With things looking dire for the Hawaiian government in the current challenge to its restrictive carry laws before the U.S. Supreme Court, anti-gun lawmakers in the Aloha State are already scheming to continue infringing the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners.
At issue in the case Wolford v. Lopez is Hawaii’s so-called “vampire rule,” which was passed in response to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen. The law forbids concealed carry of firearms on private property open to the public, such as restaurants, gas stations and grocery stores, without the property owner’s express consent.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, Hawaii argued that its law is constitutional because it already had restrictive laws when it was still a kingdom, before becoming a U.S. state.
“We have traditions here that predate joining the Union, and they should reign supreme over the Constitution,” the state argued in the brief.
While the Supreme Court challenge continues, Democrat lawmakers back in Hawaii have introduced two new measures to try to keep gun owners in check should SCOTUS strike down the “vampire rule.”
SB 3039 is a ludicrous proposal that mandates anybody who’s lawfully carrying a concealed firearm must also carry an “an electric gun.” Under the measure, if a concealed carry holder is caught with a pistol but without a stun gun, their concealed carry permit could be revoked.
“The legislature finds that carrying a lethal firearm as the only means of defense often increases danger to the public,” the bill’s introduction explains. “Data demonstrates that lethal firearms intended to be wielded by a victim to defend themselves often end up being used against the victim or being used to kill another person, instead of being used successfully for self-defense. Other times, individuals using firearms in self-defense injure or kill innocent bystanders.”
The introduction continues: “The legislature believes that carrying a lethal firearm for self-defense can often escalate a dangerous situation, rather than de-escalate it, and that requiring individuals carrying firearms to also carry non-lethal options for self-defense will improve safety for the carrier, the public, and law enforcement.”
The other new measure, SB 3041, is a replacement for the “vampire rule” and would require businesses or restaurants open to the public to “post a color-coded placard indicating whether the business or restaurant allows firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises.”
According to the bill’s language: “A green placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant does not allow firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises, a yellow placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows either firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises, but not both, and a red placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows firearms and large knives to be brought onto the premises.”
It’s hard to understand what the lawmakers introducing these bills were thinking, since both run afoul of the Bruen ruling, just like their “vampire rule” does. Ultimately, if passed, it’s only a matter of time before both schemes end up in court. And since neither can pass the second Bruen test of proving a historical precedent, it’s very likely that both will be declared unconstitutional.
