The United States Supreme Court has unanimously decided that the federal government cannot ban people from owning guns simply because they occasionally use marijuana.

美國最高法院一致裁定，聯邦政府不能僅僅因為一個人偶爾使用大麻，就禁止其擁有槍械。

In the case of United States v. Hemani, the Court looked at a 1968 law that prevents 'unlawful users' of controlled substances from having firearms. This legal battle began when Ali Hemani, a resident of Texas, was prosecuted for possessing a gun. Although he admitted to using marijuana regularly, he was not intoxicated or dangerous when he was arrested. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, emphasized that the law is too broad because it includes people whose drug use is harmless and does not affect their self-control.

在「美國政府對戰 Hemani」一案中，法院審視了一項 1968 年的法律，該法禁止受管制物質的「非法使用者」持有槍械。這場法律之爭始於德克薩斯州居民 Ali Hemani 因持有槍械而被起訴。儘管他承認經常使用大麻，但在被捕時並未處於藥物中毒狀態，且並不危險。撰寫多數意見書的法官 Neil Gorsuch 強調，該法律過於寬泛，因為它將那些藥物使用無害且不影響自我控制的人也納入其中。

To make its decision, the Court used a historical test to see if the ban matched past laws. The Justice Department argued that the ban was similar to old laws against 'habitual drunkards.' However, the Court rejected this comparison, noting that historical laws targeted people who were completely unable to manage their lives, whereas the current law applies to all users regardless of their actual risk. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that many states now tolerate marijuana use, which makes the government's claim that all users are dangerous less believable.

為了做出決定，法院使用了歷史測試，以確認該禁令是否與過去的法律相符。司法部辯稱，該禁令與以往針對「慣性酗酒者」的舊法律相似。然而，法院拒絕了這一比擬，指出歷史法律針對的是那些完全無法管理生活的人，而目前的法律則適用於所有使用者，無論其實際風險如何。此外，法院指出許多州現在容許使用大麻，這使得政府聲稱所有使用者都危險的說法較缺乏可信度。

Despite agreeing on the result, the judges still disagree on how to interpret the Second Amendment. Some justices argued that the current method of using historical evidence is too difficult to apply. Nevertheless, this ruling is limited; it does not allow addicts, people who are currently high, or convicted felons to own guns. Consequently, the government can still take away a drug user's firearm if they provide specific evidence that the person is dangerous.

儘管對結果達成共識，法官們對於如何解釋第二修正案仍有分歧。部分法官認為，目前使用歷史證據的方法在應用上過於困難。儘管如此，此項裁決是有其限制的；它並不允許成癮者、目前處於藥物影響下的人或被定罪的重罪犯擁有槍械。因此，如果政府能提供具體證據證明該人具有危險性，政府仍可沒收藥物使用者的槍械。

This ruling prevents the government from taking guns away from casual marijuana users, but it allows them to continue regulating addicts and those who are a proven risk to public safety.

此項裁決防止了政府從偶爾使用大麻者手中沒收槍械，但允許政府繼續監管成癮者以及被證明對公共安全構成風險的人。