has leaned on outlier and even discriminatory laws—such as an anti-poaching ordinance and a Reconstruction-era Black Code—as supposed “historical analogues” to justify sweeping bans on public carry.

These were never general public safety measures. They were tools of oppression. Yet the Ninth Circuit resurrects them anyway, because the goal is not historical fidelity—it is preservation of gun control.

---

Why the Ninth Circuit Keeps Losing

The Ninth Circuit does not lose at the Supreme Court because the law is unclear. It loses because, in Second Amendment cases, it has repeatedly resisted and narrowed Supreme Court precedent rather than applying it faithfully.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly corrected the Ninth Circuit and other lower courts that tried to cabin Heller and Bruen:

• Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) — the Court unanimously rejected a state court’s attempt to limit Heller to firearms in the home and exclude modern arms like stun guns.
• Duncan v. Bonta, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) — the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s interest-balancing ruling on California’s magazine ban and remanded for reconsideration under Bruen.
• Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), abrogated by Bruen — the Ninth Circuit’s claim that the Second Amendment does not protect public carry was invalidated by Bruen’s clear extension beyond the home.

This is not confusion. It is defiance. In case after case, the Ninth Circuit has treated Supreme Court precedent as something to be distinguished and sidestepped, rather than binding law that must be followed.

---

Even Rahimi Doesn’t Save Hawaii

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) reaffirmed Bruen’s historical framework, clarifying that relevant analogues must be legitimate and comparable. Hawaii’s sweeping presumption—that armed self-defense is banned everywhere unless permission is explicitly granted—has no historical precedent.

---

Rights Cannot Exist Only in Theory

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) demonstrates that rights cannot exist in name only. While Packingham involved the First Amendment and social media access, its reasoning underscores a basic constitutional principle: a right gutted by across-the-board prohibitions is no right at all. Hawaii’s Vampire Rule allows a “right” that cannot be exercised in any meaningful way. That is constitutional sabotage.

---

The Stakes Are National

If Hawaii’s law stands, every anti-gun legislature in America will copy it. Rights will be “allowed” but nowhere useful. Lower courts will claim they are powerless—while systematically eroding constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court warned against this in Heller:

“A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”

— Heller, 554 U.S. at 634

---

Conclusion

The Second Amendment is not negotiable. It is not conditional. It is not a favor granted by the government. Yet Hawaii’s Vampire Rule—and the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to apply Supreme Court precedent—treats it like a privilege, a nuisance, and a political tool.

Wolford v. Lopez is the Supreme Court’s chance to end this charade. Law-abiding Americans should never have to ask permission to exercise their constitutional rights. Any court that tries to nullify or neuter the Second Amendment must be reminded: the Constitution is not optional. It is supreme.

The Ninth Circuit has been warned repeatedly, yet it persists in defiance. Enough is enough. The Supreme Court must not only strike down Hawaii’s Vampire Rule—it must make clear that future attempts to circumvent the Constitution will fail. Rights are not suggestions. Rights are guarantees.

If the Supreme Court enforces the Second Amendment as written, law-abiding Americans everywhere will know one thing with certainty: our right to self-defense does not wait for permission, and no court may strip it away. The vampire has been unmasked. Now it is time to drive the stake.

SCOTUS Weighs Hawaii “Vampire Rule” As Gun Owners Challenge Default Ban On Carry In Most Private Businesses ~ VIDEO

Wolford v. Lopez: Why the Supreme Court’s Latest 2nd Amendment Case Risks Missing the Real Threat

---

About Sean Maloney.

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---