维基百科

用户:宋潇伟/哥伦比亚特区诉赫勒案

< User:宋瀟偉
哥伦比亚特区诉赫勒案
美国最高法院
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
引注案号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
多数意见安东宁·斯卡利亚
联名：约翰·G·罗伯茨, 安东尼·肯尼迪, 克拉伦斯·托马斯, 塞缪尔·阿利托
不同意见约翰·P·史蒂文斯
联名：戴维·苏特, 鲁思·金斯伯格,史蒂芬·布雷耶
不同意见史蒂芬·布雷耶
联名：约翰·P·史蒂文斯, 戴维·苏特, 鲁思·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

哥伦比亚特区诉赫勒案554 U.S. 570 (2008)，是美国联邦最高法院历史里的一宗里程碑性质的案件。联邦最高法院以5比4的投票结果，认定美国第二修正案适用于保障联邦飞地可以合法拥有和使用枪支权利的传统，比如在家里用枪自卫。判决没有提及这一权利是否应该延伸到美国各州，但在后来在麦克唐纳诉芝加哥案中予以解决。[1]这是美国联邦法院第一次将宪法第二修正案用于保护个人拥有和使用枪支的自卫权利。[2]

在2008年6月26日，美国联邦最高法院认定美国哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院在“赫勒诉哥伦比亚特区案”的要求。[3][4]最高法院下达判决1975年枪支管控法案是违宪的，并坚决表示手枪是第二修正案中所包括的“武器”。订立于1975年的枪支管控法案从此被认定违宪，并且把1975年枪支管控法案中包括步枪和散弹枪保持"卸下子弹和保持保险栓关闭状态。"优先此决定1975年的枪支管控法案同时限制了除了那些已经先前登记手枪在案以外拥有手枪的居民。” [5]

地方法院背景

编辑

2002年，名为罗伯特·A·利维的卡托研究所的资深研究员，与一位叫做克拉克·M·尼利的人审阅并计划以个人名义发起对第二修正案的诉讼。尽管他自己从来没拥有过一把属于自己的手枪，但是作为一位宪法学者，罗伯特对这个话题具有很浓厚的兴趣。罗伯特 A.利维想要继成功的推翻学校的种族隔离行为的瑟古德·马歇尔之后，塑造自己的法律策略。[6]他们选定一个将会从不同种类的性别，种族，经济背景和从20多岁中期到60多岁早期的年龄当中挑选六个是由三人、三女、四位白人和两位黑人原告所组成小组。[7]

  • 雪莉·帕克－帕克的工作是一位现任的软件设计师。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]
  • 汤姆·G·帕默 – 罗伯·A·在加图研究院的同事，并且他也是在这起案件开庭之前唯一知道里维的原告。帕默是一位同性恋者。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·劳伦斯 – 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]
  • 乔治·里昂－一位在哥伦比亚诉赫勒开庭之前去接触美国全国步枪协会从而寻找相关文件起诉哥伦比亚特区的关于枪支的法律通信律师。里昂获得了霰弹枪和步枪的许可，但是他想在自己家中使用手枪。[13]
  • 迪克·海勒 － 一位得到许可的哥伦比亚特区的高级特警官员。因为海勒的工作，他可以在联邦政府的办公大楼携带手枪，但是他不允许在家携带手枪。[14]海勒自从1970年住在离著肯塔基州毗邻的华盛顿哥伦比亚特区东南的一个公寓里，并且见证了那里邻里环境从纯真友好变成了毒品天堂。海勒以前因为诉讼哥伦比亚特区的禁枪法案的关系和美国国家步枪协会交涉过，但是该协会拒绝了他的请求。[11]

以前与的联邦案件法律关于个人拥有携带枪支有关联的质疑包括在支持这一权利的“美国诉爱默生”,270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)"案件与反对这一权利的“西尔韦诉劳克尔”(9th Cir. 2002)的案件。美国联邦最高法院裁定“美国诉米勒案”, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)时对于此问题的双方观点进行了解释。

联邦地区法院

编辑

在2003年2月，六个在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的居民对哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院提出了诉讼。诉讼内容是是挑战当地的依据哥伦比亚自治区的当地的法律（哥伦比亚法规的一部分）的自治1975年的枪支管控法规的合法性。这条法律限制了哥伦比亚特区的当地居民拥有手枪的权利，但不包括1975年根据祖父条款登记的手枪和那些活跃或退休的法律实施人员。这条法律也同时限制了包括了来福枪和散弹枪的所有枪支应保持“无弹药和被拆卸状态或被保险栓限制状态。”"[15]他们依据美国法典第28编（英语：Title 28 of the United States Code） § 第2201节, 2202, 和美国法典第42编（英语：Title 42 of the United States Code） § 第1983节提交了了一条禁制令。哥伦比亚地方法院的法官里卡多M.乌尔维纳 拒绝了这条禁制令。


法院的上诉

编辑

在上诉中，美国哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院以2比1的判决做出了撤销的判决决定。联邦巡回法院决定剔除了规定有关枪支管理法案的违宪性。大法官凯伦 L. 亨德森，托马斯 B. 格里菲斯和劳伦斯 H. 希尔贝曼成形的巡回法院全体陪审员，和高级巡回法官贝尔曼写下法院对此案的看法，而巡回法官亨德森并不同意法院决定的看法。

地区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。法院决定六个原告，只有申请了手枪许可证但是被拒绝的海勒还仍然坚持判决。


法官亨德森的反对意见

编辑

请求复审

编辑

高级法院

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]

由于此案极具争议，对此案中有关持枪权合理性报以强烈关注的两排都有团体关注。其中很多团体作为法院之友的身份提供简报，约４７个人确认下级法院的判决。２０个人要求对下级法院发回候审。[17]

口头辩论

编辑

决定

编辑

最高法院决定[18] The Supreme Court held:[19]

(1) 第二修正案保护个人持枪权与州民兵服务并无关联，根据这点去利用传统合法的目地，比如说在家中自卫。 Pp. 2–53.
(a) 修正案的序言条款宣布了目的，但这不限制或扩大第二修正案的管辖范围。现在正在实行的案件的文本和历史展示了有保护个人持枪权的权力。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) 序言的条款的举止的举止和法院的目前案件的解释。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。

反联邦组织担心联邦政府剥除民兵的武装力量而让民兵缴械，或是军队对政府言听计从。回应是否认国会删节这一古老的持枪权力，所以这一典范的公民民兵权力将会被保护。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) 法院说明（或是理解）成类似的在各州宪法的持枪权地位先于和立刻（不对吧）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) 第二修正案起草的时间在值得怀疑的作为说明的价值，揭示了三个州第二修正案提议毫不含糊的提及个人持枪权。　
(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（或说明）的第二修正案的学者们，法院和立法委员们最终从十九世纪支持并认可法院的的决定。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.

没有法院的先例阻止法院的理解。既不是"美国诉克鲁克香克案",也不是"普雷瑟诉伊利诺伊州"，116 U. S. 252，驳斥解释个人权利。美国诉米勒案，307 U. S. 174，并不限制个人持枪权，而是宁愿限制向民兵申请的那种武器，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.

像其他权利一样，第二修正案并（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：举例子来说，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，或者是法律上禁止携带枪支在一些特定的场合比如学校或者是政府大楼，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]

根据第二修正案推定的结果及推定该结果的理由

编辑

被多数大法官解决的问题

编辑

不同意见的大法官的看法

编辑

非党派组织的参与

编辑

美国全国步枪协会

编辑

布雷迪防止枪支暴力中心预防枪支暴力

编辑

案件决定后的反应

编辑

对下级法院的规定

编辑

对联邦最高法院的规定

编辑

法院宣布裁定后所带来的影响

编辑

哥伦比亚特区

编辑

纽约州

编辑

伊利诺伊斯州

编辑

加利福尼亚州

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]

爱达荷州

编辑

遗留的影响

编辑

参见

编辑

注释

编辑

参考书目

编辑

外部链接

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页.
  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页.
  13. ^ Doherty 2009，第34–35页.
  14. ^ Doherty 2009，第39–41页.
  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. ^ 海勒的意见, 法院的意见, 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]. 
检索自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:宋瀟偉/哥倫比亞特區訴赫勒案&oldid=41044476”