The bottom line
The Department of Justice just did something it has never done in American history: filed a brief at the Supreme Court against a state government in support of Second Amendment plaintiffs. That is not spin. That is documented fact. And if you care about your right to keep and bear arms, you need to understand what happened, why it matters, and what the honest complications are.
Attribution from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. Commentary, not legal advice.
What Hawaii actually did
After the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, every anti-gun state scrambled to figure out how to preserve as much gun control as possible while technically complying with the ruling. Hawaii’s answer was Act 52, signed in 2023, and buried inside that law was one of the most sweeping carry restrictions I have ever seen.
Hawaii created what is now commonly called the “vampire rule.” The logic works like this: under vampire mythology, a vampire cannot enter your home without being invited in. Hawaii took that concept and applied it to firearms. Any licensed carry holder who wants to bring their firearm onto private property that is open to the public needs express permission from the property owner. Not assumed permission. Not implied permission. Express permission, delivered verbally, in writing, or through posted signage.
Think about what that actually means in practice. Grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, parking garages, office buildings, shopping malls, doctors’ offices, any business you walk into throughout your day. Unless that specific property owner has specifically authorized you to carry there, you are legally prohibited from doing so. The default position under Hawaii law is that every one of those places is a gun-free zone. You as the license holder cannot practically reach the owner of every building you enter. You cannot find the landlord of the strip mall. You cannot get written consent from the corporation that owns the pharmacy chain. Hawaii knew that. That was the point. They created a system that looks like carry is technically legal while making it functionally impossible.
This is not a sensitive places restriction like those applied to courthouses or schools. This is a blanket presumption that private property is off-limits, covering millions of square feet of publicly accessible space. And it applies even to people who completed Hawaii’s training requirements, passed their background checks, and went through every step of the permitting process. Hawaii granted exactly four carry licenses in the eighteen years before Bruen forced them to become a shall-issue state. Four. That tells you everything about the culture of the state’s legal apparatus around this right.
Jason Wolford and others challenged the law. The Second Amendment Foundation filed amicus briefs supporting the challenge. The case worked through the courts and a Ninth Circuit panel upheld Hawaii’s version of the rule in September 2024, distinguishing it from California’s similar provision on the grounds that Hawaii allows oral and written permission in addition to signage. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 3, 2025, limiting its review to the private property default rule question. Oral argument was held in January 2026. That is the case now sitting before the Court.
Why the DOJ brief is genuinely historic
In virtually every major Second Amendment case that has reached the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice has filed briefs against the Second Amendment plaintiffs. The DOJ sided with Washington D.C. against Heller. It sided with Chicago against McDonald. It has consistently treated Second Amendment litigation as a place where the government’s interest in gun regulation outweighs the individual right at stake. That is not an exaggeration. That is the documented institutional history of how the DOJ has operated in this area.
Attorney General Pam Bondi changed that on November 25, 2025. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez arguing that Hawaii’s vampire rule “plainly violates the Second Amendment.” Bondi stated publicly that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that her Justice Department intends to be the most pro-Second Amendment DOJ in history. The language inside the brief itself was direct: Hawaii was not in good-faith compliance with Bruen. The state was using a nominally permission-based system to functionally nullify the public carry right the Supreme Court had recognized.
The brief had a direct procedural impact. Reportedly, the Wolford case was granted certiorari in the first place in part because of DOJ involvement in the cert process. When the federal government signals to the Supreme Court that it wants a case heard, the Court pays attention. This is one of the practical mechanisms through which a DOJ that is genuinely committed to the Second Amendment can accelerate the development of favorable doctrine.
This action came roughly three weeks after the DOJ announced the formation of a dedicated Second Amendment Section inside the Civil Rights Division on December 4. That section’s first lawsuit went against the Virgin Islands over its broken permitting system. But the Wolford brief, filed before that formal launch, shows the posture of the administration was already firmly set.
The honest conversation about Pam Bondi
I am not going to pretend this is simpler than it is, because our side deserves honesty more than it deserves cheerleading.
Pam Bondi has a legitimately bad record on the Second Amendment from her time as Florida attorney general. After the Parkland shooting in 2018, she helped draft Florida’s gun control package alongside Governor Rick Scott. That package included red flag laws, which allow courts to strip a person of their firearms before any criminal conviction, without the protections of due process that every accused person is supposed to have. It included a ban on firearms purchases by adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty, which is straightforwardly unconstitutional under the right that the Second Amendment protects. It included a bump stock ban. Bondi defended those laws in court and publicly championed them.
Gun Owners of America has documented the specific concerns. The NRA clashed with her over the post-Parkland legislation. Groups like Florida Carry described her tenure as marked by anti-gun decisions. These are not fringe complaints. They are accurate assessments of documented positions she took when it cost her nothing politically to support the Second Amendment and she chose not to.
More recently, there have been reports of the DOJ under Bondi seeking membership lists from Second Amendment organizations, which functions as a quasi-registry of gun owners and their affiliations. She has resisted the removal of the NFA tax stamp requirement. These are not theoretical concerns. They are real actions taken by her department.
So why am I still saying this brief matters? Because it does, and those two things can both be true at once.
The Trump administration has done genuinely significant things for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment Section inside Civil Rights is a structural change that outlasts any individual. The Wolford brief signals to the Supreme Court that the executive branch now believes carry restrictions of this kind violate the Constitution. That signal carries legal weight. The administration has also done things I think are wrong and have said so.
What I will not do is pretend Bondi is a perfect Second Amendment champion when she is not. The bar for the most pro-Second Amendment DOJ in history has historically been very low. Meeting it is not the same as actually protecting the full scope of the right. But meeting it still matters, and what happened in Wolford is genuinely historic regardless of the mixed record that surrounds it.
What the Supreme Court is being asked to decide
The core question the Court accepted in Wolford is narrow but consequential: may a state presume that firearms are prohibited on private property open to the public unless the owner affirmatively grants permission?
The historical test established in Bruen requires the government to show that a law is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America. Hawaii’s task is to find historical analogues for a default prohibition on carry across all publicly accessible private property. That is a very difficult case to make. Colonial-era America and the early republic had no such rule. Property owners could prohibit firearms on their land, but that was individual private choice, not a state-imposed default. The Ninth Circuit panel’s reasoning that Hawaii’s version is permissible because it allows oral permission is the kind of thin historical analysis that the Bruen majority was explicitly trying to prevent.
The DOJ brief makes exactly this argument. If the Supreme Court agrees, millions of law-abiding carry permit holders in Hawaii and potentially other states with similar laws will see their right to actually carry outside their homes vindicated for the first time. If the Court decides more narrowly, there is still a chance the opinion provides guidance that limits how states can structure these default rules in the future.
Either way, the federal government is now on record arguing that Hawaii’s approach is unconstitutional. That is not where the DOJ was a year ago. That is a real change, and it is worth saying so clearly even while holding Bondi accountable for the rest of her record.
Attribution from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. Commentary, not legal advice.
Get the Weekly Briefing
New analysis delivered every week. Court decisions, case updates, and expert commentary.