The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Hawaii law that restricts concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property without explicit permission from the property owner. This case, which follows a 2022 landmark ruling on gun rights, could have significant implications for Second Amendment interpretations and public safety measures. The decision may also affect similar laws in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.
This what is commonly known as the Vampire Rule. I wish SCOTUS were willing to take on more than one or two gun rights cases every year. There is so much stuff to be cleaned up. I really want the normal capacity magazine and semi-automatic rifle restrictions slapped down hard. But it seems those cans keep getting kicked down the road.
The good side is that this should be a pretty easy win, and it becomes another “brick in the wall”.
Also listen to what Mark Smith has to say about it:
Our Nation has grappled with threats to mail carriers and post offices since the Founding. In 1792, Congress enacted a law which proscribed punishment by death to “any person [who] shall rob the mail . . . or shall steal and take . . . from or out of any post- office, any letter or packet.” A few years later, in 1799, Congress sought to protect postal employees by punishing robbery of a postal employee in which a dangerous weapon was used with death if the robbery was successful, or if it was unsuccessful, with public whipping or imprisonment. That the Founders were acutely aware of threats to post offices and postal employees, yet chose to criminalize the offending behavior rather than banning firearms outright, is telling.
That last point is something I have written about many times before. One could make a good case that our ideological opponents do not recognize the individual. There is only the mass of humans each interchangeable with the other unless they are blessed with a government issued metal identification token, aka a badge. Or as I sometimes describe it, they desire to treat us like cattle.
It is nice to have a judge explicitly call out the government for failing to recognize, what I think to be, the obvious.
But there is another hypothesis which merits consideration. It could be our opponents merely act stupid and/or naive. They are just making things up to justify the banning of all guns for their own evil purposes. The truth would not go over well so they make up reasons why can and should be deprived of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home—not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay that renders this constitutional right meaningless in practice.
The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering. Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.
The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.
The human cost is profound. As of May 2025, approximately 2,768 applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.
until the LA County concealed carry case, DOJ had never used § 12601 for Second Amendment violations. That makes this lawsuit a historic first—a signal that DOJ now considers systemic denial of gun rights a civil rights issue.
Copilot has this to say about my assertion the infringement will continue until criminal charges are pursued against the perpetrators:
Will Infringements Stop Without Criminal Charges?
Not likely. Civil suits can force policy changes, but they don’t carry the deterrent weight of personal accountability. Officials can stall, delay, or reinterpret rulings without fear of jail time. That’s why your call for criminal enforcement resonates—it’s about consequences, not just corrections.
Copilot offered to draft a model indictment. I accepted the offer:
United States District Court
Criminal Indictment United States of America v. [Defendants]
Count One – Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)
The Grand Jury charges:
Beginning on or about January 1, 2022, and continuing through the present, in the County of [X], State of [Y], the defendants [Name 1], [Name 2], and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and willfully conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate citizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of rights secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States, namely, the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
The object of the conspiracy was to obstruct and delay the issuance of concealed carry permits to qualified applicants, through intentional administrative backlog, arbitrary denials, and the imposition of unlawful requirements not authorized by state law.
In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants:
Directed staff to ignore or delay processing of applications.
Required applicants to submit additional documentation not required by law.
Denied permits without cause or explanation.
Maintained internal communications expressing intent to “slow-walk” approvals to discourage lawful carry.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.
Count Two – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242)
The Grand Jury further charges:
On or about [specific date], in the County of [X], State of [Y], defendant [Name] acting under color of law as [Title/Position], did willfully deprive [Victim Name], a citizen of the United States, of rights secured by the Constitution, namely the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
The deprivation occurred when [Name], acting in his official capacity, denied [Victim] a concealed carry permit despite full legal eligibility, and did so based on personal bias against firearm ownership and in furtherance of the conspiracy described in Count One.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
Notice of Special Findings
The Grand Jury finds that the offenses charged:
Were committed under color of law.
Involved multiple victims.
Were part of a pattern or practice of rights violations.
