2026-06-26T10:02:48.014Z / 路透社
华盛顿6月26日电（路透社）——美国最高法院在两项新裁决中进一步扩大了宪法第二修正案规定的“人民持有和携带武器的权利”，与此同时大法官们正在考虑在下一任期内受理更多枪支权利相关案件。
周四，最高法院以6票赞成、3票反对的表决结果通过一项裁决，该裁决由保守派多数派推动，推翻了夏威夷州一项法律——该法律要求枪支所有者在将手枪带入向公众开放的私人场所（如大多数商铺）前，必须获得场地所有者的许可。
上周，大法官们一致决定限制一项已有数十年历史的联邦法律的适用范围，该法律禁止某些吸毒者持有枪支。此前这项法律曾威胁到数百万使用大麻且拥有枪支的美国人的枪支权利。
在美国就如何应对持续不断的枪支暴力（包括频发的大规模枪击事件）存在严重分歧的背景下，这些裁决凸显了最高法院总体上对第二修正案所保障的权利持同情态度。
专家表示，这些裁决强化了一项本已严苛的法律审查标准：枪支管制措施必须通过该标准的检验，才能在1791年批准的第二修正案下经受住审查。第二修正案原文为：“一支训练有素的民兵，对于一个自由州的安全实为必要，人民持有和携带武器的权利不得侵犯。”
“极端怀疑态度”
佩珀代因大学卡鲁索法学院教授雅各布·查尔斯表示：“这两起案件证实了最高法院对各类枪支监管法规，尤其是新法规的极端怀疑态度。”
“它制定并细化了一项标准，使得立法机构几乎无法制定枪支法律来保护本国公民，”查尔斯在谈及最高法院时说道。
这些裁决发布之际，大法官们的本届任期即将结束。本届任期始于去年10月。
近期刚在法律诉讼中取得胜利的枪支权利倡导者们希望，最高法院能在下一任期（将于10月开始）受理更多第二修正案相关案件。
大法官们于周四举行了每周一次的闭门会议。针对州级限制攻击性步枪（如AR-15步枪）和大容量弹夹的法律挑战，是提交法院审议的上诉案件之一。这些案件最早可能于周一被受理，以便在即将到来的任期内进行审理。
支持第二修正案的团体“美国枪支所有者”的律师斯蒂芬·斯坦布利耶表示，“最高法院早已该执行其此前的裁决，反对这类措施”。
“最高法院受理AR-15步枪和弹夹相关案件，并终结下级法院对抗最高法院先例的做法，这至关重要，”斯坦布利耶说道。
去年最高法院驳回类似诉讼的上诉时，其三名保守派大法官曾对驳回上诉的决定表示异议。
第四名保守派大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺对挑战者的论点表示同情，他们认为AR-15步枪被“守法公民广泛使用，因此受第二修正案保护”。卡瓦诺表示，最高法院“想必很快就会处理AR-15步枪相关问题”。
最高法院还在考虑是否受理一起挑战美国政府禁令的案件——该禁令禁止联邦特许枪支经销商向21岁以下成年人出售手枪，以及类似的州级法律措施。
布鲁恩测试
在这两项新的枪支权利裁决中，最高法院均适用了一项源自2022年一项具有里程碑意义的判决的法律测试。该判决由保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯撰写，案件名为“纽约州步枪与手枪协会诉布鲁恩案”。
根据所谓的布鲁恩测试，枪支管制措施必须“符合该国枪支监管的历史传统”——而不仅仅是推进一项重要的政府利益——才能符合第二修正案的要求。
在2024年“美国诉拉希米”案中适用该测试时，最高法院以8票赞成、1票反对的裁决维持了一项联邦法律，该法律规定受家庭暴力限制令约束的人持有枪支属于犯罪。这是迄今为止唯一一项在最高法院通过布鲁恩测试的法律。
libertarian智库独立研究所的第二修正案专家大卫·科佩尔表示，家庭暴力施暴者的危险性是拉希米案与最近两起裁决的区别所在。
“使用大麻的和平民众以及持有隐蔽携带许可证的人并不危险，”科佩尔在谈及近期枪支权利案件的原告时说道。
“布鲁恩案援引的广泛历史传统指向了一项危险性标准，即作为某些美国人可以被剥夺持枪权的规则，”科佩尔补充道。
夏威夷州官员辩称，该州法律在持枪权与财产所有者禁止枪支进入其财产的权利之间达成了适当平衡。
自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在书面异议中指责最高法院的保守派“操纵”布鲁恩测试，使其“变成一场混战，让司法机构通过将获取枪支的特权置于一切之上，挫败立法机构的意志”。
佩珀代因大学的查尔斯驳斥了最高法院部分保守派提出的观点，即持有和携带武器的权利被视为“二等权利”。
“最高法院的教义早已将第二修正案权利提升到远超一等权利的地位，”查尔斯说道。
约翰·克鲁泽尔报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑
US Supreme Court expands Second Amendment rights, eyes more gun cases
2026-06-26T10:02:48.014Z / reuters.com
WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court in a pair of new rulings has further expanded the Constitution’s Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms,” as the justices consider whether to take up additional gun rights cases for their next term.
The court, in a 6-3 ruling on Thursday powered by its conservative majority, struck down a Hawaii law that required gun owners to get an owner’s permission before bringing a handgun onto private property open to the public, such as most businesses.
The justices decided unanimously last week to limit the application of a decades-old federal law that bars firearms possession by certain drug users, narrowing a measure that had threatened the gun rights of millions of Americans who use marijuana and own firearms.
In a nation deeply divided over how to address persistent firearms violence including frequent mass shootings, these rulings underscored the court’s generally sympathetic approach toward protections enshrined in the Second Amendment.
The decisions, experts said, stiffened an already stringent legal test that gun control measures must clear in order to survive scrutiny under the amendment, ratified in 1791, that states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
‘EXTREME SKEPTICISM’
Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law professor Jacob Charles said, “The two cases confirm the court’s extreme skepticism about all manner of gun regulations, especially new ones.”
“It has created and elaborated a test that makes it exceedingly difficult for legislatures to create gun laws to protect their citizens,” Charles said of the court.
The rulings were issued as the justices near the end of their current term, which began last October.
Gun rights advocates, fresh off their recent legal victories, expressed hope that the court would take up additional Second Amendment cases for its next term, which begins in October.
The justices on Thursday gathered for their weekly private conference. Challenges to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles, such as AR-15s, and large-capacity ammunition magazines were among the appeals up for consideration for court review. Those cases could be taken up as soon as Monday to be heard in the coming term.
Stephen Stamboulieh, an attorney with the pro-Second Amendment group Gun Owners of America, said that “it’s past time for the court to enforce” its prior rulings against such measures.
“It is critical that the Supreme Court take an AR-15 and magazine case and end the lower courts’ rebellion against the court’s precedents,” Stamboulieh said.
When the Supreme Court last year turned away appeals in similar lawsuits, three of its conservative justices dissented from the decision to reject the appeals.
A fourth conservative justice, Brett Kavanaugh, expressed sympathy toward the argument by the challengers that AR-15s are in common use by “law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment.” Kavanaugh said the court “presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.”
The court is also considering whether to take up a challenge to a U.S. government ban on federally licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to adults under the age of 21, and similar state law measures.
THE BRUEN TEST
In both new gun rights rulings, the court applied a legal test that emerged from a landmark 2022 decision authored by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in a case called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Under the so-called Bruen test, gun control measures must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” — not simply advance an important government interest — in order to comply with the Second Amendment.
Applying that test in the 2024 case of U.S. v. Rahimi, the court in an 8-1 ruling upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns — the only law to survive the Bruen test unscathed at the Supreme Court to date.
David Kopel, a Second Amendment expert at the libertarian Independence Institute think tank, said the dangerousness of domestic abusers is what set the Rahimi decision apart from the two recent rulings.
“Peaceable people who use marijuana, and persons with concealed-carry permits, are not dangerous,” Kopel said, referring to the plaintiffs in the recent gun rights cases.
“The broad historic traditions invoked by Bruen point towards a dangerousness standard as the rule for when some Americans can be disarmed,” Kopel added.
Hawaii officials had contended that the state’s law had struck a proper balance between the right to bear arms and the right of property owners to exclude guns from their property.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a written dissent, accused the court’s conservatives of having “manipulated” the Bruen test “into a free-for-all that lets the judiciary thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else.”
Pepperdine’s Charles dismissed the notion advanced by some of the court’s conservatives that the right to keep and bear arms is being treated like a “second-class right.”
“The court’s doctrine has elevated the Second Amendment right far above a first-class right,” Charles said.
Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham
