If 2nd Amendment (2A) supporters and advocates have learned anything from history involving cases at the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) it is both patience and perseverance. While I’m sure none of us were closely following US v. Miller (1939) at SCOTUS, it would be another 69 years before another 2A case would appear on the docket. The landmark DC v. Heller (2008) case held that the 2A Right to Keep and Bear Arms was a pre-existing individual right, and this includes the right of self-defense. Another two years would pass before McDonald v. Chicago (2010) ruled that the States must abide by the US Constitution and recognize the Heller decision.
It would be another 12 years before a 2A case would come up before SCOTUS. Patience and perseverance paid off with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen (2022.) The Bruen decision gave us “text, history, and tradition” as the standard for reviewing laws. It also ended the “may issue” handgun licensing schemes because 2A is a presumptive right/it’s not up to a bureaucrat to determine if you can carry a firearm or not.
In 2024 US v. Rahimi was a 2A case that did not go in our direction concerning civil cases leading to seizing firearms (better known as red flag cases.) This did give us the “relevantly similar” standard as far as history and tradition to laws involving the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
In last month’s ISRPA newsletter the case US v. Hemani was covered in detail. IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) so I’ll put this in IANAL terms: US v. Hemani gave us, “Comparing Ice Cream to Tuesday is NOT Relevantly Similar” in an incredibly rare unanimous decision concerning the 2A. This brings us to Wolford v. Lopez (2026) which came ONE WEEK after the Hemani decision. Link to the case is here.
After Bruen (2022) ended “may issue” handgun licensing schemes, anti-2A States such as Hawaii started passing laws to further restrict 2A Rights. Hawaii passed a law requiring prior approval to enter ANY private property while lawfully armed. This included any business or other entity that was open to the public. This was commonly called a “Vampire Law” since vampires can’t enter your home unless invited. I don’t know much about vampires, but I guess that is the trade-off for being able to turn into a bat.
The path Wolford v. Lopez took to arrive at SCOTUS was significantly different than that of the Hemani case decided a week earlier. Hemani came out of Texas and went through the 5th US Circuit, which has been very friendly to the 2A. Hawaii is in the 9th US Circuit, AKA the 9th Circus. The 9th has the reputation for being overturned at SCOTUS on a regular basis.
The Wolford decision was a 6-3 vote. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court and did an outstanding job of laying out the case for the majority opinion. This included the 2A precedents from SCOTUS: from Heller (2008) to McDonald (2010) to Bruen (2022) to Rahimi (2024.) Hawaii issued a grand total of FOUR handgun licenses from 2000-2018. The “may issue” scheme of handgun licensing really needed to go away, and did with the Bruen decision.
As far as “common law” (our law is based on British Common Law) concerning entering property open to the public and not trespassing, Justice Alito cited four SCOTUS precedents on this matter. The NEWEST was from 1890. Open to the public, means open to the public. Unless someone is specifically informed that entry is trespassing, it’s not trespassing.
The attorneys for the State of Hawaii must have looked at what the government’s attorneys presented in the Hemani case, which gave us the (again IANAL) precedent that “comparing ice cream to Tuesday is not relevantly similar,” and said, “Hold my Mai Tai!”
The first “relevantly similar” historical law presented by the State of Hawaii’s attorneys was a law from Pennsylvania in 1721 titled: “An Act to Prevent the Killing of Deer Out of Season, and Against Carrying Guns and Hunting By Persons Not Qualified.” Then they followed up with a 1722 New Jersey law with the title, “An Act to Prevent the Killing of Deer Out of Season, and Against Carrying Guns and Hunting By Persons Not Qualified.” There were a number of other “relevantly similar” laws cited, all dealing with poaching and not relevantly similar to Hawaii’s all private property vampire law.
The “Spirit of Aloha” was invoked by Hawaii’s attorneys, referencing a written law of the Kingdom of Hawaii by King Kamehameha III prohibiting the possession of all deadly weapons in 1833. I read this and thought that maybe we’d have had a harder time taking their islands if the people of the Kingdom of Hawaii had been armed.
In Justice Alito’s words, “The State’s most remarkable analog was a Louisiana law from 1865 prohibiting carry of firearms on premises or plantations without the consent of the owner or proprietor.” This was dismissed by the majority since the statute was neither widespread nor widely accepted. Another reason it was rejected was that it was adopted between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of reconstruction. “The statute Hawaii cites was part of Louisiana’s Black Code, and it provided a tool for disarming blacks and thus leaving them defenseless against attacks.” Laws such as this led to the 14th Amendment which was ratified in 1868.
Justice Kagan (the same Justice Kagan who joined Justice Alito in a concurring opinion in Hemani) provided a very short dissenting opinion. (Her dissent was 278 words. Her opinions averaged 4,300 words last SCOTUS session.) She did not join with Justices Brown-Jackson and Sotomayor in their 32-page dissent since (in my somewhat humble opinion) she is smart enough not to be associated with those 32 pages. Also, it’s easy to be an anti-2A ideologue when you’re protected by the US Marshalls Service.
Full disclosure: I did not read the 32-page dissent from Justices Brown-Jackson and Sotomayor. While I’m not a huge fan of artificial intelligence (AI,) I will use it to provide a synopsis of large documents. My IANAL synopsis of the AI (Microsoft Copilot) synopsis of Justice Brown-Jackson and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent is, “Property Rights are greater than 2A Rights when the government and not the property owner dictates the property rights.” Also, “The laws designed to disarm former slaves, passed in former Confederate States after the fall of the Confederacy, that led to the 14th Amendment… have never been reviewed for Constitutionality.”
This was another big win for the 2A. A common theme in many of my articles is “elections have consequences.” 10 years ago, most believed Hillary Clinton would be elected President in 2016. If that had been the outcome of the 2016 election, we would have lost the 2A as we know it. We can celebrate the victory, but then we must return to vigilance.
About the Author
