Supreme Court Says Courts Can’t Smuggle Gun Control Into Bruen Step One

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.

The Wolford decision firmly rejects this tactic, making clear that such maneuvering cannot be used to bypass Step Two’s historical-tradition analysis.

In Footnote 1, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “No one disputes that the Second Amendment’s text has a fixed meaning that must be satisfied before a law is deemed presumptively unconstitutional.” She noted the disagreement centers on whether courts can improperly import additional limits from regulatory tradition into the plain-text inquiry. “The answer is and always has been no.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito reinforced the two-step structure from Bruen, emphasizing that courts must first determine whether the challenged law implicates the core protections of the Amendment regarding “the people,” “keep[ing],” and “bear[ing]” Arms.

Another common tactic courts have used to uphold “assault weapons” bans is to claim that firearms like AR-15s are not “in common use” specifically for self-defense. In Heller, the Court held that arms in common use cannot be banned, yet anti-gun courts have tried to append “for self-defense” to narrow that protection. This strained interpretation has been deployed to justify not only bans on commonly owned rifles but also restrictions on magazines and other accessories.

What “Offensive or Defensive Purposes” Means for Gun Owners

Wolford firmly rejects this reasoning. It clarifies that the Second Amendment protects “weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes,” not merely those carried for self-defense.

Heller never intended to confine the right to a narrow self-defense test; rather, it safeguards arms for all lawful purposes. Wolford confirms that bearable arms in common use are protected regardless of whether they are handguns or other types of firearms. A defensive firearm is one someone might carry outside the home for self-defense, such as a pistol that millions of Americans carry every day. Firearms kept mainly inside the home can be used for defensive purposes, but they can also be used legally for offensive purposes, such as clearing a house in case of an intruder. Also, guns like AR-15s can be used for hunting. This is not a defensive purpose. It is an offensive purpose.

Americans also have the right to bear arms to resist tyranny. In fact, that is the main purpose of the Second Amendment.

Wolford makes it clear these arms are protected under the Second Amendment and deviates from the anti-gun idea that the primary function of a gun must be for self-defense to be protected by the Second Amendment. Since many anti-gun defendants have argued that the Second Amendment only applies to firearms that are primarily used for self-defense, their arguments now fall short.

Thanks to this ruling, anti-gun courts will face significantly greater difficulty in upholding unconstitutional restrictions. By closing off these procedural loopholes, Wolford strengthens the Second Amendment’s safeguards and ensures more faithful application of constitutional text and history.

This opinion will have lasting ramifications far beyond Hawaii’s “vampire rule,” providing a powerful tool for defenders of the right to keep and bear arms across the country for years to come.

Virginia Gun Ban Faces Five Lawsuits as July 1 Deadline Nears

Supreme Court’s Hemani Ruling Spells Doom for Unlawful Red Flag Laws

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.