The Nation Butchers History to Defend Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’

July 4, 2026
12:30 am

▶

Listen to Article

The Nation's latest attempt to prop up Hawaii's vampire rule—a carry-permit regime so restrictive it effectively turns the right to bear arms into a nocturnal, government-approved privilege—leans on a selective reading of history that would make even the most creative revisionist blush. By cherry-picking colonial-era statutes and ignoring the post-ratification understanding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to carry arms for self-defense, the piece tries to paint Hawaii's discretionary may-issue system as some kind of noble tradition rather than the outlier it is. In reality, the Founders and early state courts repeatedly affirmed that law-abiding citizens could not be disarmed or forced to beg permission simply to step outside their homes armed, a principle the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Bruen when it struck down New York's similar proper cause requirement. For the 2A community, this isn't just academic hair-splitting; it's a live reminder that anti-gun advocates will keep mining the past for any precedent that lets them keep modern permitting schemes on life support. Hawaii's vampire rule survives only because lower courts have been slow to apply Bruen's text-and-history test with the rigor the Supreme Court demanded, allowing states to treat the right to carry as a favor rather than a fundamental liberty. Every time outlets like The Nation recycle these arguments, they signal to activists and legislators that the fight isn't over—that if they can muddy the historical waters enough, they might still carve out exceptions that leave millions of Americans at the mercy of arbitrary bureaucrats. The broader implication is clear: the post-Bruen landscape is still being shaped in real time, and cases challenging discretionary permitting in states like Hawaii, California, and New York will determine whether the right to bear arms finally escapes the permission-slip era. Gun owners should treat these historical distortions not as harmless opinion pieces but as trial balloons for the next round of litigation and legislation. The more the 2A community documents the actual record—early American practice, state constitutions, and 19th-century court decisions—the harder it becomes for outlets to sell the public a sanitized version of history that keeps the vampire rule undead.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

The Nation’s latest attempt to prop up Hawaii’s vampire rule—a carry-permit regime so restrictive it effectively turns the right to bear arms into a nocturnal, government-approved privilege—leans on a selective reading of history that would make even the most creative revisionist blush. By cherry-picking colonial-era statutes and ignoring the post-ratification understanding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to carry arms for self-defense, the piece tries to paint Hawaii’s discretionary may-issue system as some kind of noble tradition rather than the outlier it is. In reality, the Founders and early state courts repeatedly affirmed that law-abiding citizens could not be disarmed or forced to beg permission simply to step outside their homes armed, a principle the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Bruen when it struck down New York’s similar proper cause requirement.

For the 2A community, this isn’t just academic hair-splitting; it’s a live reminder that anti-gun advocates will keep mining the past for any precedent that lets them keep modern permitting schemes on life support. Hawaii’s vampire rule survives only because lower courts have been slow to apply Bruen’s text-and-history test with the rigor the Supreme Court demanded, allowing states to treat the right to carry as a favor rather than a fundamental liberty. Every time outlets like The Nation recycle these arguments, they signal to activists and legislators that the fight isn’t over—that if they can muddy the historical waters enough, they might still carve out exceptions that leave millions of Americans at the mercy of arbitrary bureaucrats.

The broader implication is clear: the post-Bruen landscape is still being shaped in real time, and cases challenging discretionary permitting in states like Hawaii, California, and New York will determine whether the right to bear arms finally escapes the permission-slip era. Gun owners should treat these historical distortions not as harmless opinion pieces but as trial balloons for the next round of litigation and legislation. The more the 2A community documents the actual record—early American practice, state constitutions, and 19th-century court decisions—the harder it becomes for outlets to sell the public a sanitized version of history that keeps the vampire rule undead.

Share this story