Supreme Court Skeptical of Hawaii's Concealed Carry Rule

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court took into consideration a Hawaii law that limits individuals with concealed-carry permits from carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless granted consent from the property owner, with the majority deeming the legislation as an infringement on the U.S Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The case revolves around a Hawaiian law and similar efforts in California, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York, in which local officials have established a “default rule” banning the possession of handguns in privately-owned areas where the public might gather.

The “vampire rule” is what the law has been dubbed due to its requirement for people with concealed firearm licenses to request permission before entering private property with public access, like the fictional creatures.

Justice Samuel Alito told Neal Katyal, a U.S. attorney arguing in defense of the “vampire rule,” that the law relegates “the Second Amendment to second-class status.” "I don't see how you can get away from that," Justice Alito added.

The legislation presides over shopping centers, bars, theaters, private beaches, farms, arenas, and stores. Yet, it does not apply to public property.

Chief Justice John Roberts additionally shared his take on the matter, drawing comparisons between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech.

Roberts argued that it is a “clear constitutional right” for political candidates to knock on someone’s door without the consent of a property owner, yet in Hawaii, an individual carrying a firearm must first be granted authorization to enter private establishments.

"I'm trying to figure out what exactly the difference is between the First Amendment and the Second Amendment," he said.

According to the legislation, carrying a firearm in defiance of the law is a misdemeanor that is punishable by up to one year in prison.

The discussion over Hawaii’s prohibition is one of two hearings involving the Second Amendment; the second considers the constitutionality of a federal law that bans illegal drug users from carrying firearms.