2026年6月27日 美国东部时间早上6:00 / 福克斯新闻网
阿利托大法官称这部1865年路易斯安那州法案是“受污染的遗物”，其制定目的是剥夺新获解放的美国黑人的武装权
作者：伊莱恩·马伦 福克斯新闻网
该案代理律师之一表示，该裁决进一步强化了各州不得对第二修正案权利采取与其他宪法保护措施不同的对待方式这一原则。
NEW 您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/3cf4e23e-85d1-415b-8d65-665d4494e7c2
收听本文
时长5分钟
帮助说服最高法院周四推翻夏威夷州私人场所隐蔽持枪限制规定的律师批评该州援引重建时期的《黑人法典》为该法案辩护。
在沃尔福德诉洛佩兹案中，最高法院以6票对3票作出裁决，认定夏威夷州不得要求持证枪支拥有者在携带枪支进入对公众开放的私人场所前获得明确许可。枪支权利挑战者将这项政策称为“吸血鬼规则”，因为合法持枪者在武装进入商业场所前必须获得“邀请”。
“任何州都援引专门旨在剥夺美国黑人第二修正案权利或任何宪法权利的法律，这是可耻的，就像当时的情况一样，”代表原告的律师凯文·奥格雷迪告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
“不过，夏威夷援引这部法律并不令人意外，因为他们完全反对第二修正案。我们完全预料到最高法院会认定，这类法律绝对不应用来判断某一规定是否符合宪法，因为这正是不符合宪法的典型案例。”
最高法院在蓝州枪支管制案中为隐蔽持枪者赢得第二修正案胜利
2024年9月20日，在华盛顿特区举行的“凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊谈《可爱的人：回忆录》”小组讨论会上，大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在台上发言。（塔索斯·卡托波德/盖蒂图片社为《大西洋月刊》拍摄）
此案的一大争议点是夏威夷州试图依据最高法院2022年在纽约州步枪与手枪协会诉布鲁恩案中的裁决为该法案辩护。自布鲁恩案以来，评估枪支管制法规的法院通常会询问现代枪支限制措施是否符合美国历史上的枪支管制传统。
夏威夷州援引了多项历史法律，其中包括1865年路易斯安那州作为战后重建《黑人法典》一部分通过的法案。该法律规定，未经所有者同意携带枪支进入他人私人场所属于违法行为。
撰写多数意见的塞缪尔·阿利托大法官直接驳回了这一论点，称路易斯安那州的这部法案是“受污染的遗物”，其制定目的是在内战后剥夺新获解放的黑人的武装权，使他们毫无防卫能力。他得出结论，该法案“不能被严肃视为第二修正案原始公共含义的证据”。
然而，凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官在异议意见中辩称，最高法院跳过了一个重要的宪法问题。
杰克逊并未为《黑人法典》辩护，她承认这些法典是种族主义的，曾被用来压迫新获解放的美国黑人。但她辩称，最高法院本应首先裁定路易斯安那州的法律本身是否违反第二修正案，或者真正的宪法问题在于该法律是以种族歧视的方式执行的。
最高法院受理挑战夏威夷枪支法的第二修正案案件
2017年1月13日，在加利福尼亚州核桃溪的塞特 Arms 枪店内，托德·塞特格伦在展示柜中摆弄手枪。（迈克尔·马科/《旧金山纪事报》通过盖蒂图片社拍摄）
“《黑人法典》或许确实不适合作为布鲁恩案测试标准的参考依据，但前提是它们本身违反了第二修正案——而这一点尚未可知，”杰克逊写道。
她辩称，根据最高法院的布鲁恩案框架，法院不能在未首先解释为何这些法律不应被视为历史证据的情况下就直接驳回它们。
她列出了两种可能性：要么《黑人法典》中的枪支限制措施符合宪法，但以种族歧视的方式执行——这使得宪法缺陷属于平等保护问题——要么这些限制措施本身就违反了第二修正案。她认为，最高法院在将路易斯安那州的法律排除在考虑范围之前，从未解决过这个问题。
美国上诉法院在重大第二修正案裁决中推翻加州公开携带枪支禁令
“要么历史确实重要，如果是这样，所有潜在相关的历史经验都必须得到彻底审查，”她写道。“要么历史不重要，那么法院应该坦率承认，它制定的测试标准是无边界的。”
她的推理立即遭到了批评者的反对，他们认为第十四修正案正是为了应对诸如《黑人法典》这类剥夺新获解放的美国黑人宪法权利（如持枪权）的法律而通过的。
2026年6月18日，华盛顿特区的美国最高法院大楼上空乌云密布。（奇普·索莫德维拉/盖蒂图片社）
“我只想让她看看阿利托大法官在多数意见中指出的内容——第十四修正案从一开始就是为了应对这类法律而制定的，”全国枪支权利协会副主席汉娜·希尔告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
“这就是答案，”希尔继续说道。“没错，确实存在一段历史传统——他们通过了一项宪法修正案来纠正这种权利剥夺，而这项修正案现在也写入了宪法，所以我认为她或许应该回法学院重新学习。”
第二修正案研究所主席泰勒·伊扎吉雷呼应了奥格雷迪和希尔的批评。
“这些法律并非我国宪法传统的合法体现；它们是政府利用权力剥夺美国人基本权利的例子，”伊扎吉雷告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。“最高法院拒绝将此类法律作为定义第二修正案历史界限的依据，这一做法是正确的。”
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
企业仍可通过张贴或执行“禁止携带枪支”政策来禁止枪支入内。但最高法院表示，夏威夷州不能再做的是，将所有商业场所都视为持证枪支拥有者的禁区，除非场所所有者明确允许携带枪支。
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的撰稿人，报道全国政治新闻。
Lawyer who beat Hawaii gun law calls state’s reliance on Black Code ‘disgraceful’
June 27, 2026 6:00am EDT / Fox News
Justice Alito called the 1865 Louisiana statute a ‘tainted artifact’ enacted to disarm newly freed Black Americans
By Elaine Mallon, Fox News
One of the lawyers behind the case says the decision reinforces that states cannot treat the Second Amendment differently from other constitutional protections.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/3cf4e23e-85d1-415b-8d65-665d4494e7c2
Listen to this article
5 min
The attorney who helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii’s private-property concealed-carry restriction on Thursday criticized the state’s reliance on a Reconstruction-era Black Code to defend the law.
In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court held that Hawaii cannot require licensed gun owners to obtain express permission before carrying firearms onto private property open to the public. Gun-rights challengers dubbed the policy the “vampire rule” because lawful gun owners had to be “invited in” before entering businesses while armed.
“It is disgraceful that any state would rely on a law specifically aimed at taking away the Second Amendment rights or any constitutional right of Black Americans as it was at that time,” attorney Kevin O’Grady, who represented the plaintiffs, told Fox News Digital.
“And it’s not surprising, however, that Hawaii would rely on it as they are diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment. We fully expected that the Supreme Court would identify that as the kind of law that one absolutely should not look to determine whether or not something is constitutional because this is the perfect example of something which is not constitutional.”
SUPREME COURT HANDS SECOND AMENDMENT WIN TO CONCEALED CARRY HOLDERS IN BLUE STATE GUN CONTROL CASE
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks on stage during the “Ketanji Brown Jackson on Lovely One: A Memoir” panel at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 20, 2024.(Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for The Atlantic)
A major flashpoint was Hawaii’s effort to justify the law under the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since Bruen, courts evaluating firearm regulations have generally asked whether modern gun restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Hawaii cited several historical laws, including an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the post-Civil War Black Codes. The law made it unlawful to carry firearms onto another person’s property without the owner’s consent.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, rejected that argument outright, calling the Louisiana statute a “tainted artifact” that was enacted to disarm newly freed Black Americans and leave them defenseless after the Civil War. He concluded the law “cannot be taken seriously” as evidence of the Second Amendment’s original public meaning.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, argued in her dissent the Court skipped an important constitutional question.
Jackson did not defend the Black Codes, which she acknowledged were racist and used to oppress newly freed Black Americans. But she argued the Court should have first decided whether the Louisiana law itself violated the Second Amendment, or whether the real constitutional problem was that it was enforced in a racially discriminatory way.
SUPREME COURT TAKES SECOND AMENDMENT CASE CHALLENGING HAWAII GUN LAW
Todd Settergren handles pistols inside his display case at Setterarms gun shop in Walnut Creek, Calif., on Jan. 13, 2017.(Michael Macor/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)
“It might well be that the Black Codes are invalid inputs for Bruen’s test,” Jackson wrote, “but only if they violated the Second Amendment — which may or may not be the case.”
Instead, she argued that under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the Court could not simply dismiss those laws without first explaining why they should not count as historical evidence.
She outlined two possibilities: either the firearm restrictions in the Black Codes were constitutional but enforced in a racially discriminatory manner — making the constitutional defect an equal-protection problem — or the restrictions independently violated the Second Amendment. The Court, she argued, never resolved that question before excluding the Louisiana law from consideration.
US APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN CALIFORNIA’S OPEN-CARRY BAN IN MAJOR SECOND AMENDMENT RULING
“Either history does matter, and if so, all potentially relevant historical experiences must be thoroughly examined,” she wrote. “Or, it does not, and the Court should just admit that the test it has created is boundless.”
Her reasoning immediately drew pushback from critics, who argued the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in response to laws like the Black Codes that denied newly freed Black Americans their constitutional rights, like the right to bear arms.
Rain clouds roll over the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 2026.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“I would simply point her to what Justice Alito pointed out in the majority ruling — it was in response to these types of laws that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in the first place,” Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Association of Gun Rights, told Fox News Digital.
US JUDGE TOSSES ILLINOIS’ BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS, GOVERNOR PLEDGES SWIFT APPEAL
“That right there is your answer,” Hill continued. “Yes, there was a historical tradition — they enacted a constitutional amendment to fix that deprivation of rights, and that is also in the Constitution now, so I think she should probably go back to law school.”
Tyler Yzaguirre, president of Second Amendment Institute, echoed O’Grady and Hill’s criticism.
“Those laws were not legitimate expressions of our Nation’s constitutional tradition; they were examples of government using its power to deprive Americans of a fundamental right,” Yzaguirre told Fox News Digital. “The Court was right to reject the notion that such laws could define the historical limits of the Second Amendment.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Businesses may still ban guns by posting or enforcing a “no firearms” policy. But what Hawaii can’t do, the Court said, is treat every business as off-limits to licensed gun owners unless the owner specifically says guns are allowed.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
发表回复