2026-06-25T14:11:22.216Z / 路透社
2026年2月20日，美国华盛顿特区，一名民众用摄像机记录美国最高法院大楼外景。路透社/乔纳森·恩斯特
- 内容概要
- 特朗普政府支持该法案的挑战者
- 枪支权利组织及其他原告起诉夏威夷州
- 最高法院曾在2008年、2010年和2022年的重要裁决中扩大枪支权利
华盛顿6月25日电（路透社）——美国最高法院周四裁定推翻夏威夷州一项法案，该法案禁止在未经业主许可的情况下，在多数面向公众的私人场所（如大多数商铺）携带手枪。这是最高法院最新一次扩大枪支权利的裁决。
大法官们以6票赞成、3票反对的投票结果，推翻了下级法院的判决。下级法院曾裁定，夏威夷州由民主党支持的这项法案很可能符合美国宪法第二修正案中持有和携带武器的权利。总统唐纳德·特朗普政府在最高法院层面支持了对该法案的挑战。
路透社每日简报新闻通讯为您提供开启一天所需的全部新闻。点击此处订阅。
根据夏威夷州这项法律，枪支拥有者在将手枪带入面向公众的私人场所前，必须获得业主的“明确授权”。
撰写该裁决书的保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托在谈到夏威夷州的这项措施时表示：“这一制度削弱了第二修正案所保护的权利：美国民众在日常生活中携带武器进行自卫的权利。我们裁定该法律违宪。”
多数派裁决由法院的六名保守派大法官支持，三名自由派大法官持反对意见。
受周四这项裁决的影响，美国其他多个州也出台了类似法案，其法律依据可能会因此变得不稳固。
2023年，夏威夷州州长约什·格林签署这项法案数周后，三名持有隐蔽持枪许可证的夏威夷居民和一个总部位于檀香山的枪支权利倡导组织提起诉讼，挑战该法案。
夏威夷州官员辩称，该法案在持枪权和财产所有者排除枪支进入其财产的权利之间取得了适当平衡。
在美国围绕如何应对持续存在的枪支暴力（包括频发的大规模枪击事件）存在严重分歧的背景下，最高法院一贯对第二修正案的保护采取扩大解释的态度，包括在2008年、2010年和2022年的几项重大裁决中。
夏威夷州案件的挑战者援引了最高法院2022年在“纽约州步枪与手枪协会诉布鲁恩”案中的裁决，该裁决认定第二修正案保护个人在户外携带手枪进行自卫的权利。
布鲁恩案裁决推翻了纽约州对户外隐蔽携带手枪的限制。最高法院在裁决中确立了评估枪支法律的标准，即法律必须“符合该国历史上的枪支监管传统”，而不仅仅是服务于重要的政府利益。
一名联邦法官初步叫停了夏威夷州的这项限制措施。但总部位于旧金山的美国第九巡回上诉法院在很大程度上驳回了该法案挑战者的诉求，促使他们向最高法院提起上诉。
最高法院未受理针对该法案中关于禁止在海滩、酒吧和其他敏感场所携带手枪的条款的法律挑战。
在本届最高法院任期内，夏威夷州案件并非唯一一起重要的第二修正案案件。6月18日，最高法院限制了一项数十年之久的联邦法律的适用范围，该法律禁止某些吸毒者持有枪支。最高法院驳回了特朗普政府的立场，该立场曾威胁到数百万使用大麻且拥有枪支的美国人的持枪权。
最高法院去年维持了一项针对 largely untraceable“幽灵枪”的联邦监管规定，认定该措施符合1968年的联邦法律。幽灵枪产品通常在线上购买，可在家中快速组装，通常没有普通枪支用于追踪的序列号，也无需像其他枪支那样对购买者进行背景调查。该案件并非基于第二修正案的理由作出裁决。
约翰·克鲁泽尔 报道；威尔·邓纳姆 编辑
US Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii handgun limits
2026-06-25T14:11:22.216Z / Reuters
A person uses a video camera to record outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 20, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
- Summary
- Trump administration supported challengers to the law
- Gun rights group and other plaintiffs sued the state
- Court widened gun rights in major 2008, 2010, 2022 rulings
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday a Hawaii law restricting the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, like most businesses, without the owner’s permission in the latest ruling by the justices expanding gun rights.
The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court’s decision that Hawaii’s Democratic-backed measure likely complied with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The challenge to the law was backed by President Donald Trump’s administration at the Supreme Court.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
Under the Hawaii law, gun owners were required to get a property owner’s “express authorization” before bringing a handgun onto private property open to the public.
“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the ruling, said of the Hawaii measure. “We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”
The majority ruling was powered by the court’s six conservatives over the dissent of the three liberal justices.
Several other U.S. states have similar laws that could now be on shaky legal ground as a result of Thursday’s ruling.
Three Hawaii residents with concealed-carry licenses and a Honolulu-based gun-rights advocacy group sued to challenge the Hawaii law weeks after Democratic Governor Josh Green signed it in 2023.
Hawaii officials contended that the law struck a proper balance between the right to bear arms and the right of property owners to exclude guns from their property.
In a nation bitterly divided over how to address persistent firearms violence including frequent mass shootings, the Supreme Court often has taken an expansive view of Second Amendment protections including in major rulings in 2008, 2010 and 2022.
The challengers in the Hawaii case cited the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in a case called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that found that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.
The Bruen decision invalidated New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. In doing so, the court created a test for assessing firearms laws, saying they must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” not simply advance an important government interest.
A federal judge preliminarily blocked Hawaii’s restrictions. But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely ruled against the law’s challengers, prompting their Supreme Court appeal.
The Supreme Court did not take up an aspect of the legal challenge that focused on the law’s provisions banning the carrying of handguns at beaches, bars and other sensitive places.
The Hawaii case was not the only important Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court during its current term. The justices on June 18 limited the application of a decades-old federal law that bars firearms possession by certain drug users, rejecting a position taken by the Trump administration that had threatened the gun rights of millions of Americans who use marijuana and own firearms.
The court last year upheld a federal regulation targeting largely untraceable “ghost guns,” finding the measure to be consistent with a 1968 federal law. Ghost gun products are typically purchased online and may be quickly assembled at home, without the serial numbers ordinarily used to trace guns or background checks on purchasers required for other firearms. That case was not decided on Second Amendment grounds.
Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham
发表回复