Attorney slams Hawaii’s use of racist Black Code to defend concealed carry restriction struck down by Supreme Court
The legal advocate who successfully challenged Hawaii’s restrictive concealed carry policy before the nation’s highest court delivered sharp criticism Thursday over the state’s decision to cite Reconstruction-era legislation designed to disarm Black Americans. In a 6-3 ruling on Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court determined that Hawaii cannot mandate licensed firearm owners to secure explicit permission before carrying weapons onto private commercial property open to the public.
Attorney Kevin O’Grady, representing the plaintiffs in the landmark case, expressed outrage at Hawaii’s legal strategy. The state had referenced laws from the post-Civil War period that systematically stripped constitutional rights from newly freed African Americans. Gun rights advocates dubbed Hawaii’s policy the “vampire rule” because lawful carriers needed to be formally “invited in” before entering businesses while armed, creating a presumptive ban across all commercial establishments.
Controversial defense strategy draws national attention
Hawaii’s legal team attempted to justify the restriction under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision framework, which requires modern firearm regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of gun control. Among the historical precedents cited was an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the Black Codes—laws explicitly created to subjugate formerly enslaved people. That particular statute prohibited carrying firearms onto another person’s property without owner consent.
O’Grady told media outlets the reliance on such legislation was shameful. “It is disgraceful that any state would rely on a law specifically aimed at taking away the Second Amendment rights or any constitutional right of Black Americans as it was at that time,” he stated. He added that Hawaii’s opposition to Second Amendment protections made the strategy unsurprising, though legally untenable.
Majority opinion rejects racist precedent as constitutional foundation
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court’s majority, dismissed Hawaii’s argument with forceful language. He characterized the Louisiana statute as a “tainted artifact” created explicitly to leave newly freed Black citizens defenseless during the volatile Reconstruction period. Alito concluded the law “cannot be taken seriously” as legitimate evidence of the Second Amendment’s original public meaning or historical understanding.
The majority opinion emphasized that laws designed to oppress specific racial groups cannot serve as valid constitutional benchmarks. The Court found Hawaii’s entire regulatory framework violated the Second Amendment by creating a default prohibition on carrying firearms in commercial spaces, reversing the constitutional presumption of liberty.
- The ruling affects all licensed gun owners in Hawaii seeking to carry in commercial establishments
- Businesses retain the right to post “no firearms” policies and enforce private property rules
- The state cannot treat every business as automatically off-limits without owner permission
- The decision follows the 2022 Bruen framework requiring historical consistency for gun regulations
Dissenting justice raises procedural constitutional questions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissent arguing the Court skipped critical constitutional analysis. While acknowledging the Black Codes were racist tools of oppression against newly freed African Americans, Jackson contended the majority should have first determined whether the Louisiana law itself violated the Second Amendment independently, or whether the constitutional defect stemmed solely from discriminatory enforcement.
Leia Também
Pyongyang’s closely guarded secret: Kim Jong Un’s mother and her unmentioned ancestry
Australia targets tech giants with doubled fines, eSafety commissioner gains powers to enforce social media ban
Venezuelan medical teams confront grim reality in La Guaira after devastating earthquake
Jackson outlined two analytical possibilities. Either the firearm restrictions were constitutional but applied in a racially discriminatory manner—making it an equal protection violation—or the restrictions themselves violated Second Amendment protections regardless of enforcement. She argued the Court never resolved this threshold question before excluding the Louisiana statute from consideration. “Either history does matter, and if so, all potentially relevant historical experiences must be thoroughly examined,” Jackson wrote. “Or, it does not, and the Court should just admit that the test it has created is boundless.”
Second Amendment advocates respond to dissenting arguments
Gun rights organizations quickly challenged Jackson’s reasoning, pointing to the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical purpose. Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Association of Gun Rights, noted that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted specifically to remedy deprivations of constitutional rights like those imposed by the Black Codes. “That right there is your answer,” Hill stated. “Yes, there was a historical tradition—they enacted a constitutional amendment to fix that deprivation of rights, and that is also in the Constitution now.”
Tyler Yzaguirre, president of Second Amendment Institute, echoed criticism of the dissent’s framework. He emphasized that laws designed to strip fundamental rights from Americans cannot define constitutional limits. “Those laws were not legitimate expressions of our Nation’s constitutional tradition; they were examples of government using its power to deprive Americans of a fundamental right,” Yzaguirre explained. The Court’s decision to reject such precedents protects constitutional integrity, advocates argue.
Practical implications for gun owners and business operators
The ruling clarifies the relationship between property rights and Second Amendment protections in commercial contexts. Licensed gun owners in Hawaii no longer face a blanket presumption of prohibition when entering businesses open to the public. However, individual business owners maintain full authority to ban firearms through posted policies or direct communication with customers.
The distinction matters because Hawaii’s previous system required affirmative permission from every property owner, effectively creating a statewide ban on carrying in commercial spaces. The Supreme Court ruled this approach unconstitutionally shifted the burden onto lawful gun owners and violated the Second Amendment’s core protections. Property owners who wish to prohibit firearms must now actively communicate that restriction, rather than the state imposing a universal default ban.
