Hey everyone, it’s time for “Mark Joseph Stern is a shameless hack who doesn’t know anything about the law.” This is one of my favorite programs. He published a breathless, hysterical hot take on the Wolford decision yesterday in a Slate piece titled, The Supreme Court’s New Expansion of the Second Amendment Is Genuinely Deranged.
Let’s take a look!
Oh? Why then did unanimous (Dem-appointed) panels of the Second Circuit, Third Circuit, and Fourth Circuit all strike down New York, New Jersey, and Maryland vampire rules? Are those judges just a bunch of freewheeling gun nuts, too?
Did Stern even research other rulings before spouting this drivel?
Wait…what violence? Homicide has hit record lows in the US since Bruen, contrary to what some of the very smartest people like Stern predicted.
Also…shot to death? The Obama-appointed district court judge in Wolford cited an amicus brief I wrote confirming that those with CCW permits almost never commit crimes. Hawaii, like California in our case, had no response to the data we presented.
Hey Mark…the vampire rules in those states were already invalid because courts had struck them all down. Even in decidedly liberal circuits like the Second and Fourth.
Stern seems to have no grasp on the Bruen decision at all. The level of generality discussion pertains to the historical analysis, not whether the plain text applies.
Sorry, Mark, those statutes were, in fact, limited to poaching. They also were concerned with property theft or damage…arising from poaching.
They also only applied to private lands not held open to the public. If Hawaii wants to pass a law that says you can’t carry onto fenced private property without permission, maybe those 18th century poaching laws would then be relevant support, but they have no relevance at all as to whether you can carry in a Starbucks by default.
This is why the only relevant analogues to the analysis are those that applied to citizens of the time, not those aimed at only marginalized groups. Plenty of gun laws of the time applied to everyone, and those are the relevant ones to look at. For example, the surety and “going armed” laws the Court examined in Rahimi.
Because if there is one thing Stern believes in, it’s expansive states rights! His tirade here about “preferred outcomes” is textbook projection. That’s what courts did for decades under interest balancing. He just liked those results more.
Oh, and I overlooked that the image they hilariously use to illustrate Stern’s piece includes a “No Firearms” sign. A sign that is still allowed in Hawaii. Nothing in the Court’s ruling prevents property owners there from posting a sign and prohibiting access by anyone who’s carrying a gun.
I guess if the Slate’s resident legal genius wasn’t able to grasp the Court’s ruling, I really shouldn’t be surprised that their graphics guy didn’t either.
What Wolford was actually about was whether Hawaii could impinge on its citizens’ Second Amendment rights by prohibiting the carry of a gun even if you have a permit…unless business owners gave verbal consent or put up a “Guns Allowed” sign. That’s a reality that seems to be too complex for someone like Mark Joseph Stern to grasp.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.
Stern is indeed an incompetent hack. His thesis that Hawaiian history and tradition has any application to a Bruen analysis is embarrassingly stupid.
Bruen’s historical test goes to what the traditions and laws were **in the United States** at the time of the passage of the Second Amendment (or arguably when the 14th amendment was passed), as a way of understanding the Founders’ intent. That Hawaiian law and society historically was hostile to private firearms is immaterial to this analysis, just as would be an analysis of pre-Louisiana purchase French law, Mexican or Spanish law pre-annexation of Texas, California, Arizona, etc., or Iroquois or Cherokee law / traditions (in various areas that later became US states). English / British law prior to adoption of the 2A is potentially relevant *only* because British common law had generally been incorporated into the common law of all the states in the union at that time, making potentially relevant an inquiry as to whether the states had in fact adopted an aspect of older British common law concerning firearms (and often the answer is no).
Further, when areas not in the union in 1789 were annexed or otherwise joined the union, they became subject to the constitution as it existed when they joined — the constitution did not somehow morph to accommodate the laws and traditions of the new areas. For instance, the Kingdom of Hawaii had a longstanding tradition of slavery . . . does Stern believe that somehow means Hawaii is somehow exempt from following the 13th Amendment because its history and tradition somehow trumps the Constitution? Or that its longstanding traditions of monarchy mean Hawaii could dispense with the constitutional requirement of a republican form of state government, and reinstitute monarchy as its form of state government?
Further, as Justice Alito points out, the Bruen test goes to what the *prevailing* history and traditions were — one-offs do not satisfy the test. So even if Hawaiian history and tradition could possibly be material (they’re not), it’s at best a one-off that is outweighed by the prevailing history and traditions of the rest of the country, and thus like the Louisiana slave code provision Justice Jackson so loves it does not satisfy the second element of the Bruen test.
Through the whole thing Hawaii displayed the typical left wing confirmation bias readings and not understanding and employing context – thus, for example, a law against poaching on private land not ‘open to the public’ magically, in their confirmation bias and not understanding proper context, becomes a basis for banning firearm carry for self defense into private property open to the public.
and Jackson made this odd argument that racist gun laws matter.
“the constitution did not somehow morph to accommodate the laws and traditions of the new areas”
I do note that (most) US territory is acquired (or lost in the handful of times its happened) through treaty, which is an interesting consideration and influence on Constitutional law given how high treaties rank.
“aloha /ə-lō′hä″, ä-/
interjection
Used as a traditional greeting or farewell.
”
Hawaii: “But But But the spirit of Aloha and game poachers and black codes!”
Justices: “You want the spirit of Aloha? Okidokee then… Farewell Hawaii unconstitutional vampire rule!”
Lefty Law Professors Are Losing It Over Wolford. Here’s Why.
ht* tps://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/06/26/lefty-law-professors-are-losing-it-over-wolford-heres-why-n1232991
Wolford is one of those wins that’s gonna keep on giving…
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.
…”
ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/06/supreme-court-says-courts-cant-smuggle-gun-control-into-bruen-step-one/
Supreme Court’s Wolford Decision Could Blow A Hole In New Jersey’s AR-15 Ban Defense
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez was about Hawaii’s attempt to turn most private property open to the public into gun-free zones by default. But the ruling may have just handed gun owners in New Jersey a powerful new weapon in the fight against the state’s ban on so-called ‘assault firearms.’
On June 26, attorneys for the Cheeseman plaintiffs in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General notified the Third Circuit that Wolford directly affects the pending challenge to New Jersey’s semiautomatic firearm ban.
Their point is simple: New Jersey cannot force gun owners to prove at the starting line that banned firearms are ‘in common use’ before the Second Amendment even applies. Under Wolford, the first question is much more basic.
Does the law regulate “Arms”? If yes, the Constitution is already in play.
…”
ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/06/supreme-courts-wolford-decision-could-blow-a-hole-in-new-jerseys-ar-15-ban-defense/
So basically, ‘in common use’ (or the anti-gun ‘in common use for self defense’ trick the anti-gun judges and anti-gun tries to play) no longer needs to be shown by the plaintiffs. If its ‘arms’ then the 2A applies.
‘arms’ has already been defined by SCOTUS (Heller, 554 U.S. at 581) as “Arms” comprises “weapons of offence,” “armour of defence,” and “anything that a man wears for his defence, . . . takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” So “bear arms,” in sum, means to “wear, bear, or carry . . . for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person.” (Id. at 584 – ellipses in original)
None of this makes any mention of an ‘arm’ has to be in ‘common use’ or ‘in common use for self defense’. Personally, I always thought it was that way – that there was no actual ‘common use’ thing needing to be proved by a plaintiff and turns out SCOTUS substantiated that with Wolford.
If its ‘arms’ then the 2A applies, no special exception of having to prove ‘in common use’ – Wolford clarified this.
The NFA May Have Just Lost Its [presumably, because its not yet been ruled otherwise] Constitutional [enforcement] Foundation (i.e. lost its legal foundation)
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YQ_javz8CM
JUSTICE BROWN JACKSON ACCIDENTALLY CREATES MAJOR 2A WIN!
“Justice Brown Jackson issued a dissent in Wolford v. Lopez, and it provides great help to gun owners. Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, discusses.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD3Jv8hxTas
Woman Learns Police are Only HOURS Away
“A woman learned that when seconds count, the police are minutes–or hours–away.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ_IcO1y0AU
[note: this case brings up a defensive gun use where the defender did not fire, having the gun (‘brandishing’) and warning made the bad guy run off. It actually made the news, but there are literally thousands of these very year where the defender brandishes and warns, or the bad guy sees the gun, and the bad guy runs away and they never makes the news. The reason this one made the news is because the defender victim made it a news item by raising an issue with police about it. ]
Man Tries to Buy Gun Goes to Jail Instead.
A [law abiding, not-a-prohibited person] gun owner trying to buy a gun from an FFL got sent to jail over a NICs error.
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5qcEFCXV5E
Why the Jury Rejected Self-Defense: Anthony/Metcalf Forensic Breakdown.
“The Austin Metcalf case out of Frisco, Texas left the internet flooded with rumors, misinformation, and intense debate surrounding the conviction of Karmelo Anthony. But what does the actual forensic evidence, medical examiner testimony, and biomechanical data tell us about the weapon used?
In this video, we put the internet rumors to bed using a 100% density ballistic gel torso and the exact tool entered into evidence—the Ozark Trail 7-in-1 stainless steel multitool knife. We do a controlled, single-thrust mechanical demonstration to analyze the physical reality of chest wall penetration, the force required to breach protective layers, and the exact anatomical depth needed to reach vital organs.
From the physics of skin resistance (20–80 N) to the energy needed to pierce solid cartilage and bone, we break down how an ordinary $11 Walmart pocket tool can completely transform into a lethal instrument in a split second. This is a cold, hard look at the forensic facts the mainstream media glossed over.
…”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn5wtQc3-iY
Armed Civilian Shoots Robber In The Head… And He Keeps Running.
(Colion) “An armed civilian in Tulsa was approached outside a convenience store by two robbers — one armed with a knife, the other with a gun.
…”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6X2FSfJBis
5 Killer Quotes From Alito’s Takedown Of Hawaii’s Illegal Gun Control Law.
ht* tps://thefederalist.com/2026/06/25/5-killer-quotes-from-alitos-takedown-of-hawaiis-illegal-gun-control-law/
It Was Clear Kathy Hochul Was Not Welcome …
ht* tps://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/06/27/it-was-clear-kathy-hochul-was-not-welcome-here-n2678386
Left wing terrorism violence: Portland Antifa blog claims responsibility for arson attack that destroyed 4 electric Amazon delivery vans
” ‘last night i torched a few amazon delivery vans parked near the rivian facility in portland. the vans went up in minutes and only the metal frame was left behind.’
A person has claimed responsibility for an arson attack on electric Amazon delivery vans that took place in Portland on June 22. In total, four delivery vans were destroyed in the early morning attack. The message was posted by Rose City Counter-Info, an Antifa blog.
…
Andy Ngo
The Post Millennial
@MrAndyNgo
Breaking: A claim of responsibility for the June 22 Portland Amazon van massive arson attack has been posted on the Rose City Counter-Info. Four vans were torched. The blog is an Antifa terror site that has claimed and called for many terrorist attacks over the years in the Portland area.
Their violence is ignored by liberals.
…”
ht* tps://thepostmillennial.com/portland-antifa-blog-claims-responsibility-for-arson-attack-that-destroyed-4-electric-amazon-delivery-vans?utm_campaign=64470
I automatically assume any gun grabber is a liar. Not misinformed. Not have made an honest mistake. No they are straight up liars.
When you WANT TO believe the lie. Then you are a liar too.
“I automatically assume any gun grabber is a liar.”
That’s a valid and wise assumption.
“Stern” eh? Every time, every damn time (my wife feels the same way I do and she’s Jewish).