Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

Hunters, notoriously, don’t vote.  One study said that, nationwide, only between 30% and 50% of hunters vote.

Why don’t they get involved since Democrats have been coming after 2nd Amendment gun rights in increasingly radical fashion? 

One answer is that hunters feel the Democrats are not coming after their guns.  That now needs to be amended to say the Democrats are not coming after their guns, YET.

Connecticut State attorneys are arguing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that hunting rifles, especially semi-automatic ones, are not protected by the Constitution.

Background

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and a co-plaintiff, Toni Theresa Spera filed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s restrictive gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook tragedy; the law bans the sale of firearms classified as “assault weapons.”  (NAGR v Lamont)  NAGR is suing the state of Connecticut to overturn their assault weapon and magazine ban as these laws infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

NAGR sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of these laws.  On August 3rd, 2023, a United States District Judge ruled against NAGR and the judge would not install a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of these laws.

The decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on October 16th.

At the hearing, the Connecticut Attorney General’s office raised the stakes by contending that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly used for self-defense, but not hunting rifles.  Connecticut’s AG 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.

Connecticut referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling (Columbia v. Heller), which stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-defense but does not offer blanket protection for all weapons.

NAGR argued that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and is neither dangerous nor unusual and should be protected. NAGR 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.

The current court action only involves the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law while the actual suit over the law is being heard.  Since Connecticut has raised the threat that the 2nd Amendment does not protect hunting rifles, it is likely that this will be a big issue when the actual suit against the laws is heard and Connecticut continues to defend its strict gun regulations. 

A circuit-level victory here will establish legal precedent throughout the entire 2nd Circuit which includes New York and Vermont.

For now, hunting rifles remain legal in Connecticut but their constitutional protection is now in question.

Democrat leaders are always looking for any opportunity to further extend their war on guns, no matter how slight.  Hunters might want to reconsider not voting because Democrats aren’t coming for their guns.  As seen in Connecticut, it’s not IF but WHEN they are coming.