User:宋瀟偉/哥倫比亞特區訴赫勒案

维基百科，自由的百科全书
哥倫比亞特區訴赫勒案
辩论：2008年3月18日
判决：2008年6月26日
案件全名District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller
诉讼记录号07-290
引註案號554 U.S. 570
128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497
既往案件Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
案件程序Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
辩论口头辩论
法庭判决
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
最高法院法官
首席大法官
约翰·G·罗伯茨
法庭意见
多数意见安東寧·斯卡利亞
联名：約翰·G·羅伯茨, 安東尼·肯尼迪, 克拉倫斯·托馬斯, 塞繆爾·阿利托
不同意见約翰·P·史蒂文斯
联名：戴維·蘇特, 魯思·金斯伯格,史蒂芬·布雷耶
不同意见史蒂芬·布雷耶
联名：約翰·P·史蒂文斯, 戴維·蘇特, 魯思·金斯伯格
适用法条
U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504, 7–2507.02

哥倫比亞特區訴赫勒案554 U.S. 570 (2008)，是美國聯邦最高法院歷史里的一宗里程碑性质的案件。聯邦最高法院以5比4的投票結果，认定美國第二修正案适用於保障联邦飞地可以合法擁有和使用槍枝權利的傳統，比如在家裡用槍自衛。判决没有提及这一权利是否应该延伸到美国各州，但在後來在麥克唐納訴芝加哥案中予以解決。[1]這是美國聯邦法院第一次将憲法第二修正案用於保護個人擁有和使用槍枝的自衛權利。[2]

在2008年6月26日，美國聯邦最高法院认定美國哥倫比亞特區聯邦巡迴上訴法院在“赫勒訴哥倫比亞特區案”的要求。[3][4]最高法院下達判決1975年槍枝管控法案是違憲的，并坚决表示手槍是第二修正案中所包括的“武器”。订立于1975年的槍枝管控法案从此被认定违宪，並且把1975年槍枝管控法案中包括步槍和散彈槍保持"卸下子彈和保持保險栓關閉狀態。"優先此決定1975年的槍枝管控法案同時限制了除了那些已經先前登記手槍在案以外擁有手槍的居民。” [5]

地方法院背景[编辑]

2002年，名为羅伯特·A·利維的卡托研究所的資深研究員，與一位叫做克拉克·M·尼利的人审阅並計劃以个人名义发起对第二修正案的訴訟。儘管他自己從來沒擁有過一把属于自己的手槍，但是作為一位憲法學者，羅伯特對這個話題具有很濃厚的興趣。羅伯特 A.利維想要繼成功的推翻學校的種族隔離行為的瑟古德·馬歇爾之後，塑造自己的法律策略。[6]他們選定一個將會從不同種類的性別，種族，經濟背景和從20多歲中期到60多歲早期的年齡當中挑選六個是由三人、三女、四位白人和兩位黑人原告所組成小組。[7]

  • 雪莉·帕克－帕克的工作是一位現任的軟件設計師。她以前的工作是一名护士，且热衷于帮助邻居摆脱毒品，也多次遭受贩毒者破门威胁{sfn|Doherty|2009|pp=29–30}}[8]
  • 湯姆·G·帕默 – 羅伯·A·在加圖研究院的同事，並且他也是在這起案件開庭之前唯一知道里維的原告。帕默是一位同性戀者。他在1986年被一群年轻人用言语嘲笑自己的性取向，并且遭受了人身威胁。当时他取出九毫米口径手枪自卫，且掏出手枪之时，那帮人惊恐逃跑。[9][10]
  • 吉莉安·st·勞倫斯 – 他于弗吉尼亚州尚蒂伊拥有几只可用于狩猎的枪支，而且她于两年内完成登记。这三把枪是用于自卫，他也希望注册一把手枪[11][12]
  • 喬治·里昂－一位在哥倫比亞訴赫勒開庭之前去接觸美國全國步槍協會從而尋找相關文件起訴哥倫比亞特區的關於槍枝的法律通信律師。里昂獲得了霰彈槍和步槍的許可，但是他想在自己家中使用手槍。[13]
  • 迪克·海勒 － 一位得到許可的哥倫比亞特區的高級特警官員。因為海勒的工作，他可以在聯邦政府的辦公大樓攜帶手槍，但是他不允許在家攜帶手槍。[14]海勒自從1970年住在離著肯塔基州毗鄰的華盛頓哥倫比亞特區東南的一個公寓裡，並且見證了那裏鄰里環境從純真友好變成了毒品天堂。海勒以前因為訴訟哥倫比亞特區的禁槍法案的關係和美國國家步槍協會交涉過，但是該協會拒絕了他的請求。[11]

以前與的聯邦案件法律關於個人擁有攜帶槍枝有關聯的質疑包括在支持這一權利的“美國訴愛默生”,270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)"案件與反對這一權利的“西爾韋訴勞克爾”(9th Cir. 2002)的案件。美國聯邦最高法院裁定“美國訴米勒案”, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)時對於此問題的雙方觀點進行了解釋。

聯邦地區法院[编辑]

在2003年2月，六個在華盛頓哥倫比亞特區的居民對哥倫比亞特區聯邦地區法院提出了訴訟。訴訟內容是是挑戰當地的依據哥倫比亞自治區的當地的法律（哥倫比亞法規的一部分）的自治1975年的槍枝管控法規的合法性。這條法律限制了哥倫比亞特區的當地居民擁有手槍的權利，但不包括1975年根據祖父條款登記的手槍和那些活躍或退休的法律實施人員。這條法律也同時限制了包括了來福槍和散彈槍的所有槍枝應保持“無彈藥和被拆卸狀態或被保險栓限制狀態。”"[15]他們依據美國法典第28编（英语：Title 28 of the United States Code） § 第2201節, 2202, 和美國法典第42编（英语：Title 42 of the United States Code） § 第1983節提交了了一条禁制令。哥倫比亞地方法院的法官里卡多M.烏爾維納 拒絕了這條禁制令。


法院的上訴[编辑]

在上訴中，美國哥倫比亞特區聯邦巡迴上訴法院以2比1的判決做出了撤銷的判決決定。聯邦巡迴法院決定剔除了規定有關槍枝管理法案的違憲性。大法官凱倫 L. 亨德森，托馬斯 B. 格里菲斯和勞倫斯 H. 希爾貝曼成形的巡迴法院全體陪審員，和高級巡迴法官貝爾曼寫下法院對此案的看法，而巡迴法官亨德森並不同意法院決定的看法。

地區法院认为首先提出上诉人是否适格第二节起诉要求宣告和禁令救济。法院決定六個原告，只有申請了手槍許可證但是被拒絕的海勒還仍然堅持判決。


法官亨德森的反對意見[编辑]

請求覆審[编辑]

高級法院[编辑]

法院之友 的摘要[编辑]

Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[16]

由於此案極具爭議，對此案中有關持槍權合理性報以強烈關注的兩排都有團體關注。其中很多團體作為法院之友的身份提供簡報，約４７個人確認下級法院的判決。２０個人要求對下級法院發回候審。[17]

口頭辯論[编辑]

決定[编辑]

最高法院決定[18] The Supreme Court held:[19]

(1) 第二修正案保護個人持槍權與州民兵服務並無關聯，根據這點去利用傳統合法的目地，比如說在家中自衛。 Pp. 2–53.
(a) 修正案的序言條款宣佈了目的，但這不限制或擴大第二修正案的管轄範圍。現在正在實行的案件的文本和歷史展示了有保護個人持槍權的權力。Pp. 2–22.


(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(b) 序言的條款的舉止的舉止和法院的目前案件的解釋。反政府组织担心联邦政府会为了剥除市民的武装力量而让人民缴械，使得军队政治党派化或者使其言听计从。

反聯邦組織擔心聯邦政府剝除民兵的武裝力量而讓民兵繳械，或是軍隊對政府言聽計從。回應是否認國會刪節這一古老的持槍權力，所以這一典範的公民民兵權力將會被保護。Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(c) 法院說明（或是理解）成類似的在各州憲法的持槍權地位先於和立刻（不對吧）第二修正案。Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(d) 第二修正案起草的時間在值得懷疑的作為說明的價值，揭示了三個州第二修正案提議毫不含糊的提及個人持槍權。　
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(e) 理解（或說明）的第二修正案的學者們，法院和立法委員們最終從十九世紀支持并認可法院的的決定。Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

沒有法院的先例阻止法院的理解。既不是"美國訴克魯克香克案",也不是"普雷瑟訴伊利諾伊州"，116 U. S. 252，駁斥解釋個人權利。美國訴米勒案，307 U. S. 174，並不限制個人持槍權，而是寧願限制向民兵申請的那種武器，那些用作通常的合法目的。

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

像其他權利一樣，第二修正案並（中规定的权利）不是不受限制的。无论何种正式场合都不允许持枪权：舉例子來說，在修正案中或者州议会中各州都维持了禁止藏匿枪支的规定。法庭的论点不应该被用于质疑有关对重罪犯何精神病犯的持枪权的禁令，或者是法律上禁止攜帶槍支在一些特定的場合比如學校或者是政府大樓，或者是法律赋予的允许销售枪支的场合和资格。Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[20]

根據第二修正案推定的結果及推定該結果的理由[编辑]

被多數大法官解決的問題[编辑]

不同意見的大法官的看法[编辑]

非黨派組織的參與[编辑]

美國全國步槍協會[编辑]

布雷迪防止槍支暴力中心預防槍支暴力[编辑]

案件決定後的反應[编辑]

對下級法院的規定[编辑]

對聯邦最高法院的規定[编辑]

法院宣布裁定後所帶來的影響[编辑]

哥倫比亞特區[编辑]

紐約州[编辑]

伊利諾斯州[编辑]

加利福尼亞州[编辑]

On January 14, 2009, in Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority, the San Francisco Housing Authority reached a settlement out of court with the NRA, which allows residents to possess legal firearms within a SFHA apartment building. The San Francisco lawsuit resulted in the elimination of the gun ban from the SF Housing Authority residential lease terms. Tim Larsen speaking for the Housing Authority said that they never intended to enforce its 2005 housing lease gun ban against law-abiding gun owners and have never done so.[21]

On February 13, 2014, in Peruta v. San Diego, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the San Diego policy to disallow both concealed carry, and the State of California law that disallows open carry anywhere in the state, were not acceptable under Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald. A "responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." More specifically, "the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home."(itallics in original) ... and "carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms."[22] The case was remanded to the district court because "San Diego County’s 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."[22]

愛達荷州[编辑]

遺留的影響[编辑]

參見[编辑]

註釋[编辑]

參考書目[编辑]

外部連結[编辑]

  1. ^ Barnes, Robert. Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights. The Washington Post. 2009-10-01 [2010-02-19]. the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the federal government and federal enclaves such as Washington. 
  2. ^ Barnes, Robert. Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership. The Washington Post. 2008-06-27 [2010-02-19]. The Supreme Court ... decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. 
  3. ^ 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2994 (2008)
  4. ^ Misc. order Certiorari Denied p.2; Court: A constitutional right to a gun
  5. ^ http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=17&sid=dc74adc3-b638-4709-8e19-a08f3f262c3e%40sessionmgr4
  6. ^ Liptak, Adam. Carefully Plotted Course Propels Gun Case to Top. The New York Times. 2007-12-03 [2010-02-19]. 
  7. ^ Duggan, Paul. Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns. The Washington Post. 2007-03-18 [2010-02-19]. 
  8. ^ Mears, Bill. Court decision on gun control is personal for 2 women. Cable News Network. 2008-03-18 [2010-02-19]. 
  9. ^ Doherty 2009，第30–31頁.
  10. ^ Palmer, Tom. Tom Palmer talks about the DC gun ban on Reporter's Roundtable. Cato Institute. 事件发生在 1:20. 2008-03-14 [2013-10-27]. 
  11. ^ 11.0 11.1 Jaffe, Harry. DC Gun Rights: Do You Want This Next to Your Bed?. Washingtonian.com. March 2008 [2010-02-19]. 
  12. ^ Doherty 2009，第35–37頁.
  13. ^ Doherty 2009，第34–35頁.
  14. ^ Doherty 2009，第39–41頁.
  15. ^ Barnes, Robert; Nakamura, David. D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban. The Washington Post. 2007-09-04 [2010-02-19]. 
  16. ^ Coyle, Marcia. Amicus Briefs Are Ammo for Supreme Court Gun Case. The National Law Journal. 2008-03-10 [2008-03-11]. 
  17. ^ Coyle, Marcia. Amicus Briefs Are Ammo for Supreme Court Gun Case. The National Law Journal. 2008-03-10 [2008-03-11]. 
  18. ^ 海勒的意見, 法院的意見, pp. 1–3.
  19. ^ Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, pp. 1–3.
  20. ^ Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 3.
  21. ^ Egelko, Bob. San Francisco Housing Authority settles gun lawsuit. SFGate.com. 2009-01-14 [2009-01-16]. 
  22. ^ 22.0 22.1 Peruta v. San Diego (PDF). Case No. No. 10-56971 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. [12 January 2014]. 
取自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:宋瀟偉/哥倫比亞特區訴赫勒案&oldid=41044476”