The US Supreme Court made a new rule. The government cannot take guns away from people who only use marijuana sometimes.

美國最高法院制定了新規定。政府不能沒收僅偶爾使用大麻者的槍支。

A man named Ali Hemani used marijuana. The government said he cannot have a gun. The Court looked at this law. They said the law is too big. Some people use drugs but are not dangerous.

一名叫 Ali Hemani 的男子使用過大麻。政府表示他不能持有槍支。法院審視了這項法律。他們認為這項法律過於寬泛。有些人雖然使用藥物但並不危險。

The government talked about old laws for people who drink too much alcohol. The Court said this is different. People who use marijuana sometimes are not the same as people who cannot control their lives.

政府提及關於酗酒者的舊法。法院表示情況不同。偶爾使用大麻的人，與那些無法掌控自己生活的人並不相同。

This rule does not help everyone. People with drug addictions still cannot have guns. People who are high right now still cannot have guns. The government can still take guns if a person is truly dangerous.

這項規定並非適用於所有人。藥癮患者仍然不能持有槍支。目前處於藥效影響下的人仍然不能持有槍支。如果一個人確實危險，政府仍可沒收其槍支。

The government cannot take guns from casual marijuana users. But they can still stop addicts or dangerous people from having guns.

政府不能沒收偶爾使用大麻者的槍支。但他們仍可阻止藥癮患者或危險人物持有槍支。

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。

The United States Supreme Court has unanimously determined that the federal government cannot categorically prohibit individuals from possessing firearms based solely on the occasional use of marijuana.

美國最高法院一致裁定，聯邦政府不能僅因個人偶爾使用大麻，就全面禁止其擁有槍械。

In United States v. Hemani, the Court addressed the constitutionality of a 1968 federal statute that forbids 'unlawful users' of controlled substances from possessing firearms. The litigation originated from the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to regular marijuana consumption but was not alleged to be intoxicated or dangerous at the time of his arrest. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, asserted that the statute is overbroad, potentially encompassing individuals whose drug use is innocuous and does not impair their capacity for self-control.

在「美國訴 Hemani 案」中，法院審視了一項 1968 年聯邦法令的憲法合法性，該法令禁止受管制物質的「非法使用者」擁有槍械。此訴訟源於對德州居民 Ali Hemani 的起訴，他承認有定期使用大麻，但被捕時並未被指控處於醉藥狀態或具有危險性。由大法官 Neil Gorsuch 撰寫的多數意見指出，該法令範圍過廣，可能將藥物使用情況輕微且不影響自我控制能力的人員一併納入禁令。

Central to the Court's analysis was the application of the historical analogue test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The Justice Department attempted to justify the ban by citing founding-era restrictions on 'habitual drunkards.' However, the Court found this comparison insufficient, noting that historical laws targeted individuals whose substance abuse rendered them incapable of managing their affairs, whereas the modern statute applies to a broad category of users regardless of their actual threat level. Furthermore, the Court observed a contradiction in the government's position, noting that federal and state regulatory trends have increasingly tolerated or facilitated marijuana use, thereby undermining the claim that such users are categorically dangerous.

法院分析的核心在於應用「紐約州步槍與手槍協會訴 Bruen 案 (2022)」中所確立的歷史類比測試。司法部試圖引用建國時期對「慣性酗酒者」的限制來證明禁令合理。然而，法院認為此比較並不充分，指出歷史法律針對的是因物質濫用而無法處理自身事務的人員，而現代法令則適用於廣泛的使用者類別，且不論其實際威脅程度。此外，法院觀察到政府立場存在矛盾，指出聯邦與州政府的監管趨勢日益容忍或便利大麻使用，從而削弱了「此類使用者具有絕對危險性」的說法。

Despite the unanimous outcome, the Court's internal cohesion regarding Second Amendment methodology remains fragmented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor advocated for the reversal of the Bruen framework, characterizing it as unworkable due to its reliance on contested historical evidence. Conversely, the ruling maintains a narrow scope; it does not invalidate the prohibition of firearms for addicts, individuals currently intoxicated, or those with felony convictions. The decision suggests that the government may still disarm drug users if individualized proof of dangerousness is provided or if procedural due process is observed prior to the deprivation of liberties.

儘管結果一致通過，但法院內部對於第二修正法修正案的方法論仍存在分歧。大法官 Ketanji Brown Jackson 與 Sonia Sotomayor 主張廢除 Bruen 框架，將其定性為因依賴有爭議的歷史證據而無法操作。相反，此裁決範圍較窄；它並未廢除對成癮者、目前處於醉藥狀態者或被判重罪者的槍械禁令。該決定暗示，若能提供危險性的個案證明，或在剝奪自由前遵守正當法律程序，政府仍可解除藥物使用者的武裝。

The ruling restricts the government's ability to disarm casual marijuana users while preserving the authority to regulate addicts and those posing a demonstrable risk to public safety.

此次裁決限制了政府解除偶爾使用大麻者武裝的能力，同時保留了監管成癮者以及對公共安全構成明顯風險者的權限。