Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii's 'vampire rule' for gun owners

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

June 25, 2026, 10:09 AM EDT / Updated June 25, 2026, 10:41 AM EDT


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii gun restriction that limits when people can carry firearms on certain private properties open to the public, saying it infringes on the right to bear arms.

On a 6-3 vote, the court invalidated the measure that requires people with concealed carry permits to seek permission from a property owner before entering. It has been dubbed the "vampire rule" because, as in the classic novel "Dracula" and related tales, vampires can only enter someone's home if they are invited in.

The court, often supportive of gun rights, concluded that the provision violates the Constitution's Second Amendment. The court’s conservatives were in the majority, while the three liberals dissented. “The effect of this new rule is to impose severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the state’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” he added. In dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said she would have upheld the law because it is a “modern-day analogue of colonial and founding era laws that similarly prohibited carrying firearms onto private property without the owner’s affirmative consent.”

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-hawaiis-vampire-rule-gun-owners-rcna261385

---

Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf

[Mme. Defarge]

1. We need more

DEAD SCHOOL CHILDREN?!?

WTAF?!?

[ret5hd]

2. maybe vampires can do the cleanup.

[walkingman]

3. IMO, either American priorities are really screwed up or the Constitution is so outdated

that it has become a liability for citizens. On this 250th anniversary of our nation - instead of shooting off fireworks we need to re-examine what we really want to stand for.

[The Grand Illuminist]

4. I say the latter

nt

[DrFunkenstein]

5. A Victory For Musket Owners Everywhere

The founders wanted the citizens to have access to muskets in case another British invasion came to our airports.

Who are we to argue the finer points of their timeless wisdom?

[Bayard]

6. They never envisioned the free for all we have now,

And the way the Constitution has been warped into enablement.

[24601]

10. Which of the Federalist papers addresses invasion via airports? Limiting individual weapon ownership to muskets is

is analogous to free speech, limiting publications to manual printing presses.

The exceptionally clear meaning was that a citizen should be armed with the standard weapon carried by an infantryman. Today, that would be a fully-automatic assault rifle - a 5.56 mm machine gun that fires over 700 rounds per minute. Private machine gun ownership requires a specific federal permit that involves a transfer tax, submission of ATF Form 4, passport photos, fingerprints on an FBI form, and notification to local law enforcement officials. And it is limited to weapons manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986.

During my first week of college, we each were issued a fully-functioning M-14, on which we familiarized (shooting not for record) before qualifying on the newer M-16s. The downside was having to keep them spotless.

Any reasonable reading of the founders' intent is that the British weren't the only potential target. Jefferson's "consent of the governed" also means the ability to look inward. But today, armed citizens, even with M-4s, would likely have zero chance of success against our Army & federalized National Guard - and even less versus our Marines.

[Snackshack]

7. Since this court likes to split words...

...as if they are hairs, then there appears to be no reason that 'certain private property owners' cannot demand that people on their property carrying a firearm identify themselves as the potential threat are.

I thought about getting a CCW... once, until a firearms instructor told me this- "#1 if you need to hide the firearm you carry, you probably should not be carrying one in the 1st place and #2 by carrying a firearm you have increased your odds of being in a firefight by 100%."

[manicdem]

8. Silver lining

At least this creates precedent that Rethugs can't make laws saying certain races are banned in stores unless there is a sign saying they're allowed.

[Chemical Bill]

9. Can Guns be banned from the Supreme Court building?

This seems to suggest: no.