Supreme Court appears skeptical of Hawaii's law putting additional burdens on gun-toting vampires

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 1:42 PM

Supreme Court skeptical of Hawaii's 'vampire rule' for gun owners

A majority of Supreme Court justices on Tuesday indicated that a Hawaii gun law that limits people carrying firearms onto private property infringes on the constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

The measure has been dubbed the “vampire rule” because, as with the fictional creatures in folk tales and the novel “Dracula,” it requires people with concealed carry permits to seek permission before entering private property open to the public.

Members of the court's 6-3 conservative majority, who regularly back gun rights, suggested during oral argument that the requirement violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Laodicean60 · Tuesday at 5:46 PM

This is so dumb. I wouldn't want some unknown gun-toter on my private property; it's just common sense.

Tropical Wilds · Tuesday at 7:53 PM

essentialsaltes said:
Supreme Court skeptical of Hawaii's 'vampire rule' for gun owners
A majority of Supreme Court justices on Tuesday indicated that a Hawaii gun law that limits people carrying firearms onto private property infringes on the constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

The measure has been dubbed the “vampire rule” because, as with the fictional creatures in folk tales and the novel “Dracula,” it requires people with concealed carry permits to seek permission before entering private property open to the public.

Members of the court's 6-3 conservative majority, who regularly back gun rights, suggested during oral argument that the requirement violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.

This is the craziest timeline I tell you what.

Servus · Tuesday at 8:33 PM

Laodicean60 said:
This is so dumb. I wouldn't want some unknown gun-toter on my private property; it's just common sense.

It's private property open to the public like stores, restaurants, gas stations, malls, etc.

Tuur · Tuesday at 8:57 PM

Laodicean60 said:
This is so dumb. I wouldn't want some unknown gun-toter on my private property; it's just common sense.

The way that's worded, it sounds like an an armed stranger as compared to someone you know who happens to be armed.

The issue is easily handled by posting a notice that no weapons are allowed on the property. That's what's usually done. The Hawaiian law seems to imply that the default is that no armed persons are allowed is the default. I know of one argument lawyers from Hawaii could make, but I want to see if anyone else notices it.

Tuur · Tuesday at 9:00 PM

Servus said:
It's private property open to the public like stores, restaurants, gas stations, malls, etc.

Be that as it may, it's their property and their rules. If a person wants no weapons on their property, that's their right.

Servus · Tuesday at 9:04 PM

Tuur said:
Be that as it may, it's their property and their rules. If a person wants no weapons on their property, that's their right.

I'm not debating against that. I was just clarifying the terminology.

Tuur · Wednesday at 7:44 PM

Something shocking: Attorneys for Hawaii cited the Black Codes as a precedent. The Black Codes existed prior to 1865, in various laws placing restrictions on slaves and blacks, among them firearm ownership. After the US Civil War, firearm restrictions for blacks were argued not to violate the 2nd Amendment, as it was argued that blacks were not legally citizens. The 14th Amendment addressed the issue of citizenship in part because of this very issue, not just for the 2nd Amendment, but for all constitutional limits of government power on US citizens. Citing the Black Codes is...

Well, it undermines the argument of constitutionality.

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 10:32 PM

Tuur said:
Something shocking: Attorneys for Hawaii cited the Black Codes as a precedent. The Black Codes existed prior to 1865

This is in line with the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen that laws that press up against the 2nd Amendment protections have to be in line with the "historical tradition of firearm regulation".

Obvs, Hawaii is not saying that black people can't have guns, but that there is historical precedence for legal limits.

Tuur · 2026-01-22T05:19:55-0600

essentialsaltes said:
This is in line with the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen that laws that press up against the 2nd Amendment protections have to be in line with the "historical tradition of firearm regulation".

Obvs, Hawaii is not saying that black people can't have guns, but that there is historical precedence for legal limits.

The bad optics in this is that the 14th Amendment made the post-US-Civil-War argument denying emancipated slaves firearm ownership null and void. It's like going back to Plessy vs Ferguson to argue there's a historical precedent for segregation.

essentialsaltes · 2026-01-22T08:01:56-0600

Tuur said:
It's like going back to Plessy vs Ferguson to argue there's a historical precedent for segregation.

It's true. There is historical precedent for segregation. Once again, the point is not to keep guns out of black people's hands, but to show that our nation's history included laws that restricted guns in certain ways, because this is the bar that the Supreme Court has set for similar laws to be constitutional.

Tuur · 2026-01-22T18:56:03-0600

essentialsaltes said:
It's true. There is historical precedent for segregation. Once again, the point is not to keep guns out of black people's hands, but to show that our nation's history included laws that restricted guns in certain ways, because this is the bar that the Supreme Court has set for similar laws to be constitutional.

My point is that the argument to accomplish keeping guns out of black people's hands was that they were not citizens of the US. It took the 14th Amendment to settle the question of citizenship. So in citing the Black Codes, they are picking legal code based on the premise that they were non-citizens. To be relevant, they would have to find an example that applied to those considered US citizens.

essentialsaltes · 2026-01-22T19:08:42-0600

Tuur said:
My point is that the argument to accomplish keeping guns out of black people's hands was that they were not citizens of the US.

That doesn't seem to be the case, since the Louisiana law brought up at SCOTUS doesn't mention either black people or citizenship with respect to the gun possessor.

(Obviously, there was racist application of the law in its enforcement.)

Tuur · 2026-01-23T06:01:46-0600

essentialsaltes said:
That doesn't seem to be the case, since the Louisiana law brought up at SCOTUS doesn't mention either black people or citizenship with respect to the gun possessor.

(Obviously, there was racist application of the law in its enforcement.)

Did you check the date? The law is dated 1866. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. And if you want a legal precedent for the argument of citizenship, look at at Dred Scott vs Sandford. I'm looking for comment of Senator Pomeroy of Kansas in arguing for the adoption of the 14th Amendment, which mentions the 2nd Amendment as a concern, but have come no closer than a mention in the decision of Petitioners vs City of Chicago, Illinois.

It may be an inconvenient thing for Hawaii, but in holding up the Black Codes as a precedent, they have picked one from before blacks were recognized as citizens of the US. You would think that they would have argued about the rights of property owners, but I guess that would open some issues they didn't want to address.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-23T07:49:03-0600

Tuur said:
Be that as it may, it's their property and their rules. If a person wants no weapons on their property, that's their right.

It is their right... which is why many states have provisions for approved signage that stores/restaurants/etc... can put in a conspicuous place at their entrance (that carry some legal weight) to notify people that they can't carry inside the establishment.

So there's two aspects at play here...

1) Whether or not ambiguity favors permissive over restrictive (which in most cases, it typically does -and should)

2) Practicality

(Obviously courts are going to focus on #1 primarily)

Think of it sort of like parking regulations. If there is a parking lot, and there's not any sort of "No parking" sign visibly posted, would the reasonable assumption be, "it's fine for the public to park here", or would the person be calling the entity that owns the parking lot ahead of time to ask "Hey, I notice there's this parking lot next to your store, there's not any signs saying I can't park there, but I just want to make sure I'm allowed to park there"

In terms of the practicality aspect -

Not every public facing business has an owner on-premises or that's easily reachable for questions.

While some of your smaller mom & pop places maybe the sort of the environment where the owner is on-site and easily accessible for questions, what about the major chains, franchises, or businesses that lease space from a property management company in a shopping center?

In the case of a Target, Walmart, etc...

The person "in-charge" at the store isn't the property owner, in many cases, they're several layers removed. It's an assistant manager, who rolls up to a store general manager, who rolls up to some regional director at corporate, who rolls up to a CEO, who rolls up to a board of shareholders who collectively co-own the enterprise.

So if Target didn't have any clearly posted signage indicating one way or the other whether or not concealed carry was allowed, who exactly would a person reach out to in order to get that clarified?

In the case of a business that's leasing space. The owner of the business says "I don't want any guns in here", the property manager says "yeah, it's fine, you can carry on the property" -- who wins out?

Ultimately, I'd say if Hawaiian businesses want to forbid CCW holders from carrying on the premises, they can hop on any number of online vendors, and order a state-verbiage specific 4 pack of "gun busters" stickers for $3.95 just like every other business does in the other 49 states. Or the state of Hawaii can make free to any business who wants one if they're really doing this for the business owners (and it's not just a bunch of legislators trying to make a right they don't like more cumbersome on purpose)

essentialsaltes · 2026-01-23T08:44:00-0600

Tuur said:
Did you check the date? The law is dated 1866. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

So what? The law has nothing to do with citizenship or people of African descent.

Tuur · 2026-01-23T13:13:08-0600

essentialsaltes said:
So what? The law has nothing to do with citizenship or people of African descent.

You wouldn’t be pulling my leg, would you? IIRC, the State of Georgia once had literacy tests to vote, but those who had ancestors in the Union or Confederate military in the Civil War were exempt. Not one word said about race. The implication of the exemption is left as an exercise to the reader.

More to the point is that Pomeroy brought up the 2nd Amendment in arguing for the 14th, or at least that is what was maintained in that USSC decision.

That restriction on firearm ownership by blacks was based on lack of citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment might be inconvenient where gun control is concerned, but was a real thing.

The irony is that I can think of some general instances that did apply to recognized US citizens, but Hawaii’s attorneys apparently didn’t cite them.

Tuur · 2026-01-23T13:17:04-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
It is their right... which is why many states have provisions for approved signage that stores/restaurants/etc... can put in a conspicuous place at their entrance (that carry some legal weight) to notify people that they can't carry inside the establishment.

So there's two aspects at play here...

1) Whether or not ambiguity favors permissive over restrictive (which in most cases, it typically does -and should)

2) Practicality

(Obviously courts are going to focus on #1 primarily)

Think of it sort of like parking regulations. If there is a parking lot, and there's not any sort of "No parking" sign visibly posted, would the reasonable assumption be, "it's fine for the public to park here", or would the person be calling the entity that owns the parking lot ahead of time to ask "Hey, I notice there's this parking lot next to your store, there's not any signs saying I can't park there, but I just want to make sure I'm allowed to park there"

In terms of the practicality aspect -

Not every public facing business has an owner on-premises or that's easily reachable for questions.

While some of your smaller mom & pop places maybe the sort of the environment where the owner is on-site and easily accessible for questions, what about the major chains, franchises, or businesses that lease space from a property management company in a shopping center?

In the case of a Target, Walmart, etc...

The person "in-charge" at the store isn't the property owner, in many cases, they're several layers removed. It's an assistant manager, who rolls up to a store general manager, who rolls up to some regional director at corporate, who rolls up to a CEO, who rolls up to a board of shareholders who collectively co-own the enterprise.

So if Target didn't have any clearly posted signage indicating one way or the other whether or not concealed carry was allowed, who exactly would a person reach out to in order to get that clarified?

In the case of a business that's leasing space. The owner of the business says "I don't want any guns in here", the property manager says "yeah, it's fine, you can carry on the property" -- who wins out?

Ultimately, I'd say if Hawaiian businesses want to forbid CCW holders from carrying on the premises, they can hop on any number of online vendors, and order a state-verbiage specific 4 pack of "gun busters" stickers for $3.95 just like every other business does in the other 49 states. Or the state of Hawaii can make free to any business who wants one if they're really doing this for the business owners (and it's not just a bunch of legislators trying to make a right they don't like more cumbersome on purpose)

Hawaii could also simply state that those who allow weapons carry should post such, with the assumption that those who didn’t post permission hadn’t given it.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-23T13:45:24-0600

Tuur said:
Hawaii could also simply state that those who allow weapons carry should post such, with the assumption that those who didn’t post permission hadn’t given it.

Should the extra burdens be placed on the public-facing establishments that want to allow a (licensed) right to be exercised, or those who want to restrict it? -provided it's not something already prohibited by state or local laws
(the latter is the norm)

For instance, if a store or mall wanted to have policies such as "no backpacks allowed inside the store" or "no wheel shoes", the onus would typically be on them to convey that information to the public via signage, not on the public to try to seek out the store owner for clarification before going into the store.

essentialsaltes · 2026-01-23T13:56:58-0600

Tuur said:
You wouldn’t be pulling my leg, would you?

The text of the law is right there.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Supreme Court appears skeptical of Hawaii's law putting additional burdens on gun-toting vampires

Fact-Based Lifeform

Supreme Court skeptical of Hawaii's 'vampire rule' for gun owners​

Well-Known Member

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Supreme Court skeptical of Hawaii's 'vampire rule' for gun owners​

<><

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

<><

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Fact-Based Lifeform

Similar threads

Supreme Court skeptical of Hawaii's 'vampire rule' for gun owners

Supreme Court skeptical of Hawaii's 'vampire rule' for gun owners