FOR JAN '26 ONLY! "IT'S ALWAYS THE SAME MAP" MUGS! 11oz, 15oz, 20oz: https://tinyurl.com/2azxcvy3

BONUS SHOW STARTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER MAIN SHOW, FOR MEMBERS ONLY! Schedule start time is just a placeholder!

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join
Locals: https://locals.com/lawofselfdefense/feed

Today’s Members-Only show will cover discussion over the just heard SCOTUS oral argument of Wolford v. Lopez.

Join me today as we break down LIVE today’s Supreme Court oral argument on 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ, the so-called “vampire rule” under which a state makes illegal the otherwise lawful carry of firearms onto private property otherwise open to the public (e.g., a store), unless the property owner has provided affirmative permission. This rule, as passed by Hawaii, effectively makes concealed carry unlawful anywhere that a lawful citizen might go about their day in the normal course of their affairs.

The Supreme Court has defined the scope of today’s arguments as follows:

QUESTION PRESENTED:

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that “the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5.

That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case.

The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson, 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi, No. 21-12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?

Join me LIVE at Noon ET as I break it all down!

I also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation.

The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join
Locals: https://locals.com/lawofselfdefense/feed

Episode #M1163.