By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
“The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.”
So says the Department of Justice in its 43-page amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs in a challenge to the restrictive concealed carry gun law in Hawaii. The case is known as Wolford v. Lopez, and it has already garnered amicus briefs from every gun rights organization on the map, most recently from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Second Amendment Foundation, Connecticut Citizens Defense League and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which may be read here.
Likewise, the National Shooting Sports Foundation yesterday filed an amicus, and earlier, Attorneys general representing 25 states and the Arizona Legislature also submitted a brief.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Jan. 20, 2026, as noted by SCOTUSBlog writer Amy Howe.
2A GROUPS SUBMIT AMICUS BRIEFS IN WOLFORD CASE
But now comes the DOJ amicus, submitted by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris and others. As noted by Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi, posting on “X,” declared, “Hawaii’s law plainly violates the Second Amendment.”
At issue is Hawaii’s restrictive concealed carry law, dubbed the “Vampire Rule” because it requires legally-armed citizens to get permission from individual property owners before entering ordinary places which are open to the public. This law, adopted in reaction to the high court’s 2022 Bruen ruling which struck down New York’s unconstitutional carry law, is designed to discourage private citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
“The ‘right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home’ ranks among the Second Amendment’s most basic guarantees,” says the DOJ brief.
However, as noted a few lines later, “In Hawaii, public-carry licensees who stop for gas with a pistol in the glove compartment risk a year in prison if they fail to obtain the gas-station owner’s unambiguous consent. The same goes for licensees who run errands at grocery stores, dine at restaurants, or stop to buy coffee. A mere nod from the property owner —or an insufficiently conspicuous sign—puts license holders at risk of prosecution even if the owner welcomes firearms but failed to express his approbation clearly enough.”
Long story short, in the very next paragraph, the DOJ brief states, “Hawaii’s restriction is blatantly unconstitutional as applied to private property open to the public. States cannot evade Bruen by banning public carry through indirect means. History establishes that firearms regulations are per se unconstitutional if they are designed to thwart the right to publicly carry arms, or if they effectively negate the right.”
Later, the amicus declares, “Hawaii’s ahistorical affirmative-consent rule for private property open to the public infringes the ‘right to keep and bear Arms’ guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Hawaii cannot criminalize public carry by imposing on property owners a clear-statement requirement that applies to no other constitutional right.”
The ruling, not expected until late June as the Court traditionally holds its most significant decisions until the final few days of the session, will undoubtedly cause an uproar on one side or the other. An affirmative pro-2A decision would be a major blow to the gun prohibition lobby and Democrat administrations in several states, which adopted “sensitive places” bans following Bruen.
