The Supreme Court of the United States made a new rule. Now, people with gun permits can carry guns in private businesses.

美國最高法院制定了新規則。現在持有槍械許可證的人可以在私人企業中攜帶槍械。

The Court looked at a law in Hawaii. This law said people need permission from the owner to have a gun in a shop or restaurant. The Court said this law is wrong. They said people have a right to protect themselves.

法院審查了夏威夷州的一項法律。該法規定人們在商店或餐廳攜帶槍械需要獲得業主許可。法院裁定此法律有誤，並表示人們擁有自我防衛的權利。

This decision changes rules in other states too. Now, California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland cannot use this old rule. In most other states, people can already carry guns in these places.

這項決定也改變了其他州的規則。現在加州、紐約州、紐澤西州和馬里蘭州不能再使用這項舊規定。在大多數其他州，人們原本就可以在這些地方攜帶槍械。

The Court also talked about marijuana. They said the government cannot take guns from people just because they use marijuana. However, some states still ban some types of fast-shooting pistols.

法院還討論了關於大麻的問題。法院表示，政府不能僅僅因為有人使用大麻就沒收其槍械。然而，部分州仍禁止某些類型的快速射擊手槍。

The Court now gives more protection to people who want to carry guns in public places.

法院現在為希望在公共場所攜帶槍械的人提供了更多保障。

The United States Supreme Court has decided that state laws requiring people with concealed-carry permits to get a business owner's permission before entering private shops are unconstitutional.

美國最高法院裁定，州法律要求持有隱蔽攜帶許可證的人在進入私人商店前必須獲得業主許可，此做法屬違憲。

In the case of Wolford v. Lopez, the Court ruled 6-3 against a Hawaii law that banned carrying firearms in private places open to the public, such as restaurants and stores, unless the owner agreed. Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that these rules create an unfair burden on the Second Amendment right to self-defense during everyday activities. Consequently, this decision cancels similar laws in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, whereas the other 45 states generally allow carrying firearms in these areas unless the owner says otherwise.

在 Wolford v. Lopez 一案中，法院以 6 比 3 的票數裁定夏威夷州的一項法律違憲。該法律禁止在對公眾開放的私人場所（如餐廳和商店）攜帶槍械，除非業主同意。大法官 Samuel Alito 強調，這些規定在日常活動中，對第二修正案所賦予的自衛權造成了不公平的負擔。因此，此裁決也廢除了加州、紐約州、紐澤西州和馬里蘭州的類似法律，而其餘 45 個州通常允許在這些區域攜帶槍械，除非業主另有規定。

The Court based its decision on a previous 2022 case, which requires gun laws to follow the nation's historical traditions. Although Hawaii pointed to old colonial laws as examples, the majority rejected these, arguing they were about hunting rather than modern public carry. However, the dissenting justices argued that the majority ignored property rights and the authority of the state to regulate safety in order to prioritize firearm access.

法院的裁決基於 2022 年的一宗前例，要求槍械法律必須符合國家的歷史傳統。雖然夏威夷州引用舊殖民地法律作為例證，但多數派法官予以拒絕，認為那些法律是關於狩獵而非現代的公共攜帶。然而，持反對意見的法官則認為，多數派忽略了財產權以及州政府為了維護安全而進行監管的權限，過度優先考慮槍械獲取權。

Additionally, the Court ruled unanimously in the Hemani case that federal law cannot be used to take away firearms from people just because they use marijuana, provided they are not currently under the influence. Meanwhile, some states have banned certain pistols that can be converted into machine guns. The Department of Justice has suggested it may take legal action against California, asserting that these bans violate constitutional protections.

此外，法院在 Hemani 案中一致裁定，聯邦法律不能僅因個人使用大麻就沒收其槍械，前提是該人目前未處於藥物影響之下。與此同時，部分州禁售某些可轉換為機槍的手槍。司法部暗示可能會對加州採取法律行動，聲稱這些禁令違反了憲法保障。

The court has increased the protections of the Second Amendment in public private spaces and limited the government's power to disarm drug users.

法院強化了在私人公共空間對第二修正案的保障，並限制了政府沒收藥物使用者槍械的權力。

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that state laws requiring concealed-carry permit holders to obtain explicit permission before entering private businesses are unconstitutional.

美國最高法院裁定，州法律要求隱蔽攜帶許可持有者在進入私人企業前必須獲得明確許可，此舉屬違憲。

In the case of Wolford v. Lopez, the Court issued a 6-3 decision striking down a Hawaii statute that prohibited the carry of firearms on private property open to the public, such as retail stores and restaurants, absent the owner's express consent. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that such regulations impose an undue burden on the Second Amendment right to self-defense during daily activities. This ruling effectively invalidates similar 'default-ban' frameworks in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, whereas the remaining 45 states generally permit carry on such properties unless otherwise specified by the owner.

在 Wolford v. Lopez 案中，法院以 6 比 3 的投票結果，推翻了夏威夷州的一項法令。該法令規定，在缺乏業主明確同意的情況下，禁止在對公眾開放的私人財產（如零售店和餐廳）攜帶槍械。由大法官 Samuel Alito 撰寫的多數意見指出，此類監管對日常活動中根據第二修正案所享有的自衛權造成了不當負擔。此裁決有效地使加州、紐約州、紐澤西州和馬里蘭州類似的「預設禁止」框架失效，而其餘 45 個州通常允許在該類財產攜帶槍械，除非業主另有規定。

The judicial reasoning relied upon the precedent established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which mandates that firearm regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition. While the state of Hawaii identified colonial-era laws as analogues, the majority dismissed these as pertaining to hunting rather than modern public carry. Conversely, the dissenting justices, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, contended that the majority distorted the historical test to prioritize firearm access over established property rights and state regulatory authority.

司法推論依據 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 建立的先例，該先例要求槍械監管必須與國家的歷史傳統一致。雖然夏威夷州將殖民時代的法律視為類比，但多數派認為這些法律屬於狩獵範疇，而非現代的公開攜帶。相反，包括大法官 Ketanji Brown Jackson 和 Elena Kagan 在內的少數派大法官則主張，多數派扭曲了歷史測試，優先考慮槍械獲取權而忽略了既有的財產權和州監管權。

Parallel to this development, the Court unanimously ruled in the Hemani case that federal law cannot be used to disarm individuals based solely on the use of marijuana if they are not actively impaired. Furthermore, institutional tensions persist as several states, including Maryland, Connecticut, and New York, have recently enacted prohibitions on 'machinegun-convertible' pistols, such as certain Glock models. The Department of Justice has signaled potential litigation against California regarding these bans, arguing that the reclassification of semi-automatic firearms as convertible pistols violates constitutional protections.

與此發展平行，法院在 Hemani 案中一致裁定，若個人並非處於受影響狀態，聯邦法律不能僅因其使用大麻而解除其武裝。此外，體制性緊張局勢依然存在，因為包括馬里蘭州、康乃狄克州和紐約州在內的數個州，近期頒布了禁止「可轉化為機槍」手槍（例如某些 Glock 型號）的禁令。司法部已暗示可能會針對加州的這些禁令提起訴訟，認為將半自動槍械重新分類為可轉化手槍違反了憲法保護。

The judiciary has expanded the scope of the Second Amendment to include publicly accessible private spaces while simultaneously limiting the federal government's ability to disarm drug users.

司法部門擴大了第二修正案的適用範圍，將對公眾開放的私人空間納入其中，同時限制了聯邦政府解除毒品使用者武裝的能力。