A newly filed amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez raises a chilling question: Will simply exercising the right to keep and bear arms be labeled dangerous and disruptive conduct?

Submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the brief—authored by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and other gun control advocates—argues that lawful public carry should be presumed undesirable by default. According to the brief, the mere presence of a firearm, regardless of behavior or intent, is inherently destabilizing and something the state should restrict preemptively.

This argument directly supports Hawaii’s so-called “no carry default” rule, often called the vampire rule. Under this policy, firearms are banned on any private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission. Silence means no carry. No sign means no carry. The result is a near-total ban on lawful public carry without ever passing an outright prohibition.

Gun owners are not accused of misconduct or criminal behavior. Instead, the act of exercising a constitutional right is treated like loitering, trespassing, or public intoxication. That flips the Constitution on its head. Rights do not require permission, and they are not privileges granted by third parties based on comfort or feelings.

The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen made clear that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home and cannot be reduced to discretionary approval. If Hawaii’s rule is upheld, states will have a roadmap to nullify public carry nationwide while pretending to respect the Second Amendment.

This case is bigger than Hawaii. States like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California are watching closely. If carrying a firearm can be redefined as “disruptive conduct,” then no constitutional right is truly safe.

A right that exists only where it is welcomed is not a right at all. It is a revocable privilege—and that should concern every American.