2026-09-17T19:02:15-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-doj-gangster-weapons-gun-restrictions-appeal/
华盛顿——据了解内情的消息人士向哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS News）透露，总统特朗普下令司法部不要上诉一项放宽“黑帮武器”枪支限制的法院裁决。此举将让部分美国人可以在更少政府监管的情况下持有或销售短管步枪、短管霰弹枪和消音器。
90多年来，这类武器一直是监管最严格的枪支类型之一，因为它们通常被认为尤其危险且易于隐藏。
根据1934年首次颁布的《全国枪支法》，任何希望销售、持有或制造该法管辖的枪支或装置的人，都必须向烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局（ATF）提交详细的书面申请。他们还必须采集指纹，并向烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局登记这些武器，且武器必须刻有序列号。
但今年8月，特朗普任命的美国北德克萨斯地区联邦地区法官詹姆斯·韦斯利·亨德里克斯作出裁决，称《全国枪支法》管辖下的绝大多数专业枪支限制措施均违宪，仅两类枪支除外。
多位了解此事的消息人士称，特朗普本人决定不对该裁决提起上诉。消息人士还透露，特朗普最近几周在多通电话中告知部分共和党国会议员，他将确保司法部不会对该裁决提出异议。
多位消息人士称，维持下级法院裁决与司法部多个办公室内职业律师和政治任命律师的建议相悖，这些律师不同意法院的意见。他们补充称，该裁决已经开始对全国范围内的联邦枪支起诉产生不利影响。
部分消息人士称，此举还违反了司法部的“辩护义务”——一项长期存在的法律原则，即只要有合理依据支持国会通过的法律，司法部就有宪法义务为这些法律辩护。
哥伦比亚广播公司已联系司法部和白宫寻求置评。
法官的裁决源于15个红州以及包括美国枪支所有者协会和枪支所有者基金会在内的多个第二修正案持枪权团体和个人针对政府提起的两起合并诉讼。
尽管该裁决仅适用于诉讼当事人，但任何目前或未来加入对该规则提起诉讼的持枪团体的成员都受其约束。例如，美国枪支所有者协会的年度会员费为25美元。
该裁决不适用于美国最受欢迎的枪支，如AR-15步枪和格洛克手枪，这类枪支是商业销售的标准武器，主要受另一项联邦法律监管。该法律同样禁止某些人群持有枪支，例如重刑犯，这项禁令仍将适用于所谓“黑帮武器”的购买者。
该裁决也不适用于机枪或爆炸装置，这些武器仍主要受《全国枪支法》监管。该法案于1934年通过，为阿尔·卡彭这类黑帮分子使用的枪支建立了联邦监管体系，例如锯短枪管的霰弹枪和汤姆森冲锋枪。
司法部上月因未申请暂停法官的命令而受到控枪组织的批评，该决定让禁令于8月13日生效。当时司法部表示仍在“评估法院裁决的影响”。
上诉法院裁决的截止日期为10月5日。
亨德里克斯的裁决依据是国会去年在《宏伟法案》中加入的一项条款，该条款取消了《全国枪支法》管辖下的枪支在转让或制造时需缴纳的200美元税费。
他在裁决书中写道，取消政府对这些武器的征税权后，受到质疑的部分法规基本违宪。
“鉴于如今的《全国枪支法》无法从未征税的枪支中获得任何收入，其监管条款无法依据征税权得以维持，”法官写道，“而且《全国枪支法》的文本、结构或立法历史中，没有迹象表明国会在制定相关条款时援引了任何其他权力。因此，监管条款必须被裁定为违宪并予以禁止，因为它们超出了国会的列举权力范围。”
司法部律师辩称，政府仍有权依据美国宪法的商业条款对涉案枪支进行监管，该条款赋予国会规制州际商业的权力。
他们还辩称，《宏伟法案》保留了对制造、分销或经营诉讼中涉及的这类武器的企业征收的另一项税费。
一位了解讨论情况的消息人士认为，部分司法部律师更担心自己的胜诉记录，而非总统的枪支政策，并补充称，暗示不上诉将让人们无需政府监管就能持有或销售锯短枪管的霰弹枪和消音器只是一种恐吓手段。
在裁决中，亨德里克斯发布了永久禁令，禁止烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局执行该法中受到质疑的条款。
尽管禁令仅适用于诉讼当事人，但法官表示，禁令也将适用于原告持枪权团体的“当前和未来”成员及客户。
他将禁令覆盖范围扩大至诉讼当事人所属持枪权团体的“未来”客户和成员，这已经给联邦检察官带来了问题。
例如，在阿拉巴马州中区的一起刑事起诉中，司法部本月早些时候撤销了对卡梅伦·西尔蒙的一项指控，罪名是他明知故犯地接收了一个没有序列号的消音器。其辩护律师称，其当事人在得克萨斯州法官发布禁令后加入了部分持枪权团体。
负责该案的助理司法部长布伦·麦克马肯写道，政府“不同意西尔蒙的立场，即得克萨斯州北区的一名地区法官有权阻止阿拉巴马州中区的美国检察官执行美国联邦刑法”。
他补充称，尽管政府撤销了该项指控，但后续的持续调查发现了更多犯罪证据。西尔蒙如今面临的新指控之一是非法持有机枪——这是不受法院禁令约束的枪支类别之一。
从历史上看，由于严格的监管规定，法院命令管辖的这类枪支在犯罪现场被查获的情况并不常见。根据烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局的一份报告，2017年至2021年间，受《全国枪支法》管辖的枪支仅占已结案的枪支 trafficking调查的约5%。
然而，多年来有多起备受关注的刑事案件涉及这类枪支。
上月对在曼哈顿人行道上枪击并杀害联合健康集团首席执行官布莱恩·汤普森的路易吉·曼焦内，在其武器上使用了消音器。
支持控枪组织GIFFORDS的执行主任艾玛·布朗认为，决定不上诉构成了“未能维护公共安全”。
“特朗普政府可能会让我们回到阿尔·卡彭时代，当时消音器和短管霰弹枪被用来肆意杀人，”布朗告诉哥伦比亚广播公司。
如果司法部确实不对亨德里克斯的裁决提起上诉，仍有可能有其他利益相关方，如各州或各县，申请介入并自行提起上诉。
国会也可以恢复征税或通过另一项法律对其进行监管，但这样做可能需要民主党重新赢得参众两院的多数席位。
“悄悄取消税费的《宏伟法案》条款，最终可能会完成90年来没有任何法院、国会或政府做到的事情：废除《全国枪支法》——美国主要的枪支法律之一，”前烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局副总法律顾问杰弗里·科恩说道。
Trump ordered DOJ not to appeal ruling that loosened limits on “gangster weapons,” sources say
2026-09-17T19:02:15-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-doj-gangster-weapons-gun-restrictions-appeal/
Washington— President Trump ordered the Justice Department not to appeal a court ruling that loosened restrictions on firearms known as “gangster weapons,” sources familiar with the matter told CBS News, a move that will let some Americans possess or sell short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and silencers with less government oversight.
For more than 90 years, those types of arms have been among the most heavily regulated because they are generally considered to be particularly dangerous and easily concealable.
Under the National Firearms Act, first enacted in 1934, anyone wishing to sell, possess or make a firearm or device covered by the law has had to submit a detailed written application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They have also had to be fingerprinted and were required to register the weapons, which must be engraved with serial numbers, with the ATF.
But in August, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that most of the restrictions on all but two categories of specialized firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act are unconstitutional.
The president himself decided against appealing the ruling, several of the sources with knowledge of the matter said. Mr. Trump has also told some Republican members of Congress in a series of calls in recent weeks that he would ensure the Justice Department did not contest the decision, sources familiar with the discussions said.
Letting the lower court ruling stand runs counter to the recommendations of some career and politically appointed lawyers at the Justice Department across multiple offices who disagree with the court’s opinion, several of the sources said, adding that they have warned it is already beginning to adversely impact federal firearms prosecutions across the country.
It also runs afoul of the Justice Department’s “duty to defend,” a longstanding legal principle that says the department has a constitutional duty to defend the laws enacted by Congress, as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of those statutes, some of the sources said.
CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department and the White House for comment.
The judge’s decision came in two consolidated cases brought against the government by 15 red states and a number of Second Amendment gun rights groups and individuals, including the Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation.
Although the ruling applies only to the parties to the lawsuit, any current or future members of the gun groups that sued over the rules are covered. An annual membership to the Gun Owners of America, for example, costs $25.
The ruling does not apply to the country’s most popular firearms, such as AR-15s and Glock pistols, which are standard weapons available for sale commercially and regulated largely under a different federal law. That law also blocks certain people from owning guns, such as convicted felons, a prohibition that would still apply to buyers of so-called “gangster weapons.”
It also does not apply to machine guns or explosive devices, which remain primarily regulated under the National Firearms Act, a statute passed in 1934 that created a federal oversight regime for the types of guns used by mobsters like Al Capone, such as sawed-off shotguns and Tommy guns.
The Justice Department last month faced criticism from gun control groups after it failed to seek a stay of the judge’s order, a decision that allowed the injunction to go into effect on Aug. 13.
At the time, the Justice Department said it was still “assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”
The deadline to appeal the court’s ruling is Oct. 5.
Hendrix’s opinion was based on a decision by Congress last year to include a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that eliminated a $200 tax imposed on firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act when they are transferred or made.
By removing the government’s taxing authority over the weapons, he wrote, the portions of the statute that were being challenged are rendered largely unconstitutional.
“Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power,” the judge wrote. “And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”
Justice Department attorneys have argued that the government still has the legal authority to regulate the firearms at issue under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce across state lines.
They also have argued that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act left intact a separate tax that is imposed on businesses that manufacture, distribute or deal in the types of weapons at issue in the lawsuit.
One source familiar with the discussions believes that some Justice Department lawyers are more worried about their win-loss record than the president’s gun policies, adding that it is merely a scare tactic to suggest that not appealing will allow people to possess or sell sawed-off shotguns and suppressors without government oversight.
In his ruling, Hendrix imposed a permanent injunction on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that prevents the agency from enforcing the challenged provisions of the law.
Although the injunction only applies to the parties in the lawsuit, the judge said that it would also be applied to the plaintiff gun groups’ members and customers, “both current and future.”
His decision to cover “future” customers and members of the gun rights groups who are a party to the lawsuit has already started to cause problems for federal prosecutors.
In one criminal prosecution in the Middle District of Alabama, for example, the Justice Department earlier this month dismissed an indictment against a man named Cameron Silmon on a charge he knowingly received a silencer without a serial number, after his defense lawyer claimed his client had joined some of the gun rights groups after the Texas judge issued the injunction.
Bren McMaken, the assistant attorney general prosecuting the case, wrote that the government “disagrees with Silmon’s position that a District Judge in the Northern District of Texas has the power to stop the United States Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama from enforcing the criminal laws of the United States.”
He added that while the government was dropping the charge, its ongoing investigation had since uncovered evidence of more crimes. Among the new charges that Silmon now faces is illegal possession of a machine gun — one of the categories of firearms not covered by the court’s injunction.
Historically, the types of firearms covered by the court’s order are not commonly recovered at crime scenes because of the stringent regulations that govern them. Between 2017 and 2021, the NFA-covered firearms only accounted for about 5% of the closed gun-trafficking investigations, according to an ATF report.
However, there have been a number of high-profile criminal cases over the years that have involved some of the firearms in question.
Luigi Mangione, who pleaded guilty last month to shooting and killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Manhattan sidewalk, used a silencer on his weapon.
Emma Brown, the executive director of pro-gun control organization GIFFORDS, argued that deciding not to appeal would constitute a “failure to defend public safety.”
“The Trump Administration could bring us back to the days of Al Capone, where silencers and short-barreled shotguns were used to recklessly kill people,” Brown told CBS News.
If the Justice Department follows through on not appealing Hendrix’s ruling, there is still a chance that other interested parties, like states or counties, could try to ask the court for permission to intervene and appeal it themselves.
Congress could also reinstate the tax or pass a different law to regulate them, but doing so would likely require Democrats to regain a majority in the House and Senate.
“The ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ provision that quietly zeroed out the tax may ultimately do what no court, no Congress, and no administration has done in ninety years eliminate: the National Firearms Act, one of the primary American gun laws,” said Jeffrey Cohen, former associate chief counsel at the ATF.
路透社/布莱恩·斯奈德 资料图