Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wolford v. Lopez, a case out of Hawaii that could decide whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms on private property that’s open to the public.
The issue stems from Hawaii’s post-Bruen carry law and a controversial provision gun owners are calling the “Vampire Clause.”
Table of contents
The Origins of the Vampire Clause
After the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, states could no longer deny concealed carry permits to law-abiding citizens based on “good cause.”
Hawaii, like New York, responded with new restrictions that effectively banned carry in most places: government buildings, parks, beaches, banks, and even private businesses.
One section stood out: the Vampire Clause, which forbids carrying on private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission.
As GOA’s Law and Ammo host Phil explained:
“It’s like the vampire myth — you can’t come in unless you’re invited. But instead of bloodsuckers, it’s gun owners asking permission to enter a gas station, grocery store, or restaurant with their carry pistol.”
In short, lawful gun owners could be forced to ask every shop and restaurant owner for permission just to go about their day armed.
The Circuit Split: 2A Meets the Courts
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals already struck down New York’s version of the Vampire Clause in Antonyuk v. Chiumento, a lawsuit backed by Gun Owners of America (GOA).
But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most restrictive circuits on gun rights, went the opposite direction — upholding Hawaii’s version as constitutional.
SEE ALSO: S&W 940 Review: 9mm J Frame That Runs Hard
That conflict between circuits is why the Supreme Court took Wolford v. Lopez up for review. One of the central questions before the Court reads:
“Whether Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission.”
In the Antonyuk case, the Second Circuit said clearly:
“Private property owners may decide to exclude people from their property. But that power resides with the property owner, not the government.”
How Far Can States Go After Bruen?
Since Bruen, several states have tried to sidestep the ruling by labeling most of their territory “sensitive” or “restricted.”
Hawaii’s carry law bans firearms in roughly 96% of publicly accessible land in Maui County, according to Judge VanDyke’s dissent in the Ninth Circuit decision. He wrote that the law “effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians.”
Other states followed suit:
- Maryland passed SB1 in 2023, which defaults to banning public carry without explicit consent.
- California’s SB2 added similar restrictions, requiring signs for any business that allows carry.
Wolford v. Lopez could decide whether those “no carry by default” rules survive.
GOA’s Role and What’s Next
Gun Owners of America helped set up this legal clash through its earlier victory in Antonyuk v. James (New York’s case). Wolford’s petition cites Antonyuk 17 times, referencing GOA’s arguments directly.
If the Supreme Court rules against Hawaii, it could strike down similar “vampire clauses” nationwide — reinforcing that the right to carry doesn’t vanish when you step onto private property that’s open to the public.
The case will be argued in early 2026, with a decision expected by summer.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
The Supreme Court has already decided this case, why is it necessary to do it again? The Supreme Court’s decision applies to all states so suck it up and quit trying to change it.
It never ceases to amaze me the depths the Constitution-hating left will go to impede American rights – even voting an admitted communist into office at the largest city in the USA. This is what happens when the left no longer allows history to be taught to our children in school.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd amendment time and again. End this endless debate. If the said state keeps trying to overturn or rule against SCOTUS’ ruling, cut all their funding. End of story.
Even if this is decided favorably for the 2A it is like playing wack-a-mole with these leftist administrations. Before the ink is dry on the decision another infringement will be passed and another year will be needed to make a decision.
IMO ….the right to Arms, which is based on the Natural Right of Self Defense, trumps any property rights of owners of properties which are open to the general public, ie: store, cafes, churches, amusement parks, etc. If property owners’ rights were superior to the Natural Rights of the public at large, then the Right to Life itself would, by this logic, rest in the hands of property owners, to be denied or granted at their whim. A store owner cannot even deny entry to a person based on his religion, or ethnicity… how can denial of a Natural Right be justified because one owns the property ?
stop pussy footing around just define “shall not be infringed” already….