The Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling in Wolford v. Lopez that struck down Hawaii’s so-called “vampire law,” but the decision’s impact extends far beyond that single victory. The opinion provides crucial clarification that lower courts cannot employ certain procedural strategies to evade rulings against restrictive gun control measures.
On the surface, Wolford addresses whether private property owners must post “gun welcome” signs before individuals may lawfully carry firearms on their premises. However, like many other landmark Second Amendment decisions, Wolford transcends this narrow issue. It delivers important guidance on how courts must properly apply the constitutional framework established in Bruen and Heller.
Bruen Step One Just Got Harder to Beat
The most significant clarification is that courts may no longer shoehorn gun-control reasoning into Step One of the Bruen analysis.
Step One focuses strictly on the plain text of the Second Amendment. If the regulated individual is part of “the people” and the arm in question is “bearable,” the conduct is presumptively protected. Liberal courts have repeatedly attempted to dismiss cases at this early stage by asserting that certain popular arms, such as AR-15-style rifles, fall outside constitutional protection.
Click the link to read the whole article: Supreme Court Says Courts Can’t Smuggle Gun Control
