The attorney who helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii’s private-property concealed-carry restriction on Thursday criticized the state’s reliance on a Reconstruction-era Black Code to defend the law.In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v.Lopez, the Court held that Hawaii cannot require licensed gun owners to obtain express permission before carrying firearms onto private property open to the public.
Gun-rights challengers dubbed the policy the "vampire rule" because lawful gun owners had to be "invited in" before entering businesses while armed."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," attorney Kevin O'Grady, who represented the plaintiffs, told Fox News Digital."And it's not surprising, however, that Hawaii would rely on it as they are diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment.We fully expected that the Supreme Court would identify that as the kind of law that one absolutely should not look to determine whether or not something is constitutional because this is the perfect example of something which is not constitutional."SUPREME COURT HANDS SECOND AMENDMENT WIN TO CONCEALED CARRY HOLDERS IN BLUE STATE GUN CONTROL CASEJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks on stage during the "Ketanji Brown Jackson on Lovely One: A Memoir" panel at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C., on Sept.
20, 2024.(Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for The Atlantic)A major flashpoint was Hawaii's effort to justify the law under the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v.
Bruen.Since Bruen, courts evaluating firearm regulations have generally asked whether modern gun restrictions are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.Hawaii cited several historical laws, including an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the post-Civil War Black Codes.
The law made...