2026-06-30T16:16:03.191Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/ar-15-style-rifles-supreme-court-second-amendment
美国最高法院周二宣布，将审理各城市和州是否可以禁止民众拥有AR-15步枪及同类半自动武器的案件，接手这起此前该法院拒绝介入的重大第二修正案争议。
其中一起涉及特定半自动步枪的上诉来自两名伊利诺伊州居民，他们想要购买AR-15风格步枪，但库克县的一项法令禁止他们这么做——该法令规定出售或持有任何“攻击性武器或大容量弹匣”均属违法，明确列出了数十种被禁用的枪械型号。
控枪组织“每个城镇支持枪支安全”的数据显示，目前已有10个州实施了类似的禁令。
另一起案件来自多名康涅狄格州居民，他们希望购买该州禁令涵盖的枪械。
美国最高法院此前多次拒绝受理该议题，但近年来已有迹象表明，法院准备重新考虑此前的立场。
去年，大法官们拒绝审理一起涉及马里兰州同类武器禁令的案件，保守派大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺就此发表简短意见，称“本院应当且大概率会很快处理AR-15相关议题”。他在该意见中指出，多数州并未禁止此类枪械，并将实施禁令的州描述为“某种意义上的异类”。
持枪权利团体援引了去年自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根在另一起案件中撰写的一致裁决意见，后者将AR-15称为“全美最受欢迎的步枪”，同时也是“广泛合法且被众多普通消费者购买的枪械”。最高法院的先例表明，出于合法用途“普遍使用”的武器受第二修正案保护，而“危险且不常见”的武器则不受此保护。
最高法院2022年在“纽约州步枪与手枪协会诉布鲁恩”一案中作出突破性裁决，推翻了纽约州要求居民申请携带许可证必须说明理由的严格规定。此后多起第二修正案相关案件提交至最高法院，AR-15步枪相关上诉便是其中之一。根据该裁决结果，由6名保守派大法官组成的多数方称，要在第二修正案挑战中站得住脚，现代枪支法规必须有“全国枪支管制历史传统”作为依据。
挑战库克县法令的持枪权利团体将AR-15描述为既普遍使用又具有历史意义的枪械。
“自建国以来，步枪一直是典型的美国武器，助力了反抗英国的独立斗争，也是西进拓荒者的‘伙伴’和‘守护卫士’，”这些团体在向最高法院提交的上诉书中写道，“AR-15平台步枪是革命时期民兵和西进拓荒者所使用步枪的现代衍生型号。”
与此形成对比的是，库克县在反对上诉的陈词开篇就列出了多起涉及该方所称“攻击性武器”的大规模枪击事件，以及这些事件中的遇难人数。“2022年高地公园游行枪击案，7人死亡；2022年布法罗超市枪击案，10人死亡，”文件中写道，这份名单长达三页多。
“与刀具或手枪等杀伤力较低的武器相比，它们天生的致命性使其成为大规模谋杀的诱人选择，”库克县官员在文件中写道，“在战争中，无需重新装填即可持续射击的能力意味着更强的作战效能。”
库贝托·维拉蒙特斯和克里斯托弗·卡亚均为库克县居民，他们于2021年提起诉讼，称该法令违反了第二修正案。根据法庭记录，维拉蒙特斯想要购买AR-15风格武器用于自卫。卡亚作证称，他最有可能在射击场使用这类枪械。枪支政策联盟和第二修正案基金会也参与了这起诉讼。
联邦地区法院支持了该县的主张，总部位于芝加哥的美国第七巡回上诉法院维持了这一判决。
Supreme Court agrees to review ban on AR-style semi-automatic rifles in major Second Amendment case
2026-06-30T16:16:03.191Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/ar-15-style-rifles-supreme-court-second-amendment
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will decide whether cities and states may ban people from owning AR-15 rifles and similar semi-automatic weapons, taking up a major Second Amendment dispute that it had previously declined to address.
One of the appeals involving certain semi-automatic rifles came from two Illinois residents who want to purchase AR-15 style rifles but are blocked from doing so by an ordinance in Cook County that makes it unlawful to sell or possess any “assault weapon or large capacity magazine,” specifically listing dozens of models that were off limits.
Ten states have similar bans in place, according to the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.
Another case came from several Connecticut residents who wish to purchase weapons covered under that state’s ban.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to take up the issue but there have been signs in recent years that the court was prepared to reconsider that approach.
Last year, when the justices declined to hear arguments in a case involving Maryland’s ban on similar weapons, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a short opinion asserting that “this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon.” In that opinion, he noted that most states do not ban the guns and described those that do as “something of an outlier.”
Gun rights groups are pointing to a unanimous decision in a separate matter last year written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who described the AR-15 as “the most popular rifle in the country” and “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” The court’s precedents have held that weapons that are in “common use” for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment, as opposed to those that are “dangerous” and “unusual.”
Appeals over AR-15 rifles are among several Second Amendment matters that have reached the court following its blockbuster 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down a strict requirement in New York that residents show cause to obtain a carry permit. As part of that decision, a 6-3 conservative majority said that in order to survive Second Amendment challenges, modern-day gun regulations needed to have some grounding in the “nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The gun rights groups challenging Cook County’s ordinance framed the AR-15 as both common and historic.
“From the founding of this country, the rifle has been a paradigmatic American arm, facilitating the struggle for independence from the British and serving as ‘the companion’ and ‘tutelary protector’ of the westward pioneers,” the groups told the Supreme Court in their appeal. “The AR-15 platform rifle is the modern descendant of the rifles that were borne by the militiamen of the Revolution and the pioneers who struck out West in search of a better life.”
Cook County, by contrast, opened its brief opposing the appeal with a list of mass shootings that involved what it described as “assault weapons,” and the number of people killed in those incidents. “2022 Highland Park parade, 7 dead; 2022 Buffalo supermarket, 10 dead,” it read. The list continued for more than three pages.
“Their inherent lethality makes them an alluring choice for mass murder, compared to less lethal weapons like knives or handguns,” the Cook County officials wrote. “At war, the ability to fire continuously without reloading translates to combat effectiveness.”
Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, both Cook County residents, filed the lawsuit in 2021, alleging that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment. Viramontes wants to purchase an AR-15-style weapon for self-defense, according to court records. Khaya testified that he would be most likely to use one “at the range.” The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation were also part of the suit.
A federal district court sided with the county and the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
发表回复