Hunters take note: State attorneys are arguing your rifles are not “constitutionally” protected in Connecticut.
In a significant legal debate before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that could impact hunters across Connecticut, state attorneys are arguing that hunting rifles, particularly semi-automatic ones, are not protected by the Constitution.
According to attorney Joshua Perry, representing the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, the Second Amendment protects guns commonly used for self-defense, but not hunting rifles. As if there is a difference!? Perry’s arguments were made during a hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as part of a lawsuit filed by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and a co-plaintiff, Toni Theresa Spera.
The lawsuit challenges Connecticut’s restrictive gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook tragedy, which bans the sale of firearms classified as “assault weapons.”
National Association for Gun Rights and Spera believe these laws infringe on their Second Amendment rights. However, Perry contends that Connecticut has the authority to regulate firearms that are not typically used for self-defense, suggesting that hunting rifles do not fall under this category.
Perry also referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling (Columbia v. Heller), which upheld the ban on M16 rifles, stating that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-defense but does not offer blanket protection for all weapons.
National Association for Gun Rights, et al. v. Lamont Oral Argument
Opposing Perry’s stance, attorney Barry Arrington, representing the National Association for Gun Rights, argued that the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the U.S., is neither dangerous nor unusual and should be protected. Arrington pointed out that despite political rhetoric, AR-15s are rarely used in mass shootings, with over 75% of such incidents involving handguns. He criticized Connecticut’s laws as politically motivated rather than based on crime reduction.
This case could set a precedent for how firearms used for hunting are treated under the law, especially as Connecticut continues to defend its strict gun regulations. For now, while hunting rifles remain legal in the state, their constitutional protection remains in question.
Pro-gun audiences should stay tuned, as the Second Circuit’s ruling could have widespread effects on both gun rights and hunting culture in the U.S.
Chip, chip, chipping away.
The rifles used in the revolution and civil wars were both.
Re: “According to attorney Joshua Perry… the Second Amendment protects guns commonly used for self-defense” Not true. The purpose of the Second Amendment was clearly stated by the founding fathers in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on… Read more »
i wonder what the early founders of this country used their flintlocks for. waging war i guess at least this northeast moron think so. what is wrong with the northeast part of the country? maybe pollution of the air? or stupid pills?
Anything designed specifically to stun, disable, maim, or kill is an “arm” and is, thus, protected by the 2nd Amendment.
ANYTHING that propels a projectile is protected by the 2nd Amendment! Spear guns, slingshot, trebuchet, catapult, canon, rifle (of ANY style, format, shape, color, caliber, length, weight, era, price/cost, capacity, etc.), blow guns, shotguns, pistol/handgun (of ANY style, format, shape, color, caliber, length, weight, era, price/cost, capacity, etc.), modern or antique muzzle-loaders/black powder rifles/pistols, etc., etc. The 2nd Amendment covers ANY AND ALL of these things regardless of commonality of use, whether there only be one or 60-million, or era of invention. The 1st Amendment DOESN’T exclude voice recordings, radio transmissions, SMS texts, BIC pens, Waterman pens, emails, satellite phones,… Read more »
I guess I will look into getting a puckle gun first made just before the revolutionary war. These politicians think that by disarming the people violence will magically go away, the fact is violence will get even worse as the crimi also will never give up the weapons they have, and the politicians will leave the people without a means to defend themselves. The 2nd Amendment was not about hunting or self defense it was about protecting the country from a tyrannical government.
Well, about par for a state that actually has defense of self in their Constitution but they [attempted to require] registration of semi-autos and magazines.
>Supreme Court ruling (Columbia v. Heller), which upheld the ban on M16 rifles, stating that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-defense but does not offer blanket protection for all weapons.< ….New Paragraph… The 2nd Amendment does not say that. It says that your right to arms shall not be infringed. That is what is says. To claim otherwise, is non-sensical. If you think it says otherwise, look it up, and read the words. Read the first word first, then proceed to the sencond word, and stop when you get to the end of the written words. If that is… Read more »
As usual the government attorney will claim Heller says M-16s and the like are not protected arms. Now I have to listen to the arguments to hear if the NAGR lawyer corrected that false fact. Scalia merely wrote in Heller that if one made the claim that M-16s and the like were not protected then you cede the argument that the right is limited to the militia.
It’s there, right next to the abortion language. How these tyrants passed the bar is beyond comprehension.