Supreme Court Puts a Stake in the Heart of “Vampire” Gun Rule
The Supreme Court ended a law that barred gun owners from private property, like restaurants, without explicit permission from the property owner.
PPT Editor-in-Chief. Professional journalist 15+ years. NRA & BLS instructor. 2000+ articles
We review products independently. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn a commission to help support our testing. Learn more.
A controversial state law surrounding “gun-free zones” met its end at the hands of the Supreme Court this week.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court overturned a law that prohibited gun owners from carrying handguns on publicly accessible private property, such as a business, without first getting permission from the owner.
The case, Wolford v. Lopez, challenged a Hawaiian law that classified all private property open to the public as “gun-free zones” unless the owner gave permission for a concealed carrier to enter the premises.
Regulations like these, seen in a handful of states, are often termed “vampire laws” — named after the novel Dracula. In Bram Stoker’s story, the Count "may not enter anywhere at the first, unless there be some one of the household who bid him to come."
In addition to Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey all have laws on the books that require that gun owners receive permission from the property owner in advance before carrying.
In most other states, gun owners can carry guns onto private property unless the property owner states otherwise.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 24-page opinion for the conservative majority. He noted that, “Hawaii’s new default rule is part of a tight web of laws that severely restricts the carrying of firearms for self-defense.”
He added, “The effect of this new rule is to impose severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the state's rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit.”
As such, the majority ruled that “The Hawaii law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented, arguing that the Aloha State’s law is merely property law and does not violate the Second Amendment.
“To hear the majority tell it, Hawaii’s law is a blatant attempt to end-run our Second Amendment precedents. But the statute at issue does no such thing. Instead, it fairly applies a first principle of property law—the right to exclude—and does no harm to the Second Amendment,” Justice Jackson wrote in a dissenting opinion.
Gun rights activists were pleased with the outcome, calling it a victory for gun owners.
“Today, the Supreme Court drove the final stake through one of the most cynical anti-rights schemes devised after Bruen,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs remarked after the decision on June 25. “These laws were always a blatant attempt by authoritarian states to nullify Bruen and redline the right to bear arms out of existence. We are glad to see this issue put in the ground where it belongs.”
What do you think of the end of the vampire rule? Let us know in the comments below. Ready to get a CCW gun of your own? Check out our list of the Best Concealed Carry Guns.