Wolford v. Lopez was argued before the Supreme Court this Tuesday. This case challenges Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule,” which makes it a crime for licensed concealed-carry permit holders to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public (e.g., stores, restaurants, etc.) without the owner’s explicit permission. Hawaii essentially inverted the default to “no guns allowed” unless the owner affirmatively consents.
In case you missed it, here are the weakest, most strained, or outright comical arguments advanced by Hawaii’s counsel (Neal Katyal) and the most problematic questions/comments from Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan.
1) Willfully conflating private property open to the public with all private property.
The case is specifically about private property open to the public, but Justice Elena Kagan conflated it with enclosed private property; at several moments during oral arguments, she referenced anti-poaching laws applicable to enclosed private property as “analogous” to the law in question.
Kagan says the anti-poaching laws on private property are analogous enough to justify the vampire rule.
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
Beck says those laws aren't even close, the modern law applies to property held open to the public.
2) The chicanery of pretextual property rights arguments while pretending the Second Amendment isn’t implicated.
Hawaii defended its default no-carry rule on private property open to the public by framing it as merely "vindicating property rights" rather than burdening the Second Amendment. The core claim: owners already have the right to exclude armed entrants, so the state can just flip the default presumption to "no guns unless express consent" without infringing anything.
Kagan asks whether there is a right to carry on private property, but doesn't let Beck answer, and says the answer is "no."
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
3) Your rights aren’t implicated, they’re “affected.”
This gem comes from Justice Jackson, who invented a distinction without a difference.
Beck says the Second Amendment is clearly implicated. Jackson says it can "affect" an interest without "implicating" it. (Which makes no sense)
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
4) Ignoring the Bruen test and pining for the days of means-ends infringement.
The “Vampire Rule” fails the Bruen text/history/tradition test because there is no tradition of states imposing a blanket presumption against carry on all private property as a default rule. When the test doesn’t do what you want, there’s a temptation to change the test.
Kagan keeps asking about means-ends scrutiny, but Beck hasn't argued that.
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
5) Using public polling to override the Constitution.
Basic human rights should never be subjected to a popular vote. Yet, Justice Sotomayor thinks majority mob rule is okay in service of her policy preferences.
Sotomayor points to polling saying Hawaiians support the vampire rule.
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
Nonsense point. Not like she was OK with states banning abortion according to their local opposition.
6) Pretending that a mythical Spirit of Aloha overrides the Constitution.
There’s been a past case where Hawaii’s Supreme Court invoked a mythical “Spirit of Aloha” to affirm gun control laws. There was another attempt during the Wolford arguments by Justice Sotomayor.
Sotomayor currently arguing for the Aloha Spirit.
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
Beck responds firmly that Bruen asks for a national tradition.
7) But banning concealed carry by the lawful will prevent Church shootings committed by the unlawful!
This one’s a doozy from Justice Sotomayor. Not matter how many times Second Amendment advocates explain to gun controllers that psychopaths won’t follow gun laws, they cling to that punctured life jacket of a belief.
Sotomayor asks about church shootings.
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
She still thinks banning carry in a place would stop mass shootings. Nonsense. Killers don't care about gun free zones.
8) The extreme irony of citing racist Black Codes to justify infringements.
Yes, they really did it! Cam wrote about it earlier this week and I highly recommend his article. Basically, Louisiana had laws preventing people from bringing guns onto plantations without the plantation owner's permission, and that somehow translates into you and I needing to ask a highway gas station attendant whether we need to leave our concealed carry handgun in the car before picking up a bag of doritos and a soda.
Justice asks, isn't it height of irony to cite a law meant to disarm groups so they can be more easily controlled to support a modern gun control law?
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
Katyal says while Black Codes are bad, THIS Black Code is one of the good ones!
9) Treating the Second Amendment as inferior to the First Amendment.
Stephen Gutowski has a great write-up at The Reload that delves into this. Katyal insisted that speech-related activities like leafleting are inherently permissible but concealed carry is not. Thus, the Second Amendment is inferior and Hawaii can pass a default no-carry law.
I once posed a question to Professor Jake Charles of the Duke Center for Firearms Law asking if a law barring people from entering private property while wearing religious insignia (a cross, a turban, etc.) without express consent of a property owner would be constitutional. Of course, I never received an answer to that question.
10) Insisting that a patchwork of infringements in various states is constitutionally acceptable.
A justice asks whether we can have different traditions in different states.
— SAF (@2AFDN) January 20, 2026
Katyal says the Second Amendment means the same thing in every state, but "consent" can be different from state to state.
The justice says that's not right, because you CAN enter, everywhere, to e.g.…
Hawaii tried detonating a logic bomb against the Second Amendment. But they’re way off target, and all they’re going to do is blow up their own law, and by extension, similar “Vampire Rule” legislation in other states.
Slowly but steadily, one by one, the recalcitrant states will be fed lessons on the U.S. Constitution.
I’m sure the lawyers at Everytown are seething already, and I’m confidently looking forward to the day the Supreme Court issues its opinion in the case.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member