Background
In a landmark decision regarding gun rights, the Supreme Court decided in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (597 U.S. 1 (2022)) that states may not impose restrictions on gun possession rights unless those laws are "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition" of gun laws. [1]
Hawaii, which generally had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, passed a new set of gun laws in 2023 to comply with the Bruen ruling. Among other aspects, the new laws included a "vampire rule", a term based on the mythos of vampires that they could not enter one's home without permission; as applied to guns, the law made it illegal to bring a licensed concealed gun onto publicly-accessible private property, including retail and commercial properties, without previously getting permission from the owner. Hawaii's legislature developed the new laws to address the impact of the Bruen ruling. [1]
Portions of the new law were challenged by gun owners and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition shortly after its passage, filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, with attorney general Anne E. Lopez defending the state. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi issued a temporarily injunction blocking the state from enforcing portions of the law, including the vampire rule, in August 2023, ruling that the plaintiffs had shown irreparable harm if the laws were allowed to be enforced. [2]
The state appealed, and their appeal was heard in the Ninth Circuit alongside similar challenges to new post-Bruen gun laws passed in California. In September 2024, a three-judge panel upheld part of both states' laws as constitutional under Bruen, but ruled that other parts of the laws were unconstitutional. Specifically related to the vampire rule, the Court upheld Hawaii's law while rejecting California's, as Hawaii's law allowed for the permission to be requested orally, in writing, or through signage placed outside the private property, while California's law only allowed for signage and was considered too restrictive. The panel also ruled that the Second Amendment did not consider the rights of gun possession with respect to private property. [3] The Ninth Circuit denied an en banc rehearing in January 2025. [4]
Supreme Court
The original plaintiffs petitioned for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court shortly following the denial of an en banc hearing from the Ninth Circuit. Among their arguments, the petitioners said that the Ninth Circuit's decision created a circuit split, urging the Supreme Court to resolve that disagreement among the circuit courts. The petitioners also questioned whether the Ninth Circuit correctly applied Bruen. The United States, under the second Trump administration, urged the Supreme Court to take the case so as to further refine the application of Bruen to other aspects of gun control laws. [5]
The Supreme Court certified the petition on October 3, 2025, but limited the case to the question of how the Second Amendment applies to publicly accessible private property and not the question of the Bruen application. [6] Oral hearings were held on January 20, 2026. Observers of the case predicted that the Court's conservative majority would likely rule Hawaii's law unconstitutional, dismissing claims that the law was more akin to a property rights' law than gun rights. [7]
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
