On March 9th the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns. Some might say, so what? Last year the police recovered 2,655 guns in the District, which hardly suggests that the ban was keeping guns out of circulation. Nonetheless, Washington, DC, has long been a small spot of resistance to a culture all too tolerant of firearms.

   In a 2-1 decision, the judges rejected the District's claim that the Second Amendment applies only to militias. The rights protected in the amendment “are not limited to militia service”, the majority argued, “nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon...enrolment in the militia”. The debate about the meaning of the second amendment is one of the fiercest in constitutional law. In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of “United States v Miller”, that the amendment was adopted “with [the] obvious purpose” of protecting the ability of states to organise militias, and “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view”. More recently, the individual-rights view has been gathering support, and not just from the Bush administration and the National Rifle Association (NRA).

   In 2001 the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which includes gun-loving Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) embraced the individual-rights view. The DC lawsuit was filed in 2003, nine months after the then attorney-general, John Ashcroft, argued that individual gun bans are unconstitutional. If the District appeals the ruling, as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, will come down on the side of individual rights.

   The Court of Appeals decision is just the latest in an almost unbroken series of advances for the gun-rights lobby. The NRA has made a steady progress in loosening local gun controls, particularly in pushing “concealed carry” laws, which now exist in 48 states. The Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance in an attempt to make advances in “red America”—particularly in the all-important mountain West where gun rights are sacrosanct and the next presidential election may be decided. Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic governor of Montana, speaks for a new breed of pro-gun Democrats when he says that he has “more guns than I need but not as many as I want”.

   A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters. On the very day of the DC ruling the Police Executive Research Forum, a police think-tank, reported that violent crime, including homicides, had been rising rapidly since 2004. Meanwhile, the NRA is slowly losing one of its most important constituencies: the proportion of Americans holding hunting licences has declined from 10% in 1985 to 6% last year. If both trends continue, more and more Americans will come to associate guns not with healthy outdoorsmanship, as the NRA would like, but with swift and violent human death.

   注（1）：本文選自Economist, 03/15/2007

   注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象為2004年真題Text 2。

   1． What does the author intend to illustrate with the case of “United States v Miller”?

    [A] The second amendment was once interpreted as only to protect the right of militias.

    [B] The second amendment is not supporsed to support the individual right of carring guns.

    [C] American Supreme Court has never changed its interpretation of the second amendment.

    [D] Tthe individual-rights view has been on the rise since earlier 20^th century.

   2． What we can infer from the first two paragraphs?

    [A] Washington, DC will continue to maintain its ban on handguns.

    [B] The individual-rights view barely attains support from the government.

    [C] The Bush Administration is going to rewrite the second amendment.

    [D] U.S. is growing more tolerant of firearms.

   3． The third and fourth paragraphs suggest that _______.

    [A] the Republicans traditionally maintains the anti-gun stance

    [B] most Supreme Court members are against individual-rights view

    [C] the issue of gun right might influence the next presidency campaign

    [D] individual gun right may negatively stimulate people’s desire for violence

   4． What does the author mean by “A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters” (Line 1, Last Paragraph)?

    [A] Gun-rights supporters are perssmistic about the future of individual gun-rights.

    [B] People might relate the spread of guns to the increase of crime rate.

    [C] The public opinion turns to be negative for gun-rights supporters.

    [D] There are some opponents who are against individual gun-rights.

   5． Which of the following is TRUE according to the text?

    [A] Washington, DC is the last place in America to abandom the ban on gun.

    [B] Indivudial gun right began to legal in some states since 2001.

    [C] American constitutional law is not easy to interpret.

    [D] NRA has been playing an active role in promoting the gun legalization.

   篇章剖析

   本文討論的話題是哥倫比亞特區(qū)今年取消了長(zhǎng)期實(shí)行的槍支禁令及其相關(guān)問題。第一段說明了事情的起因，同時(shí)指出槍支禁令并沒有阻止槍支的流通；第二段回顧了對(duì)《第二修正案》關(guān)于個(gè)人擁有槍支權(quán)利的表述和不同解讀；第三、四段是贊成個(gè)人擁有槍支權(quán)利一方的關(guān)系；第五段則是反對(duì)意見。

   詞匯注釋

   circuit [`sE:kit] n. 周游, 巡回           attorney [E`tE:ni] n. 律師

   overturn [9EuvE`tE:n] vt. 推翻, 顛倒     stance [stAns] n. 立場(chǎng)

   circulation [9sE:kju`leiFEn] n.流通        loom [lu:m] v. 隱現(xiàn), 迫近

   militia [mi`liFE] n. 民兵                sacrosanct [`sAkrEusANkt] adj. 極神圣的      

   contingent [kEn`tindVEnt] adj. 附隨的     homicide [`hCmisaid] n. 殺人, 殺人者

   rifle [`raifl] n. 來復(fù)槍, 步槍             outdoorsmanship n. 野外活動(dòng)

   難句突破

   If the District appeals the ruling, as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, will come down on the side of individual rights.

   主體句式  If the District appeals the ruling, there is a good chance that…

   結(jié)構(gòu)分析  as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will 是一個(gè)插入語，對(duì)前面的if引導(dǎo)的句子進(jìn)行補(bǔ)充說明。wth its conservative majority也是一個(gè)插入語。

   句子譯文  假如該特區(qū)像阿德里安"芬迪市長(zhǎng)所說的那樣對(duì)此次判決提出上訴的話，對(duì)于保守派占大多數(shù)的比較高法院而言，將會(huì)作出有利于個(gè)人權(quán)利的終審裁決。

   題目分析

   1．A. 推理題。文章第二段中指出，關(guān)于第二修正案的解讀一直有許多不同的見解。早期比較高法院的解讀支持民兵組織權(quán)利說，而只是到了近幾年，個(gè)人權(quán)利說才開始興盛�！昂媳妵�(guó)對(duì)米勒”案是對(duì)前一種說法的解讀。

   2．D. 推理題。文章第一段結(jié)尾提到社會(huì)對(duì)于槍支越來越寬容，同時(shí)第二段也提到個(gè)人擁有槍支的學(xué)說得到了越來越多的支持，這些都支持了選項(xiàng)D的觀點(diǎn)。

   3．C. 推理題。文章第四段提到“The Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance in an attempt to make advances in “red America”—particularly in the all-important mountain West where gun rights are sacrosanct and the next presidential election may be decided”，說明了個(gè)人擁有槍支權(quán)利的問題將會(huì)影響下屆美國(guó)總統(tǒng)大選，民主黨派甚至為了拉選票而改變其原先的反對(duì)態(tài)度。

   4．B. 推理題。從比較后一段談到越來越多的美國(guó)人不會(huì)把槍支和健康向上的戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)聯(lián)系在一起，而是認(rèn)為槍支是導(dǎo)致致命性死亡的原因，這些對(duì)那些個(gè)人攜槍權(quán)利支持者來說都是不利因素。

   5．D. 推理題。縱觀全文，NRA被提及許多次，每次都涉及該組織為爭(zhēng)取放寬槍支管制而做出的各種努力，可見其活動(dòng)是非常積極且具有重要的影響力。

   參考譯文

   3月9日，美國(guó)特區(qū)巡回上訴法院撤銷了哥倫比亞特區(qū)長(zhǎng)期實(shí)行的槍支禁令。有人也許會(huì)說，這有什么呢？去年，警方在特區(qū)共發(fā)現(xiàn)2655支槍，這表明槍支禁令并未遏制住槍支流通。盡管如此，華盛頓在其小小的管轄范圍內(nèi)還是一直抵制社會(huì)對(duì)于槍支的縱容。
    上訴法院法官以2票對(duì)1票，駁回了特區(qū)關(guān)于《第二修正案》僅適用民兵組織的申訴。多數(shù)方認(rèn)為，修正案所保護(hù)的權(quán)利“并不僅限于民兵組織”，且“個(gè)人享有的權(quán)利也不依賴于其是否加入民兵隊(duì)伍”。在聯(lián)邦憲法中，關(guān)于如何解讀第二修正案的爭(zhēng)論一直是所有涉及憲法辯論中比較為激烈的。1939年，美國(guó)比較高法院在“合眾國(guó)對(duì)米勒”一案中判定，當(dāng)“其明顯意圖”為保護(hù)各州組織民兵隊(duì)伍能力時(shí)，此修正案才適用，并且“解釋時(shí)必須基于修正案的這一目的�！北容^近，個(gè)人擁有和攜帶槍支的權(quán)利獲得了越來越多的支持，不僅僅是布什政府和全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)。

   2001年，美國(guó)第五巡回上訴法院（轄區(qū)內(nèi)有路易斯安那、密西西比和得克薩斯三個(gè)偏愛槍支的州）上訴法庭支持個(gè)人權(quán)利的觀點(diǎn)。此次特區(qū)訴訟于2003年歸檔，此前9個(gè)月時(shí)任首席檢察官的約翰"阿施羅夫特曾表示，禁止個(gè)人擁有和攜帶槍支的規(guī)定違反了憲法。假如該特區(qū)像阿德里安"芬迪市長(zhǎng)所說的那樣對(duì)此次判決提出上訴的話，對(duì)于保守派占大多數(shù)的比較高法院而言，將會(huì)作出有利于個(gè)人權(quán)利的終審裁決。
    上訴法庭的決議只是一系列主張個(gè)人有權(quán)擁有和攜帶槍支的活動(dòng)所取得的比較新進(jìn)展之一。全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)為爭(zhēng)取放寬槍支管制所做的努力也不斷獲得成效，尤其是推動(dòng)通過了“秘密攜帶槍支”法令，目前該法令已在48個(gè)州實(shí)施。為了進(jìn)一步發(fā)展“紅色美國(guó)”——特別是在槍支擁有權(quán)利神圣不可侵犯的西部重要山區(qū)，這也可能是決定下一屆總統(tǒng)大選結(jié)果的地方，民主黨反對(duì)個(gè)人擁有和攜帶槍支的立場(chǎng)也有所松動(dòng)。蒙大拿州民主黨州長(zhǎng)布萊恩"施瓦澤說，他“所擁有槍支超出了自己的需求，但卻總希望能有更多。”此話代表了新一代支持槍支擁有權(quán)利的民主黨人的心聲。

    對(duì)于主張個(gè)人有權(quán)擁有和攜帶槍支的人來說，也會(huì)有一些不利因素。特區(qū)案判決當(dāng)天，警界智庫警政研究公會(huì)報(bào)道稱2004年至今，包括殺人在內(nèi)的暴力犯罪率迅速增長(zhǎng)。同時(shí)，一個(gè)對(duì)全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)比較有利的因素也正逐漸減弱：美國(guó)狩獵許可證持有人數(shù)比例已經(jīng)從1985年的10%下降到去年的6%。如果這兩個(gè)趨勢(shì)持續(xù)發(fā)展下去的話，越來越多的美國(guó)人將不會(huì)像NRA所期望的那樣，把槍支和健康向上的戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)聯(lián)系在一起，而是認(rèn)為槍支是導(dǎo)致致命性死亡的原因。