Summary: In a major victory for second amendment advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s restrictive “vampire rule” law that unconstitutionally forced licensed concealed-carry holders to obtain express permission before entering publicly accessible private property.
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, holding that Hawaii’s “vampire rule” violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
As an organization dedicated to protecting your hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage, we know that defending the Second Amendment is fundamental to protecting our outdoor way of life. When the right to bear arms is restricted, our outdoor traditions are directly threatened. That is why it was necessary for the Sportsmen’s Alliance to step into this fight at the nation’s highest court.
How Did the Bruen Decision Change Hawaii Gun Laws?
The Aloha State does not respect the right to keep and bear arms. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled the state can regulate firearms according to “the aloha spirit”—despite the Constitution. The state only issued four concealed-carry licenses from 2000-2018. Then in 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Bruen held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense, and any restriction on that right needed to be justified under the Second Amendment’s historical tradition. That means that when the state regulates firearms, the regulation needs to be relatedly similar to firearms laws from the late-18th and early-19th centuries.
Hawaii responded to the Bruen decision by going from a system where it issued no licenses to carry to a system where it issued licenses to carry nowhere, primarily through the “vampire rule.”
What is Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” Gun Restriction?
Trespass law normally puts the burden on the property owner to inform individuals that firearms are not allowed on the premises. The vampire rule, however, prohibits individuals from carrying their firearm on property that is open to the public—unless they have express permission that firearms are allowed on the property beforehand. That was challenged under the Second Amendment.
What Historical Precedents Did Hawaii Use to Justify the Law?
When it came time for Hawaii to justify that its vampire rule was consistent with historical firearms regulations, it largely pointed to 18th-century, classist, poaching laws, and 19th-century black codes that prohibited hunting with a firearm on another’s property without getting their express permission. When the Supreme Court took the case, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation filed an amicus brief attacking Hawaii’s defense.
“The policy goals behind the classist poaching laws and the black codes were largely the same,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “Hunting promotes marksmanship. The elites in feudal Europe and the former slave owners feared a poorer class and a freed-slave population that knew how to use firearms. They also knew that if these groups could not hunt, then they would be forced to work for food, which would grow the economy and keep the ruling class in power. Banning them from hunting was a way to maintain that power. But the American people rejected these laws through the Second Amendment and a robust hunting tradition.”
When Hawaii relied on those classist and racist laws to justify its vampire rule, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation argued that they “belong in the past as ‘cautionary tales,’” not to be used as a tool “to render the Second Amendment a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”
How Did the Supreme Court Rule on the Vampire Law?
The Supreme Court agreed. Acknowledging that there are legitimate purposes behind poaching laws, Hawaii could not show that its vampire rule was similar. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito opined that “The gap between the State’s anti-poaching analogues and its new rule is just too wide” to justify the vampire rule. And in concurrence, Justice Barrett addressed the black codes that Hawaii cited: “It is beyond me why Hawaii would claim that these vile laws can justify its present-day restriction.”
“We are happy that the Supreme Court agreed with us today and refused to let states use old classist and racist anti-poaching laws to justify infringing on people’s Second Amendment rights,” Jean concluded.
Help the Sportsmen’s Alliance Defend Your Second Amendment Rights
Issues like these are at the heart of the Sportsmen’s Alliance mission and we will continue to monitor this important issue. Don’t stand on the sidelines—join us as a member or donate to the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund in protecting tomorrow’s hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage today.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance guarantees hunting, fishing, and trapping for the American sportsman now and forever. We’re there when sportsmen need us most. We are the only organization specifically created to protect the individual hunter, angler, and trapper – no matter the threat. We will never compromise when it comes to defending our way of life in the courts, in the legislatures, in the public square, and at the ballot box. We make this promise to the American sportsman: we will never give up and never give in while proudly securing our future against those seeking to destroy our values, beliefs, and traditions. Stay connected to the Sportsmen’s Alliance: Online, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
