The Second Amendment is not a suggestion, not a privilege, and not a right that evaporates when lawmakers grow uncomfortable with armed citizens.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, this case is about far more than Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule.” It is about whether states—and the federal courts that enable them—may openly defy Supreme Court precedent while pretending to follow it.
Gun owners have seen this playbook before. Legislatures lose at the Supreme Court, panic, and then repurpose the same unconstitutional scheme with new labels, daring the courts to stop them. Hawaii simply said the quiet part out loud.
The Political Divide and the Call for Enhanced “Firepower”
The intelligence community’s grave warnings paint a picture of sophisticated, coordinated domestic threats that demand proportionate civilian capability.
The threats detailed in recent advisories include:
- Targeting Soft Sites: Explicit guidance to local authorities to deploy visible law enforcement at soft targets like sporting events and concerts.
- Targeting Infrastructure: Reports citing sources that terrorists have scouted medical facilities in major cities (including New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles) to cripple trauma centers and compound casualties.
- Impersonation and Secondary Attacks: Warnings that terrorists plan to acquire police and EMT uniforms to impersonate first responders, allowing them to redirect panicked crowds and launch secondary strikes.
It is against this terrifying backdrop of coordinated, high casualty terrorism attacks, designed to defeat existing security and cripple emergency services, that, in my view, will certainly be attacked.
As some scream for gun control, I advocate for more guns and more “firepower” in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens. I stand by the Founders’ logic: escalating threats require a proportionate response, and the time for minimizing our effective defensive capability is over.
For decades, the handgun stood as the undisputed standard for the armed civilian. Its concealability and simplicity made it the go-to tool. However, with the rise of threats requiring rifle-level engagement, the handgun has moved from being the standard for a civilian armed citizen to being viewed as the minimum effective tool for defense. Sheriff Jones himself demonstrated this shift by immediately equipping all his department’s cruisers with rifles and “go bags” in response to terror warnings. We, as armed defenders of freedom, must do the same.
The prepared citizen must now acknowledge the limitations of a handgun and understand when and why a long gun, or specifically, a compact AR-style platform is a necessary component of comprehensive preparedness to uphold the Founders’ vision.
The Limitations of the Handgun in Modern Threats
The escalating scale of mass violence and terrorism quickly exposes the handgun’s inherent limitations, demanding a proportionate response from the citizen defender:
This outlines three major limitations of the handgun when compared to the rifle-caliber threats encountered in modern, high-intensity scenarios:
- Weapon Disparity/Armor: Standard handgun calibers are ineffective against rifle-rated body armor, which is a likely component of coordinated terror attacks; conversely, rifle-caliber rounds are required for any chance to defeat or penetrate common levels of armor. A rifle versus armor is your best response.
- Range and Accuracy: A handgun’s effective range suffers drastically beyond 20-30 yards, while active shooters can engage accurately at much greater distances with rifle platforms that are easier to shoot accurately under stress.
- Engagement Duration: The handgun’s low capacity (typically 6 -17 rounds) and frequent reloads limit sustained defense, whereas a 30-round rifle magazine offers a decisive advantage in managing the prolonged engagements required for a sustained terror attack. This comparison leads directly to the necessity of the AR Pistol platform.
The AR-Style Pistol: The Necessary Force Multiplier.
The AR-style pistol is the critical bridge between the concealability of a pistol and the power of a rifle, providing a Personal Defense Weapon capability where a handgun is inadequate:
Close-Quarters Dominance and Home Defense
The compact nature of the AR pistol excels where a full-size rifle is unwieldy:
- Maneuverability: Its shorter overall length (often 18-25 inches) allows for rapid, safe movement in the tight confines of a home, apartment, or vehicle.
- Superior Control: Like any long gun, the AR pistol provides multiple points of contact – stock to shoulder, cheek to comb, front hand on handguard, and hand to grip – providing a significantly more stable shooting platform than a handgun that provides only one or two points of contact (your hands). An AR pistol retains the stable shooting platform of a long gun and the inherent low recoil of the AR design, enabling better accuracy and faster follow-up shots than a handgun.
- Lethality and Safety (Ammunition Dependent): Rifle-caliber rounds (commonly the Remington .223 in the case of the AR-15 platform), when using specific defensive ammunition (like hollow point, soft-point, or polymer-tipped rounds), often fragment or tumble upon hitting drywall, counter-intuitively losing energy faster than some slower handgun rounds, which can punch through multiple interior walls.
READ MORE: The Benefits of Frangible Ammunition: Safety, Efficiency, and Practical Applications
However, users must be aware that military-style Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) ammunition for the .223 caliber will still easily pierce several interior sheets of drywall and retain enough energy to cause serious bodily harm or death, and poses a higher over-penetration risk. Therefore, choosing ammunition specific to your defensive environment is paramount.
READ MORE: Recommended Types of Ammo to Minimize Drywall Penetration
Vehicle and Mobile Readiness
The AR pistol is essential for mobility and readiness in uncertain environments:
- Concealed Carry Under Law: Classified as a “pistol” in many jurisdictions, it can often be carried under existing concealed carry laws, allowing for accessible storage in a vehicle or backpack where a rifle would be illegal or impractical.
- Vehicle Readiness: It can be securely and discreetly stored, providing paramount speed of deployment during a vehicle-based threat. Be sure to know local vehicle storage laws, especially in areas where you are unfamiliar.
A Right That Requires Permission Is No Right at All
Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” flips the Constitution on its head. Under the law, carrying a firearm on private property open to the public—grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, retail shops—is illegal unless the property owner affirmatively invites armed citizens inside.
That is not regulation. That is eradication.
The Founders did not fight a revolution so Americans could exercise constitutional rights only when pre-approved by the government or third parties. The Second Amendment was written precisely to prevent that kind of dependency.
The Supreme Court Already Settled This
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Justice Scalia emphasized:
“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) incorporated this right against the states, ensuring jurisdictions like Hawaii could not treat it as optional or second-class.
Then came New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), where the Court rejected interest-balancing tests and replaced them with a historically grounded standard: modern firearm regulations must conform to America’s historical tradition of gun rights. Hawaii’s law fails that test spectacularly.
The Ninth Circuit’s Favorite Game: Pretend Compliance
The Ninth Circuit claims to follow Bruen, but in practice it does the opposite: uphold gun control first, then scour history for excuses. It has leaned on outlier and even discriminatory laws—such as an anti-poaching ordinance and a Reconstruction-era Black Code—as supposed “historical analogues” to justify sweeping bans on public carry.
These were never general public safety measures. They were tools of oppression. Yet the Ninth Circuit resurrects them anyway, because the goal is not historical fidelity—it is preservation of gun control.
Why the Ninth Circuit Keeps Losing
The Ninth Circuit does not lose at the Supreme Court because the law is unclear. It loses because, in Second Amendment cases, it has repeatedly resisted and narrowed Supreme Court precedent rather than applying it faithfully.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly corrected the Ninth Circuit and other lower courts that tried to cabin Heller and Bruen:
- Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) — the Court unanimously rejected a state court’s attempt to limit Heller to firearms in the home and exclude modern arms like stun guns.
- Duncan v. Bonta, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) — the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s interest-balancing ruling on California’s magazine ban and remanded for reconsideration under Bruen.
- Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), abrogated by Bruen — the Ninth Circuit’s claim that the Second Amendment does not protect public carry was invalidated by Bruen’s clear extension beyond the home.
This is not confusion. It is defiance. In case after case, the Ninth Circuit has treated Supreme Court precedent as something to be distinguished and sidestepped, rather than binding law that must be followed.
Even Rahimi Doesn’t Save Hawaii
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) reaffirmed Bruen’s historical framework, clarifying that relevant analogues must be legitimate and comparable. Hawaii’s sweeping presumption—that armed self-defense is banned everywhere unless permission is explicitly granted—has no historical precedent.
Rights Cannot Exist Only in Theory
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) demonstrates that rights cannot exist in name only. While Packingham involved the First Amendment and social media access, its reasoning underscores a basic constitutional principle: a right gutted by across-the-board prohibitions is no right at all. Hawaii’s Vampire Rule allows a “right” that cannot be exercised in any meaningful way. That is constitutional sabotage.
The Stakes Are National
If Hawaii’s law stands, every anti-gun legislature in America will copy it. Rights will be “allowed” but nowhere useful. Lower courts will claim they are powerless—while systematically eroding constitutional guarantees.
The Supreme Court warned against this in Heller:
“A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
— Heller, 554 U.S. at 634
Conclusion
The Second Amendment is not negotiable. It is not conditional. It is not a favor granted by the government. Yet Hawaii’s Vampire Rule—and the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to apply Supreme Court precedent—treats it like a privilege, a nuisance, and a political tool.
Wolford v. Lopez is the Supreme Court’s chance to end this charade. Law-abiding Americans should never have to ask permission to exercise their constitutional rights. Any court that tries to nullify or neuter the Second Amendment must be reminded: the Constitution is not optional. It is supreme.
The Ninth Circuit has been warned repeatedly, yet it persists in defiance. Enough is enough. The Supreme Court must not only strike down Hawaii’s Vampire Rule—it must make clear that future attempts to circumvent the Constitution will fail. Rights are not suggestions. Rights are guarantees.
If the Supreme Court enforces the Second Amendment as written, law-abiding Americans everywhere will know one thing with certainty: our right to self-defense does not wait for permission, and no court may strip it away. The vampire has been unmasked. Now it is time to drive the stake.
About Sean Maloney.
Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.