Showdown
摊牌

Jul 3rd 2008 | AUSTIN AND TAMPA
From The Economist print edition

Gun owners are becoming emboldened. That may be premature.
拥有枪支的人受到鼓舞–这可能为时过早了。

Are you looking at me?
你在看我吗？

ON JUNE 26th the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and asserted that individuals have the right to own guns. Gun enthusiasts rejoiced. But as they move to capitalise on this favourable judgment, they may run into new problems.

6月26日，最高法院否决了哥伦比亚特区的手枪禁令并郑重声明：个人有权利拥有枪支。枪支爱好者因此欢心鼓舞。可在他们从这个喜欢的裁决获益的同时，他们有可能会陷入一堆新问题。

Consider two developing gun-rights controversies. On July 1st Florida became the fourth state to allow people to bring their guns to work. The gun has to stay locked in the car, and its owner must have a concealed-weapons permit. You cannot bring your gun if you work in a school, hospital, prison or power plant.

来听听两场正在进行中的有关枪支权利的论战吧。6月1日，佛罗里达成为了第四个允许人们携带枪支上班的州。枪支被要求被锁在车内，而其主人则必须持有一张可暗藏武器的许可证。但如果在下列地方工作则不允许携带枪支：学校、医院、监狱和发电厂。

The law is good news for Floridians with a dangerous commute. Those who like to go hunting after work are also excited. But the prospect of heavily fortified strip-malls alarms others. The state leads the nation in concealed weapons permits; half a million people have them.

对佛罗里达那些上下班的路不甚安全的人们来说，这是一个好消息。那些喜欢下班后去打猎的人也为此感到很兴奋。但是一个围墙重重设防的公路沿线商业区的前景也给了其他人一个警告。该州在全国暗藏武器的许可上开了先河；五十万人有了暗藏武器的许可。

Florida Democrats opposed the measure. But its passage has a silver lining for them. The law has created a rift between two old allies in the Republican Party: the gun-rights crowd and business owners. The latter believe that it conflicts with their property rights. Employers are not allowed to ask workers if they have a gun in the glove box. If an employee opens fire at work, worries Irwin Stotzky of the University of Miami, the employer could be held responsible in a civil suit. The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation are suing to overturn the law. Robert Hinkle, a Tallahassee judge, will weigh in later this month. He has already said that the law is poorly written and “stupid”. Guns at work could be a useful election-year issue for Democrats.

佛罗里达的民主党人反对了这个方案。但是它的通过也给了他们一丝希望。此法令挑起了共和党两同盟派间的不和，枪支权利派和公司所有者派。后者认为此法令与他们的产权相冲突。雇主是不允许询问雇员他们车子仪表板的小格子里是不是有把枪的。迈阿密大学的欧文·斯特兹盖担心，如果一位雇员在工作时开了枪，雇主可能会在民事诉讼中被判承担责任。佛罗里达商会和零售联盟正在起诉推翻这项法令。佛罗里达首府塔拉哈西的一位法官罗伯特·辛克尔会在本月晚些时候考虑这项诉讼。他已经表示这项法令起草得很糟糕也很”愚蠢”。工作时期的枪支问题可以成为民主党今年选举年里一项有用的议题。

A similar development is brewing in Texas. The state welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. Its senior senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, was a leading opponent of the District’s gun ban. She herself keeps “the normal handguns and shotguns” at home. But now there is a controversial movement afoot to allow people to carry their handguns openly, as the cowboys used to do. Texas is one of only six states where guns must be hidden. “Open-carry” advocates say that carrying a gun is natural, and that having to hide it is unfair. They add that people wear lots of things on their belts, such as BlackBerrys. Almost 18,000 people have signed one online petition. One supporter recently had two chainsaws stolen in a parking lot, and he said it would never have happened had he had his gun handy.

得克萨斯正发生着一起相似的事件。该州对最高法院的裁决是欢迎态度。该州资深参议员凯·贝利·辛其森是对哥伦比亚特区禁令首当其冲的反对者。她本人在家就放有”一般的手枪和散弹猎枪”。可现在一个颇具争议的运动正酝酿着让人们像过去的牛仔一样，可以公开地携带他们的手枪。得州是全国仅有的六个枪支必须隐藏的州之一。”公开携带”倡议者说携带枪支是一件极其自然的事，必须藏起来实在是不公平。他们补充道人们的腰带上就别着很多东西，比如说”黑莓”。差不多有一万八千人签署了网上的一份请愿书。其中的一位支持者日前就在一个停车场内被盗走了两个链锯，他说如果他可以随时拔出他的枪，这一切就本不会发生。

In this case, too, most Democrats are appalled. But they can let Republicans take up the fight for them. Plenty of gun proponents oppose open-carry. Joe Driver, a Republican representative from Garland, is more interested in efforts to get Texas its own guns-at-work law. As for the open-carry movement, he likes the idea that criminals don’t know who is carrying a gun. That way, perhaps, they have to be extra careful.

也是在这一事件里，大部分民主党人大为震惊。但是他们可以让共和党替他们内部斗起来。许多的枪支倡导者反对公开携带。一位来自得州东北部的共和党议员乔·传弗，对努力推动得州的”工作时期枪支法”更有兴趣。至于公开携带运动，他喜欢其中的一个观点：罪犯是不知道谁有带枪的。那样子的话，可能他们得更加小心点了。

译者：死海之果    http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12441&pid=78118&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid78118

The Supreme Court opens fire
美联邦最高法院开火

Jun 26th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The Nine strike down a gun ban and delight the firearms lobby
九位大法官否决了枪支管制案，让武器商游说集团欣喜不已

AFTER 217 years, the Supreme Court appears finally to have settled one of the most hotly disputed questions in American constitutional law: who has the right to pack heat? The second amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The odd punctuation makes it unclear what this means. Can anyone own a gun, or only those who serve in a militia?
历经217年，美联邦最高法院最终落下法槌，解决了美联邦宪法最具争议的一个问题：谁有权携带武器？美国第二修正令规定：”训练有素的民兵是一个自由国家安全的保障，持有或携带武器的权利不得侵犯。”标点的使用让句子意思模棱两可。是任何人都有权持枪还是只有民兵可以？

On June 26th, five of the nine justices ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. In DC v Heller, they struck down a near-total ban on handgun ownership in Washington, DC. But they allowed for some restrictions on gun ownership. States or cities may still continue to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons, and “dangerous and unusual weapons” may still be barred.
6月26日，9位大法官以5：4的比例判定持枪是一项个人权利。在华盛顿特区诉Heller一案中，他们否决了特区一项对枪支所有关系的近乎全面的禁止令。但同时，他们也允许就此做出一些限制规定。各州市依然可以禁止携带隐蔽武器。”危险武器、非常规武器”也属禁止之列。

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. “That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
“毫无疑问，有人会认为，在我国，常备军是我们的骄傲，训练有素的警察足以保证个人安全，而枪支暴力事件已成为一个严重问题。在这样的社会，第二修正令已经过时了。”持赞成态度的Antonin Scalia大法官这样分析，”这是值得讨论的，但不容置疑的是法院无权宣布第二修正令作废。”

Gun-lovers are guardedly jubilant. More lawsuits challenging gun-control laws are now likely. The toughest such laws tend to be in cities, where liberals far outnumber hunters and gun curbs are broadly popular. Some of these will probably fall foul of the new precedent. Shirley Franklin, the mayor of Atlanta, bleakly predicts that litigation will divert resources from fighting crime.
枪支爱好者对这一判决很高兴，但他们也很小心。现在越来越多的诉讼可能向枪支管制法律提出挑战。这一类法律最严格的多在各市。这些地方，自由主义者远远超过了持枪者，枪支禁令得到了广泛支持。一些城市可能刚发生了新的枪支暴力事件。亚特兰大市长Shirley Franklin冷冷地说，预计立法将分化转移暴力犯罪的资源。

Advocates of gun control, who credit tough gun laws with helping to reduce the murder rate in many American cities, are distraught. They must now try to figure out how to craft curbs that could pass constitutional muster, but it is not entirely clear what these might be.
枪支管制的支持者相信严格的枪支管制有助于减少许多美国城市的谋杀案的发生率，得知这一结果，他们也心神不宁。他们必须殚精竭虑，设法想出可以通过宪法审查的枪支管制法律。现在还不清楚这些法律的具体内容。

The Supreme Court made two other rulings this week that delighted conservatives. It slashed by $2 billion the punitive damages that Exxon must pay for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska 19 years ago, setting a precedent that could curb future pluck-a-number-out-of-thin-air awards. And it threw out a law that freed incumbent politicians from many campaign spending restrictions if challenged by a rich opponent.
美联邦最高法院本周还做出了两项受到保守派欢迎的判决。一项是，19年前埃克森美孚石油公司在阿拉斯加造成的埃克森瓦尔德斯原油泄漏事故中须支付的惩罚性赔偿金，法院大幅削减了20个亿。这就设立了先例，解决未来可能的赔偿过多，显失公平的问题。另一项是，否决了一个法案。该法案规定现任官员在竞选中受到富有对手挑战时，将不受许多竞选花费的限制。

But it is the gun ruling that will send out the most ripples. Nationally, gun rights are popular, but so are modest restrictions on them, such as background checks to weed out criminals and crazy people, and waiting periods to allow angry people time to calm down. These sorts of restrictions, however, should remain safe from challenge, despite this week’s ruling.
但是，论判决激起的反响而言，还属关于枪支的判决反响最大。从全国范围看，持枪权利得到的支持很多，但也有不少人支持对枪支进行适当管制，比如：个人背景审查，以排除刑事犯以及精神病患，同时给情绪失控的人时间待其平静。这类限制的存在无需置疑，尽管有本周的这个判决。

If the decision reassures law-abiding gun owners that their weapons are safe, it could help Barack Obama, since those gun-owners will feel safe to be swayed by other things they might like about him, such as universal health insurance. But if it reminds them that big-city liberals want to grab their guns, that could hurt him badly. Reporters will pester him about whether he agrees with the decision, and which gun restrictions, exactly, he supports.
如果判决给了合法持枪人信心，他们可以持枪。这就可能帮到总统候选人贝拉克•奥巴马，因为这些持枪者在安全感下容易被奥巴马谈及的他们喜欢的其它问题打动，比如全面的健康保险。但如果判决提醒他们，大城市的自由人士想夺走他们的枪，这就会让奥巴马损失惨重。记者会不断追问，他是否同意这项判决，以及他到底支持那一项枪支限制规定。

Gun owners are disproportionately (though by no means entirely) white, southern and rural-a group Mr Obama has trouble appealing to. Bill Clinton found it hard enough in the 1990s, despite his charm and similar background. On the stump, he defended his proposal to ban assault weapons by pointing out that you don’t need an Uzi to hunt deer. “I never saw a deer in a Kevlar vest,” he would joke.
持枪者大多（尽管决不可能是全部）是白人，来自南部或者农村，这是奥巴马很难迎合的一群人。二十世纪九十年代，比尔•克林顿带着他的魅力和相似的背景，发现了同样的困难。在这个疑难问题上，他为其就职计划辩护，应禁止攻击性武器，同时指出，扑杀一头鹿无需使用”乌齐”冲锋枪。他会开玩笑说，”我从来没见过一头穿着Kevlar纤维（一种防弹纤维）背心的鹿。”

Mr Obama finds it tougher to strike the right note with rural whites. Face to face, he is persuasive-he won plenty of votes in rural Illinois when running for the Senate. But this is a national race, and he cannot meet more than a tiny fraction of voters in person. So it is easy for his opponents to paint him as a condescending liberal.
奥巴马要想给乡下的白人留下好的印象更加困难。面对面时，他非常有说服力，在竞选参议员时，他赢得了伊利诺伊州乡下的无数选票。但这次是全国竞选，即使是全国选民的一小部分，他也不可能一一见面。这样，他的对手轻而易举就可以将他描绘成一个屈尊的自由人士。

John McCain, Mr Obama’s opponent, is hardly the gun lobby’s darling. Heretically for a Republican, he favours background checks for those who buy guns at gun shows. But the National Rifle Association (NRA), the main gun lobby, vastly prefers him to Mr Obama. He made a point of going to the NRA’s annual convention last month, where he spoke movingly of a 74-year-old woman who defended her home from a marauder who threatened to set fire to her garage.
约翰•麦肯锡，奥巴马的对手，几乎不可能会是持枪游说集团的意中人。作为共和党人的异端，他支持对进枪械店购买枪支的人进行个人背景审查。但美国国家枪支协会（NRA），一个主要的支持持枪游说集团，却更喜欢他，远胜过奥巴马。他郑重得去参加了国家枪支协会上个月的年会。会上，他动情的说起一个74岁的老妇遇到一个劫匪，威胁要烧她的车库，不得已保护自己的家的事。

An American’s individual right to bear arms may now be secure. But the NRA still frets that lawsuits blaming gun-makers for the actions of criminals who use their products could bankrupt the industry. The vote-scaring slogans practically write themselves. Read my lips: no new guns!
美国人持枪的个人权利也许现在得到保障了。但美国国家枪支协会依然担心，那些将犯罪行为归咎于枪支制造者的诉讼案件会彻底毁掉这个行业。实际上，争取选票的标语说明了一切。读我的唇语：没有新的枪！

译者：davidship    http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12385