二、美国枪支泛滥的制度原因
Part 2 Institutional Reasons for the Proliferation of Guns in the United States 文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
尽管枪支暴力严重威胁民众生命安全，但美国一直无法解决这个问题。美国枪支暴力痼疾难除，同美国特殊的社会政治制度有直接关联。文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
Although gun violence is a serious threat to the lives of the US people, the United States has been unable to solve this problem in all these years. Gun violence has become a long-lasting problem in the country due to various reasons that are directly related to the country’s special social and political systems.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
第一，美国僵硬的宪法规定使得全面禁枪无法实现。美国宪法第二修正案规定，“纪律严明的民兵乃保障自由国家的安全所必需，人民持有与携带武器的权利不容侵犯”。这条宪法修正案制定于1791年，反映了刚刚通过独立战争从英国独立出来的北美人民的愿望，在一定程度上满足了当时美国人的实际需求。正是在民众普遍拥枪的背景下，北美13州人民才开始武力反抗英国殖民统治，组建以民兵为主体的“大陆军”，并最终赢得独立。这种特殊的历史经验使得美国人相信，持枪权是一项至关重要的权利。这项规定对美国政治生活产生了重要影响。美国44个州的宪法中都明确规定要保护公民持枪的权利。文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
1. The rigid constitutional provisions of the United States have made it impossible to achieve a comprehensive ban on guns. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads in the following manner: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This constitutional amendment was enacted in 1791. Back then, it reflected the aspirations of US people, who had just gained independence from Britain through the War of Independence, and to some extent, met their actual needs. It is precisely because most people in the 13 states of North America owned guns that they were able to launch a military campaign against the British colonial rule, establish the Continental Army mainly consisting of militia, and eventually win independence. This special historical experience has led the people in the United States to believe that gun ownership is a vital right. This provision has had a major impact on the country’s politics. There are 44 states in the United States that have protected the citizens’ right to bear arms in their constitutions.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7493.html
但是，随着枪支威力的不断增强，随着城市化造成的人口密度增加，私人普遍拥枪的负面影响日益显现。世界各国普遍承认，私人持枪不利公共安全。私人普遍拥枪同枪支暴力有直接关系，会造成大量人员伤亡和暴力犯罪现象增加。绝大多数国家都对私人持枪采取严格控制的政策。美国宪法规定的持枪权已明显不符合现代社会需要。事实上，多年以前美国社会就认识到了持枪权的负面影响和枪支泛滥的危险性，并探讨通过修改宪法实现禁枪的可能性。然而，修宪在美国门槛很高，且过程复杂、漫长。在美国持枪文化深厚、持枪人口众多和枪支利益集团势力强大的情况下，试图通过修宪禁枪，成功的可能性微乎其微。
Nevertheless, given the increasing power of guns and the increase in population density caused by urbanization, the negative effects of privately-owned guns are becoming increasingly apparent. It is widely acknowledged by different countries in the world that privately owned guns are not conducive to public safety. The proliferation of guns in private hands is directly related to gun violence and may cause a large number of casualties and an increase in violent crime. Given this, most countries have strict control over privately owned guns. The right to hold guns under the US Constitution clearly does not accord with the needs of modern society. In fact, many years ago, the US society recognized the negative impact of privately-owned guns and the danger of gun proliferation, and discussed the possibility of banning privately owned guns by amending the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is an incredibly difficult, complicated, and time-consuming task to amend the Constitution of the United States. Given the strong gun culture, a large number of gun holders, and powerful interest groups that support privately owned guns in the United States, the attempt to ban privately owned guns by amending the US Constitution has little chance of success.
实现宪法禁枪的另一条可能途径是美国联邦最高法院对宪法重新进行解释。事实上，历史上许多宪法条款都经由联邦最高法院的重新解释解决了滞后性问题。然而，美国社会对宪法第二修正案一直存在不同解读。一种观点认为宪法第二修正案保护的是公民个人权利，另一种观点认为宪法第二修正案保护的是集体权利，因为该条款中的“民兵”组织是一个集体。在历次枪支问题争论中，自由派都把集体权利论作为控枪的理论根据，希望联邦最高法院通过这种解释控制枪支泛滥现象。但是，2008年6月联邦最高法院对赫勒案的裁决却让自由派的希望灰飞烟灭。在这个裁决中，联邦最高法院认定，持有和携带枪支是一项“天赋”人权，公民个人有权拥有和使用枪支，地方政府制订控枪法律是违宪行为。2010年6月，美国联邦最高法院进一步裁定，美国宪法第二修正案中有关公民享有持枪自由的条款同样适用于各州和地方法律，从而将个人持有枪支的权利扩大到整个美国。美国联邦最高法院的这两个裁决彻底消除了通过释宪禁枪的可能性。
Another possible way to achieve a constitutional ban on privately owned guns is by asking the US Supreme Court to reinterpret the relevant constitutional provisions. In the history of the United States, the US Supreme Court has reinterpreted many constitutional provisions to make them meet the requirements of the times. There are always two different interpretations of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in US society. One interpretation holds that the Second Amendment protects the individual rights of citizens. The other believes that it protects the collective rights of the states because the word “Militia” in the article is a militant collective. In previous debates on guns, the liberals took the collective rights theory as the theoretical basis for gun control, and hoped that the US Supreme Court would accept this interpretation to control the proliferation of guns. Unfortunately, in June 2008, the US Supreme Court’s ruling on the Heller case completely destroyed the liberals’ hopes. In this ruling, the US Supreme Court held that the possession and carrying of firearms is a “natural” human right, that individual citizens have the right to own and use firearms, and that it is unconstitutional for local governments to establish gun control laws. In June 2010, the US Supreme Court further ruled that the provisions of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution concerning the freedom of individual possession of guns also apply to state and local laws, thereby extending the individual right of possessing guns throughout the United States. These two rulings of the US Supreme Court completely eliminated the possibility of banning privately owned guns through adopting a different interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions.
第二，美国政党政治的弊端使控枪努力停滞不前。由于美国禁枪无望，所以只能想办法管控枪支，即从枪支购买方式、购买资格以及流通枪支的类型、登记和管理等方面做出限制性规定。但是，即使这种对个人拥枪的有限约束，也遇到重重阻力。近几十年来，美国政治“极化”现象严重，两党对立加剧。两党核心选民团体在这个问题上的主张截然对立。民主党支持枪支管制，主张实行更为严格的枪支管制政策，共和党则反对枪支管制。枪支管控已成为总统和国会选举的主要议题之一，并已成为决定竞选成败的重要因素。克林顿政府时期，美国国会通过《联邦攻击性武器禁售令》，明确禁止在民间出售19种攻击性较强的半自动枪械以及10发以上的子弹夹，在控枪问题上取得一些进展。奥巴马政府时期，鉴于美国枪击暴力案件居高不下、校园枪击等恶性案件频繁发生，参议院民主党人提出枪支管理修正案，要求将购枪背景审查范围扩展到枪支展销会和网上购枪领域。尽管该法案得到90％美国人的支持，但还是在2013年被参议院否决了。事实上，奥巴马政府推动的控枪法案全部铩羽而归。在此背景下，2016年1月，奥巴马政府不得不绕开国会，用发布行政命令的方式管控枪支，规定禁止精神病患者持有枪支，要求枪支经销商持证上岗，加强枪支购买者的背景审查。但是，随着共和党政府上台，奥巴马政府这些微弱的控枪措施也无法得到保持。
2. The drawbacks of US party politics have hindered gun control efforts. As there is no hope of banning privately owned guns, the United States can only find ways to control firearms, that is, to restrict how guns are purchased, registered, and managed. Nonetheless, the implementation of such a limited number of constraints on privately owned guns has met with many obstacles. In recent decades, the phenomenon of “polarization” in US politics has become increasingly apparent, and the opposition between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has intensified. Core voters of the two parties hold completely opposing perspectives on gun control. The Democratic Party supports gun control and advocates a stricter gun control policy, while the Republican Party opposes gun control. Gun control has become one of the major topics in the presidential and congressional elections, and a candidate’s attitude on this issue has become an important factor in determining the success or failure of his or her election campaign. During the Clinton administration, the US Congress passed the “Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)”, which explicitly prohibited the sales of 19 highly aggressive semi-automatic firearms and more than 10 bullet clips in the private sector, and made some progress on the issue of gun control. During the Obama administration, given the high incidence of shooting violence in the United States and frequent school shootings, the Senate Democrats proposed a gun control amendment, which would require that the background checks on gun buyers include buyers at gun shows and online. Despite that this amendment was supported by 90 percent of US citizens, it was rejected by the Senate in 2013. As its gun control bills were repeatedly killed off by Congress, in January 2016, the Obama administration began to bypass Congress and tried to control firearms by issuing administrative orders, which stipulated that mental patients should be prohibited from holding guns, required gun dealers to hold certificates, and strengthened the background checks on gun buyers. Later, when the Republican government took office, these weak gun control measures of the Obama administration could not be maintained.
由于受到美国选举政治支配，近年来民主党对枪支管控的立场持续软化，因为严格控枪政策不利于民主党选票最大化。克林顿政府时期，民主党在1994年中期选举中丢失了参众两院控制权，政府坚持通过了两个控枪法案成为民主党失去大量选票与资助的主要原因。戈尔在副总统任上曾经以参议院院长的身份投票支持一项枪支管制法案，这使他被视为反对持枪者，成为其最终在总统选举中落败的一个重要因素。这些活生生的教训使民主党在枪支管制问题上态度变得摇摆不定。一方面，他们不敢明确支持枪支管制，因为激进的控枪政策会丢失大量选票；另一方面，他们更不敢反对枪支管制，因为这会失去传统选民。民主党在枪支问题上的立场开始变得有些模糊。为了争取更多选票和政治献金，一些参选公职的民主党政治人物甚至不敢要求严格控枪，更不敢要求全面禁枪。
Given the election politics in the United States and the fact that strict gun control policies are not conducive to maximizing Democratic votes, the Democratic Party has gradually softened up its attitude on gun control in recent years. During the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party lost control of the Senate and House of Representatives in the mid-term elections in 1994. The main reason the Democratic Party lost such a large amount of votes and funds was that the Clinton administration insisted on passing two gun control bills. Gore, a Democratic candidate for president, was thought of as a protestor to the possession of privately-owned guns, since he had voted for a gun control bill when serving as the president of the Senate and the vice president of the United States. This was one of the major reasons for his failure in the presidential election. The Democratic Party has learned its lessons, and thus its opinion on gun control has begun to waver. It dares not explicitly support gun control because radical gun control policies will make it lose a large number of votes. It is also less willing to oppose gun control because it will make them lose the support of its traditional voters. Its attitude on the issue of firearms has begun to become somewhat vague. To win more votes and political contributions, some Democratic politicians who run for office do not even dare to demand strict gun control, not to mention a comprehensive ban on privately owned guns.
共和党一贯支持持枪权，反对严格管制枪支。共和党执政时期，美国通常会放松枪支管制。里根政府时期，国会于1986年通过《武器拥有者保护法》，大幅放宽对枪支销售者和购买者的限制，将联邦政府部门对枪支的检查限定为每年一次。这个法律极大强化了美国的持枪权，是美国枪支管制方面的严重倒退。小布什政府时期，《联邦攻击性武器禁售令》10年期满，国会拒绝重新进行审议，致使法案最后自动失效。
The Republican Party always supports the possession of privately-owned guns and opposes strict control over firearms. Given this, Republican administrations usually loosen control over privately owned guns. For example, during the Reagan administration, Congress passed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act in 1986, which drastically relaxed restrictions on gun sellers and buyers, and stipulated that the inspection on firearms by the federal government is to be carried out once a year. This Act significantly strengthened gun rights in the United States and was a serious retrogression in the cause of pursuing proper gun control in the United States. During the Bush administration, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was about to run out its 10-year term, Congress refused to review the AWB and let it expire automatically.
当前的共和党政府支持私人持枪自由。2017年2月，共和党控制的参、众两院废除了奥巴马政府发布的一项行政命令。该行政命令禁止患有某些严重精神疾病的患者购枪，要求精神疾病患者的医疗保险商向联邦调查局提交相关身份信息以供购枪许可审核。2018年4月，美国副总统彭斯出席全国步枪协会年会并发表讲话说：“总统和我都问心无愧地支持宪法第二修正案。本届政府不会侵犯人民拥有和携带武器的权利。”鉴于严重的校园枪击事件，2018年3月，佛罗里达州参议院通过一项允许教师在校园内携枪的法案。随后，美国联邦政府也提出类似的计划，要求通过武装学校教职员工来阻止校园枪击案的发生。根据共和党一贯反对控枪的立场，有理由相信美国未来会进一步放松枪支管理。美国解决枪支泛滥问题的前景十分渺茫，枪支暴力和枪击伤亡事件恐怕只会增加，不会减少。
The current Republican administration still supports private gun ownership. In February 2017, the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives abolished an administrative order issued by the Obama administration, which prohibited patients with certain serious mental illness from buying guns, and required mentally ill patients’ medical insurers to submit relevant identification information to the FBI for approval of these patients’ gun purchases. In April 2018, US Vice President Pence attended the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and said in a speech, “The president and I both have a clear conscience to support the Second Amendment. The current administration will not violate the people’s right to own and carry weapons.” Because of deadly school shooting incidents, in March 2018, the Florida Senate passed a bill that allowed teachers to carry guns in schools. Subsequently, the US federal government also proposed a similar plan to prevent the occurrence of school shootings by arming school staff. Given the Republican Party’s consistent opposition to gun control, there is a reason to believe that the United States will further relax its gun management in the future. The prospects for the United States to solve the problem of gun proliferation are very slim. The incidents of gun violence and shooting casualties may continue to increase.
共和党拥护持枪权的立场不但影响国会立法，而且影响到联邦最高法院裁决。2010年，共和党支持者占多数的联邦最高法院对麦克唐纳案做出裁决，判定美国公民在全国各州各市都可以依据宪法赋予的权利拥有枪支，即持枪权适用于全国。这个裁决生效后，美国的枪支管控水平大幅后退，一半左右的州修改原有法律，以便允许枪支拥有者在大多数公共场所公开携带枪支。随着伊利诺伊州于2014年1月5日正式实施隐蔽持枪法，隐蔽持有和携带武器在美国50个州全部合法。隐蔽持枪法规定，除禁止民众在政府大楼、学校、医院和公交车等公共场所携带或者持有枪支外，获得持枪证的人可以在任何地方隐蔽携带枪支，这就意味着会有更多的枪支出现在大街小巷。费城、洛杉矶、旧金山等20多个机场允许有枪支许可的人携带枪支到安检口。在得克萨斯州北部的学校，校方允许教师携带枪支到校。田纳西州、亚利桑那州、佐治亚州和弗吉尼亚州允许在酒吧里携带装有弹药的手枪。还有另外18个州允许在提供酒精饮品的饭店里携带武器。
The Republican Party’s support for gun rights not only affects Congressional legislation, but also affects the Supreme Court’s rulings. In 2010, the US Supreme Court, dominated by Republican supporters, ruled on the McDonald’s case, arguing that US citizens in all states and cities can own guns as this is their constitutional right. That means the right to hold guns applies nationwide. Since that ruling went into effect, gun control in the United States has been significantly loosened, and about half of the states in the United States have amended their original laws to allow gun owners to openly carry guns in most public places. With the official implementation of Illinois’s Firearm Concealed Carry Act (FCCA) on January 5, 2014, the possession and carrying of concealed firearms became legal in all 50 states of the United States. The FCCA stipulates that people who have obtained concealed weapon licenses can carry concealed guns anywhere, except in public places, such as government buildings, schools, hospitals, and buses. This means that there will be more guns on the streets. More than 20 airports, including those in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, allow gun owners to carry guns to the security checkpoint. At schools in northern Texas, teachers are allowed to carry guns in schools. Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia allow pistols with ammunition to be carried in bars. There are another 18 states that allow weapons to be carried in restaurants that offer alcohol.
