# Supreme Court 6-3 strikes down Hawaii's concealed-carry consent rule
> Justice Alito's majority holds the 'vampire rule' requiring property-owner permission for concealed-carry holders violates the Second Amendment; comparable laws in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California are also affected

**Meta:** type: story · date: 2026-06-25 · heads: Who Decides, The Long Game · 12 takes · 5 lenses · 2 regions

## Summary

The [Supreme Court](/en/entity/supreme-court) voted 6-3 on June 25, 2026, to strike down Hawaii's law requiring concealed-carry permit holders to obtain affirmative property-owner consent before entering privately owned spaces open to the public, such as restaurants, gas stations, and shops. The case, Wolford v. Lopez (No. 24-1046), was argued January 20, 2026. Justice Alito wrote for a majority of Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, holding that Hawaii's rule "hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives." Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented. The ruling is immediately binding on Hawaii and puts comparable statutes in [New York](/en/entity/united-states), New Jersey, Maryland, and California on uncertain legal footing. Property owners retain authority to exclude firearms from their own premises, but the default flips from "carry only with permission" to "carry unless excluded."

## The split

SCOTUSblog and legal analysts treat the ruling as a predictable extension of Bruen (2022) rather than a significant doctrinal leap, and note Alito left open a path for blanket exclusions in "sensitive" locations. Everytown for Gun Safety emphasises the burden shift: property owners who relied on the opt-in system now must actively post exclusion notices and enforce them. Fox News frames the ruling as confirmation that Bruen's majority is intact and willing to apply it to blue-state workarounds. Hawaii officials have not yet announced a legislative response; New York's attorney general is reviewing the ruling for its effect on the state's Bruen-response statute.

## By the numbers

- 6-3, the vote (Alito majority; Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson dissented)
- 4, additional states with comparable consent laws: New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California
- 24-1046, the case number; argued January 20, 2026
- 2022, year of Bruen, the foundational precedent this ruling extends

## Why it matters

The ruling removes one of the tools blue states devised after Bruen to narrow the scope of public carry. States had bet on opt-in consent as a constitutionally defensible workaround; the Court rejected it. The practical effect in commercial public spaces shifts carry from an opt-in to an opt-out model, raising concerns among business owners who now bear the cost of active exclusion.

## What to watch

- Whether New York, California, New Jersey, and Maryland pursue legislative alternatives that pass the new Alito test.
- Whether any lower court finds Alito left room to sustain blanket gun-free zones in hospitals, stadiums, and transit systems.
- Whether the three dissenting justices' opinions lay out a line of argument that a future majority could use to revisit Bruen.
- Any business-association responses in the four affected states, where liability questions now arise for property owners.

## Regional takes (batched by bias / lens)

### unlabelled
- **Supreme Court of the United States (opinion, Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046)** (United States, en) — The majority opinion authored by Justice Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, holding that Hawaii's requirement that concealed-carry permit holders obtain affirmative property-owner consent before entering private property open to the public violates the Second Amendment. Opinion argued January 20, 2026; decided June 25, 2026.
  Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf
- **NBC News** (United States, en) — 
  Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-hawaiis-vampire-rule-gun-owners-rcna261385
- **CNN** (United States, en) — 
  Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/25/politics/hawaii-gun-restrictions-supreme-court
- **Washington Post** (United States, en) — 
  Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/
- **RedState** (United States, en) — 
  Source: https://redstate.com/ben-smith/2026/06/25/wolford-v-lopez-tentative-n2203461
- **Townhall** (United States, en) — 
  Source: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-this-hawaii-anti-gun-bill-that-targeted-concealed-carry-holders-n2678301
- **Outlook India** (India, en) — 
  Source: https://www.outlookindia.com/
- **WSB-TV Atlanta** (United States, en) — 
  Source: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/business/supreme-court/JTEAYAMX2YYCNOUTNE5BMBOH5Q/

### US mainstream
- **CBS News** (United States, en) — Reported the 6-3 ruling and confirmed the 1:08 PM EDT filing time. Noted that the rule was dubbed the 'vampire rule', a reference to folklore in which vampires must be invited in before entering. Outlined the four other states (NY, NJ, MD, CA) with comparable statutes now under legal pressure.
  > "The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's law requiring gun owners to obtain permission before bringing firearms onto private property open to the public."
  Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-hawaii-gun-law-wolford-v-lopez-decision/

### legal-specialist
- **SCOTUSblog** (United States, en) — Detailed legal analysis framing the ruling as a direct extension of Bruen (2022). Notes the majority stopped short of categorically banning all access-restriction schemes; property owners still retain independent authority to exclude firearms from their own premises.
  > "The court extends Bruen's logic into semi-public spaces, though leaves room for property-based exclusions that do not depend on government mandate."
  Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-hawaii-gun-restriction/

### gun-control advocacy
- **Everytown for Gun Safety** (United States, en) — Advocacy perspective warning that restaurant and gas-station owners who relied on the opt-in system now bear the full cost of exclusion (posting signs, enforcement), reversing the default from 'allow by consent' to 'allow by default.' Frames the ruling as broadening public-carry risk in commercial spaces.
  > "The decision shifts the burden entirely onto private property owners who must now actively post and enforce exclusions."
  Source: https://www.everytown.org/wolford-v-lopez-second-amendment-scotus-decision-explained/

### conservative US
- **Fox News** (United States, en) — Presents the ruling as a clean Second Amendment victory for concealed-carry holders in blue states, emphasising Alito's line that the Hawaii rule 'hobbles' the constitutional right to carry. Notes the ruling builds on a string of Second Amendment wins since Bruen.
  > "Alito wrote that Hawaii's restriction 'hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.'"
  Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment-win-concealed-carry-blue-state-gun-hawaii

## Across the graph
- Related: [[scotus-asylum-metering-tps-jun25]], [[trump-scotus-birthright-fed-rulings]]
- Entities: United States, Supreme Court

---
Canonical: https://rbtfl.xyz/en/n/scotus-wolford-hawaii-gun-jun25