(单词翻译:单击)
The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case about gun rights and domestic violence.
今天，最高法院听取了一个关于持枪权与家暴案的辩论。
A federal law prevents people from holding firearms if they have a domestic violence restraining order against them.
一项联邦法律禁止受家暴限制令约束的人持有枪支。
In the case United States v. Rahimi, gun rights advocates asked the court to overturn that law.
在美国诉拉希米案中，枪支权利拥护者要求法院推翻该法律。
Joining us to talk about the case is NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. Nina, good morning.
NPR法律事务记者尼娜·托滕伯格将与我们一起讨论此案。尼娜，早上好。
Good morning to you.
早上好。
So could you just set this up for us? Why could this case have such a big impact on other gun laws?
你能帮我们介绍一下吗? 为什么这个案件会对其他枪支法律产生如此大的影响?
You know, Michel, 16 months ago, the Supreme Court broke sharply with the way gun laws had been handled by the courts in the past.
米歇尔，16个月前，最高法院处理枪支法的方式与过去法院的处理方式截然不同。
In a landmark decision - really a landmark - the conservative court majority ruled that in order to be constitutional, a gun law has to be analogous to a law that existed at the time of the nation's founding in the late 1700s.
这是一个具有里程碑意义的裁决——真的具有里程碑意义——保守的法院多数派裁定，为了符合宪法，枪支法必须与18世纪末美国建国时存在的法律类似。
So today's case tests how far the conservative court wants to go, and it does so in a case with appealing facts for those advocating for gun regulations.
今天的案件考验了保守派法院想要保守到什么程度，而且是在对那些支持枪支管制的人而言提供了上诉事实的案件中。
Tell us, what are those facts?
告诉我们，这些事实是什么?
Well, the defendant here is Zackey Rahimi, and he's sort of a poster child for why Congress in 1994 passed this law on this issue, which makes it a crime for anyone subject to a domestic violence order to have a gun.
这起案件的被告是扎基·拉希米，他是为什么国会在1994年通过关于这一问题的法律的典型代表，这个法律规定任何受家暴令约束的人持有枪支都是犯罪。
Rahimi's girlfriend got a court order after he assaulted her in a parking lot and fired his gun at a bystander who saw the attack.
拉希米在停车场袭击了女友，并向一名目睹袭击过程的旁观者开枪，随后拉希米的女友申请了法院命令。
After being warned by the judge that it was illegal for him to possess firearms while the court order was in place, Rahimi threatened another woman with a gun and fired a gun in five different locations in a period of a month.
法官警告他在法院命令生效期间持有枪支是非法的，此后，拉希米在一个月内持枪威胁了另一名女性，并在五个不同的地点开枪。
When the police searched his home, they found a lot of guns, and he ultimately pleaded guilty to violating the federal law.
当警察搜查他的家时，发现了大量枪支，他最终承认违反了联邦法律。
But he continued to press his challenge to that law, and he found a supportive audience in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the statute unconstitutional.
但他坚持向这个法律提出质疑，并在第五巡回上诉法院找到了支持他的听众，第五巡回上诉法院裁定这项法令违宪。
On what grounds?
是什么理由呢?
Remember, the Supreme Court said a gun law is unconstitutional if it doesn't have an analogue to the founding era.
记住，最高法院认为，如果一个枪支法与建国年代的法律不具有类似性，那么这个枪支法就是违宪的。
But even the law's defenders agree there is no precise analogue to that period.
不过，即便是这项法律的捍卫者也同意，不存在与建国时期恰好类似的法律。
Here, for example, is former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who was in charge of the Justice Department's criminal appellate docket for 24 years.
例如，这是前副司法部长迈克尔·德莱本的发言，他负责司法部的刑事上诉案件摘要长达24年之久。
At the founding, domestic violence was not considered to be a serious problem that warranted legal intervention.
在建国之初，家庭暴力并不被认为是一个需要法律干预的严重问题。
Women were viewed more or less as property of their husbands.
女性或多或少被视为丈夫的财产。
The second feature of change dynamics is that firearms are now the weapon of choice in domestic violence conflicts, in a way that was not true at the founding.
变动的第二个特征是，枪支现在是家暴冲突中的首选武器，而在建国之初并不是这样。
