2026-06-15T20:52:57.41Z / 路透社
A person looks at a gun on display during the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Houston, Texas, U.S. April 19, 2026. REUTERS/Callaghan O’Hare Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
6月15日（路透社）——美国最高法院周一驳回了枪支行业针对纽约州一项法律的质疑，该法律允许针对枪支制造商、批发商和经销商提起诉讼，理由是其通过枪支和弹药销售危及民众安全。
大法官们拒绝受理行业贸易团体全国射击运动基金会针对一项维持该法律的下级法院裁决的上诉，纽约州将该法律称为公共妨害法。
即刻开启您的晨间法律资讯：《每日案卷》新闻简报将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱。点击此处注册
包括史密斯威森（SWBI.O，打开新标签页）、儒格（RGR.N，打开新标签页）、贝雷塔、格洛克、西格绍尔以及斯特姆在内的枪支制造商加入了此次上诉，他们辩称纽约州的法律违宪，与联邦法律相冲突。
该法律要求枪支行业采取合理的防范措施，以防止枪支走私、盗窃以及“稻草人买家”为他人购买枪支的行为。该法律还允许纽约州及地方官员以及公众提起民事诉讼。
美国最高法院在2025年曾免除史密斯威森一起由墨西哥政府提起的诉讼，墨西哥政府指控该公司协助向贩毒集团进行非法枪支走私。
全国射击运动基金会贸易团体对最高法院决定不受理其上诉表示失望。
“全国射击运动基金会真诚认为，非法使用合法产品的罪犯应当为其犯罪行为造成的损害承担责任，”该组织发言人马克·奥利瓦在一封电子邮件中说道。“让枪支行业为枪支的犯罪性滥用承担责任，无异于让安海斯-布希公司和福特汽车公司为酒驾犯罪造成的损害承担责任。”
纽约州民主党总检察长莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯在法庭上为该法律辩护，纽约州民主党州长凯西·霍楚尔称这一结果是减少枪支暴力努力中的“重大胜利”。该法律于2021年由霍楚尔的前任、民主党人安德鲁·科莫签署生效。
“枪支游说团体不惜一切代价反对这项全国首创的法律，”霍楚尔在一份声明中说道。“纽约州不会允许枪支制造商从悲剧中牟利。”
人们担忧“毁灭性”的法律责任
全国射击运动基金会表示，该法律被2005年的联邦法律《合法枪支商业保护法》所 preempt（优先适用），该法律保护枪支行业在其产品被用于犯罪时免于民事责任。根据美国宪法的最高条款，联邦法律优先于相冲突的州法律。
位于曼哈顿的美国第二巡回上诉法院去年维持了纽约州的这项法律。
由民主党前总统乔·拜登任命的巡回法官尤尼斯·李写道，当被告明知故犯地违反联邦或州枪支销售和营销法律并造成近因损害时，国会意图保留“至少某些诉讼理由”。
此次上诉并未涉及美国宪法第二修正案对持有和携带武器权利的保护。但该贸易团体表示，纽约州的这类法律通过允许诉讼让公司承担与其无关的犯罪行为的“毁灭性法律责任”，从而危及这些权利。
它还表示，涉案联邦法律中的“先决条件例外”仅在行业未能履行其可控范围内的具体义务或禁令时，才会让行业承担责任。
纽约州表示，该先决条件例外允许对第三方的某些“下游行为”追究责任。它还表示，至少有九个州已经通过了符合该例外条款的法律。
此次上诉得到了全国步枪协会、24名共和党州总检察长以及数十名共和党国会议员的支持。
自2008年最高法院认定第二修正案赋予个人持有和携带武器的权利以来，已经在三项重大判决中扩大了枪支权利。
乔纳森·斯坦普尔纽约报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑
US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to New York law allowing lawsuits against gun industry
2026-06-15T20:52:57.41Z / Reuters
A person looks at a gun on display during the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Houston, Texas, U.S. April 19, 2026. REUTERS/Callaghan O’Hare Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court turned away on Monday a gun industry challenge to a New York law that permits lawsuits against gun makers, wholesalers and dealers for endangering people’s safety through sales of firearms and ammunition.
The justices declined to hear an appeal by an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, of a lower court ruling upholding the law, which New York calls a public nuisance statute.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson
SWBI.O, opens new tab
, Ruger
RGR.N, opens new tab
, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer and Sturm joined the appeal, which argued that New York’s law unconstitutionally conflicted with federal law.
The law requires the gun industry to use reasonable safeguards to protect against gun trafficking, theft and the use of “straw purchasers” who buy firearms for someone else. It also allows civil lawsuits by New York state and local officials as well as members of the public.
The Supreme Court in 2025 spared Smith & Wesson from a lawsuit by Mexico’s government accusing the company of aiding illegal gun trafficking to drug cartels.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation trade group expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court decided not to hear its appeal.
“NSSF sincerely believes that those criminals who illegally misuse lawful products should be held responsible for the harms they cause when they commit their crimes,” spokesperson Mark Oliva said in an email. “Holding the firearm industry responsible for the criminal misuse of a firearm is akin to holding Anheuser-Busch and Ford Motor Company responsible for damages from drunk-driving crimes.”
Letitia James, New York’s Democratic attorney general, defended the law in court, and New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul called the outcome “a massive victory” in efforts to reduce gun violence. The law was signed in 2021 by Hochul’s predecessor, Democrat Andrew Cuomo.
“The gun lobby fought tooth and nail against this first-in-the-nation law,” Hochul said in a statement. “New York will not allow gun manufacturers to profit from tragedy.”
‘CRUSHING’ LIABILITY FEARED
The National Shooting Sports Foundation said the law was preempted by a 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that shields the gun industry from civil liability when its products are used in crimes. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.
The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York’s law last year.
Circuit Judge Eunice Lee, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, wrote that Congress intended to preserve “at least some causes of action” when a defendant’s knowing violation of federal or state firearms sales and marketing laws was a proximate cause of harm.
The appeal did not hinge on the Constitution’s Second Amendment protections of the right to keep and bear arms. But the trade group said laws such as New York’s imperil such rights by allowing lawsuits that could saddle companies with “crushing liability” for crimes they had nothing to do with.
It also said a “predicate exception” in the federal law at issue subjected the industry to liability only for failures to comply with specific obligations or prohibitions within its control.
New York said the predicate exception allowed liability for some “downstream acts” of third parties. It also said at least nine states have passed laws to satisfy the exception.
The appeal was supported by the National Rifle Association, 24 Republican state attorneys general and several dozen Republican members of Congress.
The Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in three major decisions since 2008, when it found that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
发表回复