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）：本文选自Economist, 03/15/2007
注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题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 20th 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
本文讨论的话题是哥伦比亚特区今年取消了长期实行的枪支禁令及其相关问题。第一段说明了事情的起因，同时指出枪支禁令并没有阻止枪支的流通；第二段回顾了对《第二修正案》关于个人拥有枪支权利的表述和不同解读；第三、四段是赞成个人拥有枪支权利一方的关系；第五段则是反对意见。
词汇注释
circuit [`sE:kit] n. 周游, 巡回 attorney [E`tE:ni] n. 律师
overturn [9EuvE`tE:n] vt. 推翻, 颠倒 stance [stAns] n. 立场
circulation [9sE:kju`leiFEn] n.流通 loom [lu:m] v. 隐现, 迫近
militia [mi`liFE] n. 民兵 sacrosanct [`sAkrEusANkt] adj. 极神圣的
contingent [kEn`tindVEnt] adj. 附随的 homicide [`hCmisaid] n. 杀人, 杀人者
rifle [`raifl] n. 来复枪, 步枪 outdoorsmanship n. 野外活动