联邦法官推翻弹簧刀与防弹衣限制，为最高法院针对AR-15步枪的抗争注入乐观情绪
作者：伊莱恩·马伦 福克斯新闻
发布时间：2026年10月24日 美国东部时间下午4:26
全国枪支权利协会主席达德利·布朗表示，最高法院审理的AR-15禁令案件，可能会成为对自动刀具、防弹衣、弹夹及其他防御装备限制发起挑战的先例。
NEW 你现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
收听本文
5分钟
联邦法院周三作出的两项裁决，将第二修正案保护范围拓展至弹簧刀和防弹衣，这为枪支权利倡导者在最高法院针对AR-15式步枪禁令的重大对决前带来了乐观情绪。
美国第五巡回上诉法院裁定，一项限制弹簧刀州际贸易的联邦法律违反了第二修正案；而纽约西区的一名联邦法官则推翻了纽约州针对个人防弹衣的限制。在这两起案件中，法院均认定弹簧刀和防弹衣属于宪法保护的“武器”范畴。
这两项裁决出台之际，最高法院正准备审理《维拉蒙蒂斯诉库克县案》，该案可能决定AR-15式步枪是否属于第二修正案保护的“武器”。
全国枪支权利协会主席达德利·布朗的组织已在《维拉蒙蒂斯案》中提交了法庭之友意见书，他表示，最高法院推翻AR-15禁令的裁决，可能会影响未来针对弹药弹夹、自动刀具、防弹衣及其他防御装备限制的法律挑战。
“这两起案件的有趣之处在于，它们都将由美国最高法院在《维拉蒙蒂斯案》中作出最终裁决，”布朗在接受福克斯新闻数字频道采访时表示。
全国枪支权利协会主席达德利·布朗手持一把弹簧刀，讲述第五巡回上诉法院裁定刀具受第二修正案保护的相关情况（福克斯新闻数字频道 | 伊莱恩·马伦）
最高法院一致限制用于起诉亨特·拜登的枪支法律适用范围
近期的裁决依据了两项界定第二修正案范围的最高法院判例：《哥伦比亚特区诉海勒案》与《纽约州步枪与手枪协会诉布鲁恩案》——这两项判例都将在最高法院审理AR-15式步枪禁令的过程中发挥关键作用。
2008年的《海勒案》中，最高法院裁定，第二修正案保护个人出于合法目的持有枪支的权利，包括自卫。法院同时裁定，该修正案保护合法通用的武器，同时承认对“危险且不寻常”武器实施限制的长期传统。
《海勒案》确认，“武器”一词既包括进攻性武器，也包括防御性装备。该裁决并未直接提及弹簧刀或防弹衣，但近期的裁决依托了它对“武器”可能涵盖范围的更宽泛界定。
这些裁决也揭示了《布鲁恩案》的文本与历史标准将如何影响最高法院对AR-15式步枪禁令的审理。
根据《布鲁恩案》的标准，法院首先会确定第二修正案的文本是否涵盖所涉武器或行为。由于两个法院均作出肯定回答，因此举证责任转移至政府，需证明这些限制符合美国枪支管制的历史传统。
第二修正案律师乔治·莱昂表示，两起案件中的政府均未找到足够相近的历史法律来证明现行限制的合理性。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ar15-rifles-blue-ridge-arsenal-fox-news-001-scaled.jpeg
2015年1月9日，弗吉尼亚州尚蒂伊市的蓝岭兵工厂内，AR-15式步枪正在展出待售（塞缪尔·科鲁姆/阿纳多卢通讯社/盖蒂图片社）
烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局暂停特定枪支的联邦登记与审批规则
“一旦你要采取的行为被纳入第二修正案的文本范围，就推定该管制措施违宪，”莱昂说。
第五巡回上诉法院指出，弹簧刀是第二修正案保护的常用“武器”，援引了其历史上用于防御与日常用途的情况。随后该法院裁定，政府未能找出足够的历史传统来证明《联邦弹簧刀法》对州际贸易的特定限制是合理的，该法对弹簧刀的管制方式与历史法律存在差异。
在纽约州的案件中，该州辩称防弹衣是枪支的战术配件，而非第二修正案保护的“武器”。法官驳回了这一论点，认定防弹衣属于《海勒案》所认可的武器的历史定义范畴。法院随后裁定，纽约州未能证明其针对平民购买的禁令有足够的历史传统支撑。
这一推理可能会在《维拉蒙蒂斯案》中发挥重要作用，该案正请求最高法院判定AR-15式步枪是否属于《海勒案》所认可的受保护武器范畴。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Supreme-Court-at-dusk.jpg
美国最高法院为特朗普政府推动第三国驱逐政策扫清了障碍，大法官们目前正审议对该政策的法律挑战（盖蒂图片社）
枪支权利组织在法官推翻数十年-old限制后借机行动：“具有里程碑意义”
该案源于对库克县攻击性武器禁令的挑战。美国第七巡回上诉法院认定，AR-15式步枪与机关枪类似，因此不属于第二修正案保护的武器范畴。最高法院的裁决可能会判定该推理是否符合《海勒案》与《布鲁恩案》的标准。
莱昂表示，第七巡回上诉法院错误地将AR-15式步枪类比为机关枪。
“最高法院正在审理的《维拉蒙蒂斯案》将解决这一问题，因为第七巡回上诉法院认为，由于AR-15‘类似机关枪’，它们并不构成《海勒案》所定义的武器，”莱昂说，“我认为这完全是错误的。”
美国步枪协会公共事务主任贾斯汀·戴维斯表示，围绕AR-15式步枪的争议，是围绕第二修正案中何为“武器”的更广泛法律抗争的一部分。
“法院内部正在就何为武器、何为非武器展开重大讨论，”戴维斯说。
戴维斯指出了涉及消音器、弹药弹夹、电击枪、辣椒喷雾及其他自卫装备的诉讼。
“他们声称第二修正案仅适用于燧发枪，因为那是开国元勋时代的武器，但我们不会将第一修正案仅适用于报纸、书籍或公共论坛的言论，”戴维斯说，“社交媒体、短信和手机在当时也不存在。”
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
“世界在演变，但核心的基本权利永远不会改变，”戴维斯继续说道。
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道与福克斯商业频道的撰稿人，负责报道全国政治。
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/a6faf0d9-7262-4bd5-8c2d-6bd64e355846355846
Second Amendment fight moves beyond guns with Supreme Court poised for big ruling
Federal judges strike down switchblade and body armor restrictions, fueling optimism ahead of Supreme Court AR-15 fight
By Elaine Mallon Fox News
Published October 24, 2026 4:26pm EDT
National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown says the AR-15 ban before the Supreme Court could shape challenges to restrictions on automatic knives, body armor, magazines and other defensive equipment.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
5 min
Two federal court rulings Wednesday extending Second Amendment protections to switchblade knives and body armor have fueled optimism among gun-rights advocates ahead of a major Supreme Court showdown over bans on AR-15-style rifles.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law restricting the interstate commerce of switchblade knives violated the Second Amendment, while a federal judge in the Western District of New York struck down New York’s restrictions on personal body armor. In both cases, the courts determined that switchblades and body armor qualify as constitutionally protected “arms.”
The twin rulings come as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, a case that could determine whether AR-15-style rifles qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown, whose organization filed an amicus brief in Viramontes, said a Supreme Court ruling against AR-15 bans could influence future legal challenges to restrictions on ammunition magazines, automatic knives, body armor and other defensive equipment.
“The interesting thing about both of these cases is that they’re both going to be really decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Viramontes decision,” Brown told Fox News Digital.
National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown hold a switchblade as he describes the Fifth Circuit ruling that knives are protected under the Second Amendment(Fox News Digital | Elaine Mallon)
SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY LIMITS USE OF GUN LAW USED TO PROSECUTE HUNTER BIDEN
The recent rulings rely on two major Supreme Court decisions defining the scope of the Second Amendment: District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen — both of which will play a key role in the Supreme Court’s review of AR-15-style rifle bans.
In its 2008 decision in Heller, the Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The Court also ruled that the amendment protects weapons in lawful common use while acknowledging a longstanding tradition of restricting “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
Heller recognized that the term “arms” encompasses both offensive weapons and defensive armor. The decision did not address switchblades or body armor directly but the recent rulings relied on its broader understanding of what may qualify as an arm.
The decisions also reveal how Bruen ’s text-and-history test could shape the Supreme Court’s review of bans on AR-15-style rifles.
Under Bruen, courts first determine whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the weapon or conduct at issue. Because both courts answered that question affirmatively, the burden shifted to the governments to show that the restrictions were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation.
George Lyon, a Second Amendment attorney, said the governments in both cases failed to identify sufficiently similar historical laws justifying the modern restrictions.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ar15-rifles-blue-ridge-arsenal-fox-news-001-scaled.jpeg
AR-15 style rifles are displayed for sale at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Va., on Jan. 9, 2015.(Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
ATF SUSPENDS FEDERAL REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL RULES FOR CERTAIN FIREARMS
“Once what you want to do is shown to come within the text of the Second Amendment, the presumption is that the regulation is unconstitutional,” Lyon said.
The Fifth Circuit found that switchblades are commonly used “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, citing their historical use for defense and everyday purposes. It then ruled that the government had failed to identify a sufficient historical tradition for the Federal Switchblade Act’s specific restrictions on interstate commerce, which regulated switchblades in a way that differed from historical laws.
In the New York ruling, the state argued that body armor was a tactical accessory to a firearm rather than an “arm” protected by the Second Amendment. The judge rejected that argument, finding that body armor falls within the historical definition of arms recognized in Heller. The court then concluded that New York had not shown a sufficient historical tradition supporting its civilian purchase ban.
That reasoning could become important in Viramontes, where the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether AR-15-style rifles fall within the definition of protected arms recognized in Heller.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Supreme-Court-at-dusk.jpg
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue third-country deportations while the justices consider a legal challenge to the policy.(Getty Images)
GUN RIGHTS GROUPS CAPITALIZE AFTER JUDGE REVERSES DECADES-OLD RESTRICTIONS: ‘MONUMENTAL’
The case arises from a challenge to Cook County’s assault-weapons ban. The Seventh Circuit concluded that AR-15-style rifles were comparable to machine guns and therefore fell outside the category of arms protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision could resolve whether that reasoning is consistent with Heller and Bruen.
Lyon said the Seventh Circuit improperly treated AR-15-style rifles as comparable to machine guns.
“The current case at the Supreme Court, Viramontes, will address that because the Seventh Circuit had taken the position that because AR-15s are ‘like machine guns,’ they don’t constitute an arm as defined under Heller,” Lyon said. “That was just totally wrong in my view.”
Justin Davis, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said the dispute over AR-15-style rifles is part of a broader legal fight over what qualifies as an “arm” under the Second Amendment.
“There’s a major discussion going on in the courts about what is and what aren’t arms,” Davis said.
Davis pointed to litigation involving suppressors, ammunition magazines, stun guns, pepper spray and other equipment used for self-defense.
“They talk about how the Second Amendment only applied to muskets because that’s what existed at the time of the Founders, but we don’t apply the First Amendment only to newspapers, books or speech in public forums,” Davis said. “Social media, texting and phones didn’t exist at that time, either.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“The world evolves, but the core fundamental rights never change,” Davis continued.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/a6faf0d9-7262-4bd5-8c2d-6bd64e355846
发表回复