Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotels

The Supreme Court on June 25 struck down Hawaii’s law requiring concealed-carry permit holders to get a property owner’s explicit permission before carrying firearms into privately owned places open to the public, including stores, hotels, shopping malls and gas stations.

The 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez invalidates Hawaii’s so-called “vampire rule,” which treated those locations as off-limits unless the owner specifically invited armed entry. The ruling broadens carry rights on public-facing private property and sharply limits how states can use default rules to restrict firearms in those settings.

What the Court decided

The Court said property owners may still prohibit guns, but they must do so explicitly. Hawaii’s approach went too far by making a ban the starting point unless the owner affirmatively allowed firearms.

According to reporting on the decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was among the dissenters.

The Trump administration backed the challenge, arguing that Hawaii’s law violated the Second Amendment.

How Hawaii got here

The ruling follows the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which reshaped public-carry law and expanded constitutional protections for carrying guns in public.

After Bruen, Hawaii adopted the 2023 rule at issue in this case. The measure treated privately owned places open to the public as gun-free by default unless the owner expressly permitted armed entry.

Lower courts had upheld Hawaii’s approach before the Supreme Court stepped in.

Who is affected

For permit holders, the ruling means Hawaii can no longer rely on a blanket presumption that guns are banned in places such as stores, hotels and gas stations if those businesses have not explicitly posted a prohibition.

For private property owners, the decision still leaves room to bar firearms, but only through a clear, affirmative policy rather than a default state rule.

For Hawaii regulators and lawmakers, the ruling creates immediate pressure to adjust enforcement guidance and review whether related laws need revision.

What remains unresolved

The decision does not settle all of Hawaii’s gun regulations. Other restrictions, including limits in places such as parks and restaurants, were not resolved by this ruling and remain subject to separate challenges.

The case could also matter beyond Hawaii. Similar presumptive no-carry laws in other states may now face new litigation as advocates test how far the ruling reaches.

State officials have not yet been quoted in the research packet, and it remains to be seen whether Hawaii will issue immediate enforcement guidance or pursue remedial legislation.

The ruling is the latest major Second Amendment decision to emerge from the post-Bruen legal landscape, and it is likely to shape both state policy and future court challenges.